hariette at easynet.co.uk
Thu Apr 11 01:41:30 MDT 1996
>I think even the most thick-headed has finally got the
>"Adolfo on gay lib".
>His declarations are held in very general terms - but
>when linked together they come down to this:
>-- Adolfo don't think fighting for gay rights is part of
>-- the struggle for socialism. He equals gay sex with
>-- ego trips, which are reactionary, fascist etc.
>And he draws no line of demarcation to any oppression
>of gays, by "ordinary" bourgeois states, by employers,
>by fascism, by the laws of Stalin. None - not a word.
>Of course he doesn't indicate whether the fight for
>socialism also includes the fight for sexual freedom.
>So - draw your own conclusions:
>1. Gay sex is fascist!
>2. Is *all* sex?
>3. Is socialism about *emancipation* of a class and with it
>all people on earth?
>Only on the first one we get a clear indication.
>Fascinating, isn't it? - Well, not for me!
>Adolfo - getting lost in generalities:
>>I would assume that in all classes of society there are people who have in
>>similar proportions all sort of personal inclinations.
>"In similar proportions" - of some "inclinations" yes, of others no.
>Sex is in the first category - if you think in formal categories, like:
>gays, straight, abstainers, all sub-categorized in 7 levels.
>The "personal inclination" to eat good food, live in a decent place,
>have good education etc. is in very un-similar proportions.
>So is the "inclination" to have safe sex, healthy sex, to control
>your sex life.
>>However, self obssession and all sort of navel contemplating
>>ego trips are certainly overwhelmingly bougeois and decadent.
>>And judging for the "gay liberators" in this list, not only bourgeois, but
>>extremely reactionary, anti-communist and pro-imperialists.
>And gay sex is one activity that deserves all these characterizations"?
>Or is all sex?
>If the answer to both is yes, then Adolfo is consistent - but he will
>hardly build a mass party along these lines.
>If the answer to the first is yes, and to the second no - then Adolfo
>is just one more who tries to make politics out of being an ordinary
>>Reactionaries are reactionaries!
>At last a point where we can agree without reservations.
>Sorry for the "binary trailers"
>Attachment Converted: D:\EASYNET\eudora\ReSex
Sex is not a part of the struggle for socialism. Sex is a physiological
anxiety, it is a life activity - it is not a life necessity either. The
ancient Roman empire - the Greeks as well, and many ancient slave owning
societies, were quite immersed in sexual activities of all kind, homosexual,
bisexual, heterosexual, sex with animals, masturbation, you think of it,
they did it, sang about it, wrote poetry about it, performed plays about it,
No question of sex as part of the "struggle for socialism" in Caligula's
Court, Mr. Jorn, or was there?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism