Sexuality not sex
booth2 at husc.harvard.edu
Mon Apr 15 16:55:12 MDT 1996
Nonsense. Arguing against maoist puritanism is not an argument
for the type of behavior listed in your post. You are practicing a type
of sexual Mcarthyism in your argument: a kind of smear campaign. I'm
only bothering to reply because I want to underscore to lurkers on this
list that not everyone who subscribes and posts has the twisted view of
sexuality that the maoists were putting forward. Arguing that sex is
inherently exploitive or bourgeois or whatever is insane and has nothing
to do with marxism. The kinds of arguments your friends were making
in favor of abstinence were about as bourgeois as you can get.
Here on the planet earth, us working people enjoy sex. Where are
you writing from?
Amazed and amused,
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Jeffrey Booth wrote:
> > Gary,
> > I'm hurt that you didn't acknowledge my paraphrase of Emma
> > Goldman.
> > Anyway, Gina and Lord Adolpho responded exactly as I thought they
> > would. The Maoist individuals (groups would be an exagerration) that I've
> > run into actually print in their papers that abstinence is the truly
> > revoltionary practice; that sex is somehow an act of exploitation, etc... .
> > It reminds me of *1984*: "sexcrime" and all that. I think it's worth
> > showing again and again what sick morons these maoists are. If people
> > start to associate maoism with marxism: we'll never have a revolution.
> > It's also once again clear from this thread that Gina and Adolpho are:
> > A) Bourgeois or upper middle class.
> > B) Homophobic.
> > C) From another planet.
> > D) Complete shit-heads.
> > The list could continue. If only I had the time to post on all the crap
> > they raise on this list but some of us have to work for a living.
> > For Socialism AND Sex,
> > Jeff Booth
> The above list of charges actually read like a (to paraphrase Mr.
> Henwood) "bible-thumper's" list of accusations. Since sex and sexuality
> are on the table, let us put all the cards on the table, Mr. Booth. That
> is, let us go one notch up and take this debate to its ultimate
> bourgeois conclusion.
> 1. There are in this world people who practice incest. Incest can occur
> between siblings (male-female, female-female, male-male) and also between
> parents and siblings (father-daughter, mother-son, father-son, mother-
> daughter). Incest is frowned upon in current society although once
> upon a time some varieties of incest was sanctioned by humans.
> Examples are Ancient Egypt where brother-sister sexual relations was
> acceptable. Even today certain communities allow marriage between
> first cousins. In Northern India, hetrosexual marriage between first
> cousins in Moslem families, in the Parsi community and in South India,
> marriage between uncles and nieces are prevalent today. The
> offspring that result from such close marriages have been found to be
> susceptible to various debilitating diseases that affect the central
> nervous system. Thus from a biological point of view (even though
> biology may not be fit the description of science according to the
> criteria of some of the eminent scientists on this list - that is,
> it is not "completely predictable with nary a deviation"), incest can
> lead to species weakness and ultimately threaten its very survival.
> Now we live in an age where condoms, pills, diaphragms, etc. are widely
> available and people who practise incest can respond to the accusation
> that they are creating weak offspring by saying that all they are in-
> terested in is the pleasure of sex and they will not create any offspring
> by their actions. So the bilogical argument against incest falls. But
> still incest is condemned in most of the world. Why? (That is why it
> is practiced in a hidden way.) Two questions come to mind. First, is
> the incest between 2 partners performed with "equal" consent on both
> sides? From the list of cases which occasionally come up in the media,
> most of the time this is not the case. Usually, one of the partners is
> forceful or the initiator. That is, there is a "coercer" (e,g.,father)
> and the "coerced" (e,g.,daughter). So there is an exploitative relation
> involved here. But let us stretch it even farther and assume there was no
> coercion involved in the incest, that is, both parties freely consented
> to the incest. Here, the second question arises. What would be the state
> of human society if incest was widely and "freely" practiced? Would
> a society like that be a step towards freedom (defined as the
> "consciousness of necessity") FOR HUMAN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE
> or would it be a step backward towards Caligula's court (assuming that
> the liberators agree that Caligula was a maniac)? If incest was
> sanctioned freely, would it lead to a free-for all?
> (We have not used any moral arguments so far).
> So what about the rights of the practioners of incest in today's world?
> What about INCEST LIBERATION, Mr. Booth, Mr. Maclennan, Mr. Henwood,
> Mr. Andresen, and numerous others? After all, incest is even more
> hidden and has potentially much more societal sanctions than homo-
> 2. There is today, a huge traffic in children as sex slaves.
> Examples are Thailand and other poor countries from where children
> are bought and sold to the rich Gulf family dictatorships. If this
> traffic is stopped, say by international enforcement, huge outcries
> would be emitted by the profiteers and the rich sex-masters saying
> that their "freedom" (founded on the slavery of others) is being
> infringed upon. And for another close and living example,
> what is the liberators' attitudes towards NAMBLA (North American
> Man Boy Love Association)? Are they prepared to denounce this
> "voluntary" association, praise it as a "fount of freedom", or be
> The question of human freedom is an extremely complex issue. On one hand,
> there is individual freedom and on the other, there is freedom for
> human society as a whole. Both are not proportional. An increase in
> personal freedom can be detrimental to the freedom of society. No
> traffic regulations would initially increase personal freedom, thereby
> causing massive traffic jams which would then cause a decrease in freedom
> for most in going from one place to another (an exception being
> a stray bicylist). A bridge is a complex structure, the failure of
> a single beam or its "freedom to move freely" can cause the whole
> bridge to collapse.
> The liberators should think these questions carefully over before they
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism