The bad part is that his leaning causes him to embrace so fervently a sex panic stance that he makes himself and his position look ridicuous.
. . . Schmidt bends the stick into the opposite direction, the direction of economic determinism, too far.
I'll be Buddhist and take th middle way.
> Hence my thought that discourse of sexual orientation
as such is neither necessary nor desirable -- what's
desirable is sexual freedom . . .
But engaging in the discourse might be a liberating choice for some people (as I noted in a previous post). The point is to allow people to determine their own schemes of sexual liberation. I know some people who find enormous liberation in mummification and objectification which seem on the surface to an untrained eye not to be liberating at all.
> . . . including freedom from the peculiar kind of
repression and unfreedom that comes with discourse of
sexual orientation which has us relegate same-sex love
and lust to a minority identity, all others having to
repress them to keep up heterosexism.
I do not find being queer a form of repression, peculiar or otherwise. Also, it is a huge effort to maintin any type of sexual oppression, heterosexist or otherwise.
Brian