But is advocating for people's ability to engage in sexual self-expression any different than advocating for their right to breathe? If regimes have the right to self-determination, don't people possess a similar right to practice sexual self-determination? Sexual imperialism is a horrific practice.
I once read somewhere that human beings have some basic drives: for water, food, salt and sex. It seems clear that any governmental authority should not interfere with but rather facilitate people's efforts to fulfill these needs. To suffocate a person's sexuality can be as devastating as placing hand over her mouth and nose and pressing down.
> Such humanitarian NGOs [e.g., Amnesty International,
Oxfam, Medecins sans Frontieres, and other orgs for relief
work and human rights protection] are in effect (even if
this runs counter to the intentions of the participants)
some of the most powerful pacific weapons of the new world
order -- the charitable campaigns and the mendicant orders
of the Empire.
What H&N miss is that the struggle for freedom of sexual self-expression also disrupts the empire. Manifestations of sexuality always threaten whatever authority structures happen to be in place at any given moment. This is why power elites always get around to regulating sexuality and the uses to which a person wants to put her body.
> I have argued against activists and intellectuals
participating in or giving credibility to them in any
capacity.
But advocates for sexual expression cannot give credibility to any authority that hates them in the first place. If you are advocating for sex you are in opposition to authority until that day comes when the authority stops regulating sexuality and other bodily expressions/manifestations.
Sex activists are always in the process of destabilization.
Brian