[lbo-talk] Clash of Sexual Civilizations (was Re: Ahmadinejad)

James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Sep 25 09:05:06 PDT 2007


At the risk of making a perverse argument, I think that Ahmadinejad would be right if he said that the law should recognise acts, not orientations. It would be better if the law did not differentiate between different types of person, but rather forbade acts (like murder).

I tend to think, like Doug, that Yoshie's brief sketch outline of the personal rights and freedoms concerning sexuality is essentially an elaboration, or idealisation derived from western societies (confirming Marx's view that the more developed society shows to the lesser its future).

But look forward, like Olaf Stapledon, into the future, and there seems no reason to assume that sexuality would have the heightened importance it does in present-day New York, or indeed Teheran.

Like those sixties radicals, I rather assumed that sexual possessiveness and identity would become less important through liberation, but instead it has got more so.

There is, though something of a dialectic at work. The ubiquity of raunch is something like what Marcuse called 'repressive de-sublimation', a collapse backwards from the discretely formed identity into generalised polymorphous perversity.

Perhaps the right answer to Ahmadinejad is 'you are mistaken, there are homosexuals in Iran, but none in America'.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list