> CB: Sorry , John. I'm not buying it. This latest from Brian started me
> thinking about his many posts on sexual liberation, and beyond a
> certain point they do amount to whining about not being able to get laid
> in as many ways as he wants.
>
> Then you want to try to vulgarize my sexual repression as "not getting
> laid" and contrast it with others' "social repression of their sexual
> essence." Uhh no, I'm claiming repression of my sexual essence too.
> Then you imply that long periods without a girlfriend are trivial
> compared to repressed by a whole set of social norms. No, long periods
> without a girlfriend derive out of a whole set of social norms , too.
>
> So, back at you , buddy.
The difference between the repression of het sexual essence and the repression of the sexual essence of those who aren't vanilla hets is that the latter can suffer substantial real life consequences as a result of their non-vanilla het sexual tastes. For example, imagine going through a child custody dispute and having your taste for S/M coming before the court... In most parts of the country, you'd be cooked. That's a real fucking difference that can't be ignored.
This whole notion of "sexual liberation" strikes me as highly problematic though, as it seems that the appeal of many of the kinds of practices Brian has espoused (e.g. mummification) lies precisely in the fact that they defy social conventions.
-WD