[lbo-talk] Not getting laid is the same as being oppressed

Mr. WD mister.wd at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 12:13:33 PDT 2007


On 10/12/07, BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> > 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.
>
> Is it possible that your seeing the appeal of this
> behavior as lying in its defying of social conventions
> is close kin to your issues with blasphemy for blasphemy's
> sake?

Possibly, but I dunno. And, by the way, I am by no means settled on the blasphemy thing -- it's just that I'm not convinced it's inappropriate for a secular leftist to be uncomfortable with blasphemy (defined as the defiling of the sacred for its own sake). So you can chalk me down as tentatively opposed to blasphemy as I have defined it (although I would never support state intervention to prevent blasphemy -- at most, I advocate social condemnation of it).

Conversely, I am 100% in favor of legal protections that allow consenting adults to explore any aspect of their sexuality they choose without fear of losing their job, kids, etc.


> For myself, there was a time early on when I enjoyed the
> idea of outlaw sex, but that faded quickly. If these
> practices were completely mainstream I would enjoy them
> just as much (which I think holds true for most kinksters,
> though there are some for whom the outlawed is a major
> fetish).

Well, I will have to defer to your expertise on how important the transgression of social norms is in providing the sexual satisfaction to that comes to engaging in the less mainstream acts. However, I suspect that, for many, it is greater than you or andie think.

Maybe with sex, it's different, but in the context of art, it is certainly true that the appeal of the "outlaw" or "underground" is that it's, well, "outlaw" and/or "underground"! If this were not the case, then hipsters would not be engaged in constant arguments about whether certain bands or artists have sold out, whether mainstream success constitutes selling out, whether mainstream success somehow pollutes the integrity of the music, and so on. Of course, part of this is that no one ever admits that they consider mainstream success bad in and of itself -- that is deemed too superficial.

All I am saying with regard to sexual liberation is 'be careful what you wish for...'

If sexual liberation is concerned with liberating sexual minorities, and you acknowledge that there are those who get off on breaking the rules, how do you justify a project that seeks to remove all prohibitions on sexual pleasure? What are the people who get off on outlaw sex to do? Are they just too small in number, or too weird, to be concerned about? (Wouldn't that have to be your argument?)

That's the source of my skepticism. -WD



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list