DOUG on Malecki etc.Re: Sex: What do communists stand for?
Rubyg580 at aol.com
Rubyg580 at aol.com
Sun Apr 14 19:35:14 MDT 1996
In a message dated 96-04-14 Doug wrote:
>At 12:53 AM 4/14/96, hariette spierings wrote:
>>>Talk about totally self-serving, bourgeois mentality. Asserting the
>>>right to "fuck", with no mention of any regard for the other person
>>>who necessarily has to be involved in a "fuck". Sorry, guys, there's
>>>nothing proletarian about this shit, and for the victims and potential
>>>victims of your "right to fuck" mentality, nothing funny either.
>>Very pertinent Gina's comments. Evidently the "pimp mentality" and the
>>"right to sexually exploit" advocates who have taken with their "jolly old
>>boys comments" to the list on this issue, have nothing in common with
>>proletarian outlook, rather, theirs is the "mercenary soldier" of
>>imperialism credo. Why take part in a war if you cannot loot and rape to
>>your hearts content. That is the meaning of their "struggle for
>>survival".You ask any soldier of fortune, and he will roll out the same
>>bloody excuses: "struggle for survival"!
>>It is all now coming out in the washing! Sexual imperialism and sexual
>>fascism, masquerading as "liberation"!.
>How cretinous (and, as US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out
>- proudly! - the other day, cretin comes from the French word for
>Christian; Scalia's point was that religious people who believe in miracles
>[like him] must be willing to take the barbs of secular intellectuals, and
>be a fool for Christ; here we have fools for Stalin). Imperialism? Fascism?
>Who said anything about no regard about the other person involved in a
>fuck? Last time I checked, lots of people enjoyed fucking, in twos, threes,
>and more - lots of them women even! Sometimes even women fucking other
>women and with both (or more) of them enjoying it. How much your average
>Stalinist seems to have in common with your average Bible-thumper!
Yo! Dude! Malecki and Booth both said NOTHING about any regard for
whoever else would be involved in their fucking. That seemed like a pretty
good indication that it was only their own involvement that they were
thinking of. Whatever their practice is in this matter, their talking about
it in their little comments had no mention of regard for anyone but
Neither Adolfo nor I invoked any Christian "morality" or imperialist justice
officials in making our points. Neither did we deny or negate that sexual
activity can indeed come in many forms, can be participated in by many
willing participants, in many different combinations and forms. MY point
is simply that to demand the right to an activity that can only be engaged
in with another person WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING that other person
or showing any regard for them indicates at best a very self-serving view
of that activity; at worst a predatory and victimizing view.
If Malecki and Booth feel they did not truly represent their feelings on this
topic, they should clarify themselves. Otherwise, I have to stick with my
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism