I don't think the point is to condemn the RCP for how some communist men clamp down on their sexuality. But it's OK to be critical of it. These kinds of things need to be discussed and it's not something the RCP is open to a lot of talk about. Agree with Cold Lamper, it's fine to be asexual if that's how you really are or if it's something you chose not to overcome. But it is no fun for a woman trying to have a sexual relationship with a man who thinks it's sexist to show any desire for her. If you're asexual, it's not fair to become involved with someone who thinks sex is very important and neither one of you will be happy anyway.
Did anyone see the Indian movie
"Fire"? One of the male characters was trying to become enlightened and decided to give up sex. His wife was very angry, partly because she didn't want to give up sex and partly because it wasn't a decision he made WITH her. Men should be careful about feeling self-righteous with how they relate to women without getting some serious feedback from women about what we actually want.

ditto Redflags. i think work has already started on rethinking such concepts as objectification and the male gaze. This flows back into the discussion of the role of fantasy in peoples lives but also on a basic level that people have complex needs. People need to get off. people need to have fun. people want to be treated well, respected and people want to be sexy and sometimes as a sex object. i sure do.

Gangbox's response (including its misreadings) allows us to drill down a bit:

Gangbox writes:
<blockquote>I’d like to thank you for giving a concentrated expression of the classic revolutionary communist position on sexuality.</blockquote>

I don't believe in "classics" -- and I don't think there is a "classic position." I don't think my views on this are from some fixed past. And (any examination will show) that the views of Marx's time, or Lenin's time, or the thirties, or the 60s, or Peru, or China, or Nepal -- all gave rise to different views (and to different views within a single movement).

Gangbox then characterizes my views in the following way:
<blockquote>Sexuality is not a personal matter, but has political consequences, in particular in terms of the struggle against sexism and women’s oppression.</blockquote>

Sexual relations are both private and a social relation. That is the contradiction. They are rather distinguished by their private nature (i.e. this has a huge impact on how we discuss, debate, struggle over and transform this social relationship). But they ARE social: i.e. sexual relations form part of a social relation. What you experience as a very personal thing is (objectively) part of a larger aggregate -- it is part of how women are treated, it is part of how humans are reproduced, etc.

You can choose to see your personal intimate relations as "me and my girlfriend," or "me and my dad," or "me and my argument with my sister."

But while all these individual relationships ARE personal, they are also part of social relations (they produce and reproduce larger dynamics -- including, to varying degrees, patriarchy, or inequality, or isolation, or exploitative abusiveness, or relations of equality, or whatever).

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>Folks, in particular men, do not have anything resembling present day privacy rights in terms of relationships - pretty much everything you do sexually is subject to collective criticism and review.</blockquote>

This is an important distortion on many levels. And one that is important to get clear.

First in this society privacy is linked to patriarchy. So that the actions that protect male right are "private." But many other things are not private: girls are order to describe their sexual relationships to their parents (and sometmes other authorities). People think that kids have no right to privacy. Some parents act as if they have a right to control the most minute sexual expressions of their children (masturbation, early experimentation etc.) and the law backs them up. Spouses often think that they have no privacy rights from each other. (Every time a husband says "where are you going dressed like that?" -- it is a statement of the accepted limits of privacy in this society.)

Also boys and young men often think that they have no obligation to respect privacy around the relationships they are having with girls and young women (and vice versa) -- so that it quickly "goes around school" what so-and-so did with so-and-so.

Often when privacy rights are invoked vis a vis the state -- it is explicitly the defense of father right (a "man's home is his castle") -- so that if there is a "domestic dispute" that is treated as "no one's business" (unless the parent announces "i can't control my kid anymore" and the state steps in to assert eroded social authority).

Further, Monica Lewinsky had no privacy rights -- as the most intimate acts she performed with a man became the public fodder for political and media frenzies.

So I don't agree when your remark seems to assume somethings about privacy rights in this society.

The second part of your assertion is simply wrong: "pretty much everything you do sexually is subject to collective criticism and review."

No. I have said several times (and others have said) that there needs to be privacy around personal sexual matters. And human beings would find it intolerable to live in a society (or a movement) that denied that. Not only should there not be a sex police -- but there should not be routine non-police intrusion into privacy.

There are exceptions: if a husband rapes his wife -- such extreme acts should be subject to collective criticism and review. If an adult sexually abuses children (who are not capable of informed consent) that too should be subject to collective criticism and review. People who perform serial sexual harassment in the work place should also face collective review (especially after repeated private attempts to discuss it have failed.)

However, generally I suggest a different layered model:

I think we can have a general, detailed discussion of sexuality and behaviors and views WITHOUT putting "everyone's business on front street."

So, for example, we can have a social discussion about how wife-beating is wrong and unacceptable -- and draw out the experiences of women.... without the details of every family being public.

this is done for example now around child abuse: where powerful exposures about child abuse become part of the culture, and therefore empower kids to see that (a ) this is wrong, and (b ) if it happens to them there are allies to be found, and (c ) they have a right to make it stop... etc.

In other words, the SOCIAL discussion of private relations needs to happen. The doors need to be oppened. The taboos need to be further broken down.

And I believe this can happen (must happen) WITHOUT each person being forced to explain the details every week what they did with person X or person Y behind closed doors.

Is that difference clear?

The experience of women's consciousness raising groups in the 60s was instructive... because women created a new institution, where they talked of intimate matters (in a voluntary atmosphere of mutual trust) and DISCOVERED what was "happening to other people" -- which helped women identify the COMMONALITY of mistreatment and abuse and frustration that MANY of them were experiences, and allowed them also to identify when they were experiences things that were outside the range of what other people considered tolerable.

I don't think that the abuse of women and children can be broken down without such carefully restrained but real openings in the walls of silence and "privacy."

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>In the present day, the priority for revolutionaries is to make women feel safe and comfortable being involved in the Party and other communist led institutions.</blockquote>

I think this is not right. Life in a revolutionary movement is not "safe and comfortable." What people should expect is struggle and sacrifice and challenges and transformation. Revs cannot be thin-skinned or posture as fragile. (The Identity Politics talk about "I was offended and just shut down" -- well, revs won't get far with that sensibility.)

But it is a priority that a rev movement express its values and goals -- including (to the primitive extent possible) in the social relations that its members create around them. We can't create a mini-socialist "community" within capitalism -- that isn't our goal. But you can't be a working pimp and a rev com. It is hard to trust a rev movement that lets a prominent male beat his spouse without collective censor. Rev leaders who use their position and influence to make "sexual conquests" among the ranks should be criticized. and so on.

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>This can best be done by restricting the sexuality of male communists - and, to a lesser degree, non communist men in the political orbit of communist led institutions. While this MAY make women (or at least a certain type of woman) feel comfortable in the left, it’s at the price of making straight men feel like we have to constantly “walk on eggshells” lest we offend the women with our degrading and debasing sexual feelings.</blockquote>

I think that we all should be open to transformation and mutual criticism. I think that backward forms of sexuality should be restricted, don't you? And there should be a lively and open struggle over "what is backward? and what isn't?" -- because it isn't obvious (including to me).

Will that make some men (including you) feel like they are constantly "walking on eggshells"? Well, yeah. Especially if they are backward on this. And they should learn to walk with a little circumspection.

Your complaint sounds so similar to white racists who complain about "political correctness" -- when they really mean that they can't tell their ugly racist jokes and stories without being ostracized.

Obviously, there are times and places in the past when all this has been taken to extremes (especially under the influence of "identity politics") -- and where simply beeing male or heterosexual has been equated with being an "oppressor." And where a climate was created where people couldn't really speak, or act, without being bombarded. And all that is bullshit.

But yes, I think you should take care not to constantly offend and degrade women (if that is a problem that keeps coming up). And it is fair to ask (in a comradely and collective way) why you keep doing all this, and why you seem so reluctant to raise your consciousness.

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>Unfortunately, in the real world, this is a pretty harsh regime, and it’s pretty repellent for most straight men (I sure know it is for me!).</blockquote>

Nah. It should be a liberating regime for us (if done correctly, and if you actually support the goal of liberating women from all the oppression). And we can work out ways of making it work.

And if it is true that "most straight men" (in any particular place and time) find a progressive movement and a revolutionary outlook "repellent" -- well that may not be so suprising. Don't many of those men also (currently, for the moment) also find many other progressive views "repellent"?

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>It takes a certain type of guy to willingly submit to becoming a virtual eunuch for the cause - and that’s basically what this line amounts to.</blockquote>

No, it isn't what this line amounts to. And the "either or" assumption really assumes that there is no possibility of developing non-exploitative human relations -- including now in some beginning ways.

Gangbox says:
<blockquote>Particularly odd is the fact that, in a movement that has been largely male-led, there is such an emphasis on the agressive supression of male sexuality, in all of it’s forms - why is that????</blockquote>

I don't htink that the maoist movement has been so "largely male-led." In many ways and places, women are rather highly represented in leadership at all levels. I know that was true for the peruvian party (shining path) and it has also apparently been true for the RCP. I am not as familiar with the experiences in Asia.

"There are exceptions: if a husband rapes his wife — such extreme acts should be subject to collective criticism and review."

Uhm. ah. collective criticism and review. FOR RAPE. I don't mean to change the tone of this debate but....

I vote prison time.

sure, saoirse, "prison time" is one result that can emerge from collective criticism and review.

So is the beaten asshole tied to the chair in the chinese village.

thanks for the clarification Nando. I agree both are open to discussion.

Nando wrote (#32):

“Clearly others have seen this. Read the Storm history — their whole organizaiton came to a freeze-frame to ‘deal with’ an incident.”

jose the red fox Says:
"I’m not sure why this is here and how it relates to the discussion in this thread. We need to be careful with this."

Nando says:

Jose, I'm not sure why you are urging caution here. There is a history of Storm (published online somewhere) that describes their endgame. If I remember correctly, there was some internal storm over mutual criticisms (involving these matters) and the organization (formally) decided to focus on this (to the detriment of other matters and other work).

Is it wrong to refer to that?

Just for the purposes of the discussion, could we stop creating this false dichotomy between "the State policing all personal relationships" and "an open, sympathetic approach with deep analysis" or whatever? I don't think anyone has advocated police state controls on personal relationships, and there are nuances in the views of how the state would deal with these things and this needs to be discussed with more accuracy and detail.

Also, did I miss something or has asexuality been conflated with androgyny? Androgyny is having gender ambiguity, or, more interestingly, both 'masculine' and 'feminine' characteristics. I find androgyny to be sort of a progressive and a positive thing. Asexuality is being free from or unaffected by sexuality.

Gangbox: asexuality or enforced asexuality is a response to violence against women and the very tricky fact that men's sexual (and non-sexual) interactions with women often maintain reflections of the patriarchy, even while striving to correct or recognize this. Of course asexuality is incredibly unhealthy. We've all been trained to find 'masculine' traits valuable and desirable, and 'feminine' traits undesirable (and vice-versa). This is really hard to combat for everyone in every gender, and since men (like white people) are in the dominant group and have benefited from this domination, they sometimes have to walk on eggshells, as you put it, if they are serious about combating this shit. Sometimes men don't like it when women approach sex entirely on their own terms (in a world rife with sexual violence, assault and degradation) as a corrective to a fucked up situation--they find it threatening or 'emasculating'. As a woman whose voice has been laughed off by men in Left movements, including among union organizers, I feel like saying: Sorry, too bad! I find that the biggest opponents of androgyny tend to be men, as they would lose some advantage in power relations. Where for a woman, her appearance and ability to be sexually appealing to men is so tied to her self worth and survival, androgyny would be a fucking weight off the ol' shoulders.

Gangbox, of course there are women who watch porn and seek out consensual sex. It would be idiotic to say this is a rarity of some kind. But I think you are forcing what ColdLamper said into a crude and incorrect approximation of puritan asexuality. This asexuality is a response to the truth about the dangers of sex for women out there in the world! In the feminist movement, the assertion that 'men rape women' is important (rather than 'women are raped'). Rape is a political issue, and it is important to realize it isn't just crazy ultra-macho dudes who do this to women, it is legions of 'normal' guys--because sexual violence is normalized in our society. Sexual relations are rife with the greater social problem of men assaulting women--read the stats on this in the U.S (let alone in places like Nicaragua, where over 75% of women are raped).

Oh, and that bit about 'every guy pays for it"? Do you consider that the women who are married to these guys who 'pay for it' feel like fucking prostitutes, and that this is the most degrading position that a human could ever be in, short of actual slavery? I'm sure these union fellas you speak of don't even think of it this way, those ladies are just gettin' a free ride right? Like when they get to hang out and have fun with the kids all day when they're housewives? Damn!

Of course men are alienated by the patriarchy, as any dominant group. This is wrong, it stunts emotions, makes men feel like they are only worth the content of their wallets, promotes fear and violence and ruthlessness among men--in other words, patriarchy destroys or stunts all humans' potential.

First, this thread is growing at an extremely fast rate (no complaints here), but let me give a disclaimer that I've not read every word of this, so sorry for any repeats of stuff other people may have said.

I completely agree with Cold Lamper in comment 44, except I wouldn't call this 'asexuality' at all. I call it having some motherfucking self-control. We are talking about communism here, &amp; must I remind you all that communism is not about relying on spontaneity or 'letting nature take its course'. There is a qualitative difference under socialism between the state, &amp; the party, &amp; the masses with general communist consciousness. But none of these 3 are about passively giving in to whatever random shit they inherited from thousands of years of class society! Is there any sphere of human activity off-limits to communists? Hell no. Is there any sphere off-limits to a state run by communists? Hell yes. We are talking about changing all of society, all of the world. We will not get to a stateless community of freely associating people unless those people take matters into their own hands. This will not &amp; can not be a passive thing, or a purely 'private' thing. Folks here been saying how communists are sexual beings too, yes this is 100% correct! This is because people can be communists with ideals &amp; goals &amp; actions &amp; interactions regardless of if they hold a government post.

JJM+, thank you for sharing your experiences. The word 'fuck' comes from the Dutch word for 'to breed' &amp; is inherently, because of its modern English usage as well as this origin, qualitatively different from 'make love' or whatever. If somebody would say to a person they genuinely respect &amp; love 'hey let's fuck', there is something wrong there. And there's also something wrong with this huge preoccupation in this society with sex. How bout you want to get to know the girl better, how bout you wanna hang out with her, how bout you think she's attractive &amp; hope she feels the same way; 'i wanna fuck her' means you'd like to shove her into the nearest empty room &amp; have your way with her. And y'know what, fuck that whole viewpoint.

Well that's my two cents (sorry for the capitalist expression), but I late &amp; gotta go now...

Redflags: I dunno, I just keep seeing these posts end with: I don't advocate a police state crackdown on gender relations (including my own!) and realized that no one is really saying that they do, or are in fact saying the opposite, and that maybe every single post doesn't require this apologetic qualifier! At least, not if it doesn't come attached to a more substantive opinion on the matter--I guess this is what I meant. Not that we shouldn't polemicize against old tendencies.

As for saying "I wanna fuck her." Yeah, that means so'n'so may be attractive. It also means you want to do something TO someone. Not with. And it is also used as a threat among men in group--it is certainly a threat to women. Of course some dude standing around doesn't think all that consciously--but we should, we're communists.

Gangbox said: "In the present day, the priority for revolutionaries is to make women feel safe and comfortable being involved in the Party and other communist led institutions."

Woah, for someone who eschews Victorian ideals of womanhood, you seem to be holding a pretty shallow view of freeing women from the imposed role of 'frail female'.

The priority for revolutionaries--who ARE women leaders also, not just men who are 'creating' conditions for women in some social laboratory--is to fight violence against women and make men and women (and genderqueer/androgynous/intersex) people feel equal, to loosen and destroy those constraints of gender, to help girls become leaders and boys to feel less like emotionless robots, to transform human relationships and combat rape, exploitation, commodification and promote respect, agency and progressive outlooks on sex--militantly and in a lively way, IN THE PRESENT DAY, these are a few of our duties.

Thanks to Zerohour and Jaroslav for attempting to understanding my comments.

Good discussion, btw.

Jaroslav: you're not the only one overwhelmed by the speed of the discussion. It seems like every time I think I'm finished with a post, I hit the reload button and find two or three more people have posted before me, and they have something to say that I was going to say, or something I feel like I have to squeeze a response to into the body of my (previously complete) post. I end up writing in a rush to try to avoid this; I wrote #44 in such a state, and in the process I probably "bent the stick" too far.

So just to clarify: I think “self-neutering,” as Nando characterized it (#46), is <i>an option</i> that should be considered in <i>special circumstances</i>, not something that should be generalized in the fashion the RCP has done (I “commended” them in the last paragraph because I wanted to praise their “unusually high awareness of the problem,” not advocate their apparent policy as the solution). Elsewhere in that post I tried to emphasize the particular and temporal nature of this solution (in the second paragraph I referred to that quote from Jed as a “possibility,” i.e. not a certainty; in the fifth paragraph I tried to frame the issue as being about “a man,” not men as a category, etc.)

Iris: I think that was part of Gangbox's characterization of Nando's position, not his own.

I thought a lot of his post were his reactions to Nando?

Oh snap, my bad. I have to fight for objectivity on some subjects.

Hello.

Sometimes it doesn't hurt to actually quote someone to get clarity on an on-going discussion. Try this one.

"Herr Proudhon does not know that all history is but the continuous transformation of human nature."
The German Ideology

I used that snippet to lead into a much longer discussion of human sexuality in an article called "In Partial Payment: Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation", written in 1981. Part of that article - a minor part - poked fun at the RCP for its stupidity about queer folks. You're welcome to read the whole article at the Sojourner Truth Organization website (www.sojournertruthorganization.net).

Fortunately, there is very little in Marx or Lenin to quote about the subject of 'homosexuality'. If Mao had anything to say, well, we can blithely ignore it.

Which means that we'll have to think this through ourselves. Karl and V.I. will forgive us if we borrow their methods of thought.

And the simple conclusion we should come to is that (hetero)sexuality is socially constructed. And, to the extent that it is oppressive, we should be about destroying it.

This doesn't mean that women and men won't fuck each other. Any more than people will stop eating food in future societies, even those where exploitation does not exist.

It does mean that everything about the way in which humans approach each other, whether on a shop floor or a street or a schoolroom or a bedroom will have been utterly changed.

Refer back to that quote now. I agree with it. And anyone who knows anything about the nature of social and sexual relationships within the U.S. will agree that there has been a continual transformation of 'human nature' within the last fifty years.

I'm not going to attempt to make lengthy responses to the many points raised in what is now a long thread. My apologies to those who have made some interesting and salient points and raised good questions. Some of the posters are just mixing confusion with bad analysis or refusal to do analysis, however. Carl Davidson's point, while he was defending gay rights, is just absurd. Of course we can figure out why individuals and large masses of people do certain things - that's what revolutionaries do. We think about society, right? And then change it.

Now for a little Lenin.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions."

In one context, the statement "I want to fuck you" could be viewed as a lovely invitation from one human to another. Someone said it to me two weeks ago and I was happy to comply.
But suppose it is a male prison guard talking to a male/female/trans prisoner after they've just pepper-sprayed them.
Analyse the reality of the social relation, not the words.

Good luck with this on-going discussion. I apologize for not being able to devote the time to contribute more.

M.Treloar

Redflags:

"Many people experience predation. Sexual exploitation and abuse is common, in some ways pervasive. Even normalized. We should talk about that. We should also be in loving ways with other people, with each other. Like giving heads-up nods walking down the street to other folks is the opposite of road rage or a leer. I like Mike’s basic take:"

I want to relate to what RedFlags says here. Where I live, and at my high school, there is what seems like a lot of pride, although I could be interpreting it wrong. I see many guys that walk past each other and try to stare each other down. The vast majority of the time, they don't even know each other, what they believe, who they are, etc. Yes, it is sad, and it is confusing. Rarely would you see the same two guys giving each other a "heads up" salute, just out of respect.

If one's sexuality is not personal, what is? Medieval society said the 'personal is the political,' where the politial was Mother Church, and you were an organic part of it, at your peril.

The distinction between personal and political, the creation of a private sphere and dimension to the self, was an achievement of the Enlightenment, and of human civilization. The personal and and political are connected, but they are not the same, and one is not subordinate to the other--unless you want to argue for theocracy.

The political power of the proletarian state certainly is restricted. Sovereignty resides in the people themselves, not, borrowing from Rousseau, in the imperfect instruments they organize for government or parties. People also have rights as part of what it means to be human, and all human enterprises are subordinate to an ecosystem.

If that makes me a liberal, I'm proud of it, and will continue, like Marx and others, to affirm the acheivements of human civilization over the last 100,000 years, including those won by the borgeoiosie, together with the masses, against the feudal order. You need to think these things through a little. Take it from someone who has a defense of Pol Pot in his resume.

ROFL, most unintentionally funny moment in this conversation. I wouldn't add that to my resume if I were you, Carl...

Anyhow...in my first post in this thread I referred to a post by Nando which I thought said more or less what I was trying to say. In light of Nando's subsequent critique of my post and my own attempt to clarify some bad formulations in that post, I just wanted to hone in on the specific passage I read as supporting my view:

"And the issue is not just sexuality (this is not really a matter of some heirarchy “telling people how and when to fuck” — people should feel that they are in a place where people “have each other’s back,” where casual suspicion along lines of nationality and race are overcome, where people overcome the petty because of common dedication to a larger purpose….. etc.

"<b>If such a climate means that some men need to set aside their “sexual being” (or tamp it down, or adopt new restraints)…. so be it.</b> If some men see this as if they are just being told “who and when and how to fuck” — well, i think they should raise their consciousness. There is a lot of “male right” involved in the sense of entitlement to think about and express your desire to fuck anyone you want."(my emphasis)

By the way, that was post #32. (I hope my ingenious idea to refer to posts I'm responding to by their numbers is helping other readers know what I'm talking about better...because I'm starting to find it damn tedious.)

I wonder what there is to defend about Pol Pot.

Cold Lamper: that 'male right' was precisely what I was referring to in past comments on this thread. It is not uncommon for a man to have not acquaintance with a woman at all and see her as an object of sexual satisfaction...for himself. Males under capitalist society see themselves as having a 'right' to fuck a woman, many times whether she wants to or not.

I am not arguing that it is a bad thing for men to express sexual desires towards a woman, I do it sometimes, but I do not do it in a way that degrades the woman, and, in fact, I keep it to myself most of the time. I understand that it is only natural for both sexes to feel such desires towards others.

I never thought I'd agree with Carl Davidson (if there was a hell, Satan would be breaking the icecicles off his pitchfork right about now), but I have to second his comments here (# 73).

I always thought that the goal of our movement was "emancipating humanity".

And, like I said in a much earlier post, telling people how to live their personal lives (and having some kind of legal sanction/Salem-witch-hunt-style social shunning if they don't toe the line) seems pretty damned nonemancipatory to me!!!

At the risk of sounding Hannah Arentish here, that sounds pretty damned totalitarian!

It also sounds pretty damned Catholic - all the sexual repression and self hatred, but even worse, cause at least they get a shot at redemption in their mythical next life, where all we'd have here is the command for men to self-eunichfy in this one!

Frankly, I really wouldn't want to live in a world where "...some men need to set aside their “sexual being” (or tamp it down, or adopt new restraints)…"

And the androgyny piece?

Even at it's best (think David Bowie in his New York Dolls period) I wouldn't sign up for that program.

And, at it's worst (think Red Guards circa 1968 - everybody wears the same ill fitting baggy PLA garrison uniform and sex is considered politically wrong) - well, I definitely wouldn't want any part of that either!!!

I don't think there's any contradiction between being masculine in the conventional sense and being a passionate opponent of sexism, sexual abuse, violence against women, homophobia ect.

I still have to ask (cause nobody answered it so far) where did the revolutionary communist movement get these stultifying, anti human, and quite frankly really deeply psychologically unhealthy ideas about sexuality?

I do see a bit of a pattern here - some of the comments touched on the idea of how being a communist is basically supposed to be uncomfortable, with little to any accomidation to people's feelings and emotional needs.

That souds a whole LOT like the self flagilation customs of some Catholic monks, and the literal self flagilation (as in they actually beat themselves with whips) practiced by some Shi'ite Muslims during one of their religious festivals and the idea that many Protestants have that the pleasures of the flesh are sinful.

Yeah, I went there.

This whole anti sex thing sounds a whole lot like religious ascetisism - and as we all know, there ain't a damned thing liberatory about that.

Beyond that, how do you think this whole anti sex, compulsory male asexuality/androgyny deal would sound to the folks we're supposed to be emancipating (that is, our friends the proletariat)????

Would they want any part of that?

Or would they be disgusted?

Beyond their subjective feelings, objectively, is there anything good about folks who claim to want to free the human species calling for the supression of one of the most basic human drives???

Just a side note to Carl. The song Jennings did was actually written by Bob Dill (who also wrote "Amanda" <i>inter alia</i>. Credit where credit is due. Not to be mistaken for "Whatever Gets You Thru The Night" by John Lennon. Lennon took the line from a Reverend Ike sermon he saw on teevee.

carl writes: "If one’s sexuality is not personal, what is?...
The distinction between personal and political, the creation of a private sphere and dimension to the self, was an achievement of the Enlightenment, and of human civilization. The personal and and political are connected, but they are not the same, and one is not subordinate to the other–unless you want to argue for theocracy."

I am really not sure what you are arguing...

You don't pose it in terms of "a contradiction between social and private" -- but as a matter of "personal and political." What is the significance of that?

Do you not see "personal" relations as also social relations -- and therefore also part of what needs to be revolutionized in society?

Is transforming the norms of "personal" spheres part of our "political" goals, or not? (Because then the question becomes not "whether" but "how.")

Also, I'm not clear what the meaning of "personal" is to you. First, there are things that are (literally) personal: for example my unexpressed thoughts (memories, insights, irrational feelings, desires, stray musings etc). They have social content (obviously), but until I express them they are personal. And I own things that are personal (the famous example of toothbrush, but also clothes, books, particular food items...) And they are personal in the sense that: I can dispose of them any way I want, and don't need to account for it with others. And they really are not for others to take without permission. Ok, so much for personal.

but are our "intimate relations" personal in that extreme sense? No. They are social, because they involve other people, and they mean that we have entered into the domain of the social. And the individual relationships we form are a part of a larger aggregated matrix of relationships that define major parts of our society (including the reproduction of children and daily life).

I think you are right that the idea of "personal" developed within feudalism and became part of the challenge to the feudal abolutist state. In one vision of feudal monarchy, the king (tsar) was the father of all, and this patriarchal absolutism allowed little. "rights" for subordinate levels (including the boyers, and broader nobility). In the British model (i.e. magna carta) the rights of the king (i.e. the central state) was restricted by law -- and society exists as a shell of domains, each with its own "right."

Now, in once sense, this has meant that the domain of family was "personal" in the sense that it was ruled by father right.

To give one clear example: the supreme court decision (1980s) overruled state laws against sodomy on the basis that they violated "privacy." Chief Justice Burger wrote a fascinating dissent, saying that there was no "privacy" involved when to gay men had sex. Why? Because, Burger explained, the Anglo-Saxon notion of privacy was defined as a right of the family to be distinctly governed (and freed from direct outside control).

Burger followed this logic by saying that there was no privacy when two men had sex because there were no relations there with women and children. In other words, it is worth thinking through what this reveals about the concept of "personal" that you see as emerging with the enlightenment: Burger's point was that legal privacy was (in his view and historically) a function of father right over wife and children, and the right of the man vis-a-vis the larger authority in society.

And there is a profound relationship of the personal with father right. When someone says that the beating of a woman is "a family matter" -- they are evoking that concept of "personal" or "private" (that emerged out of the Anglo-Saxon tradition that is the basis of U.S. law and custom).

So, to be dialectical, this breaks down: that realm of personal (which is seen as central to "Western" civilization, and contrasted to "Eastern" civilization) posits spheres of society that the central authority can't penetrate (without a warrant, without a right of habeas corpus, without probable cause etc.) And (in classic liberal thinking) these "rights" (which first emerged as the right of british feudal lords to rule "their" domains without intrusion from the crown) formed a basis for broader "individual rights" a few centuries later.

But in both history and practice, the rights of these "spheres" reproduces the dominant property and patriarchal relations -- and they are not simply progressive. And in particular the realm of "personal" upheld by Carl (and the realm of "private" defined by Chief Justice Burger) are often linked to "a man's home is his castle" (and its underlying assumption that the women and children in such homes are the property of those men).

We are not talking about politicizing your use of your "personal" toothbrush. But we are debating how to transform the SOCIAL character of the "personal relationships" we all have -- to liberate women (and children) from the many things that arise from unchallenged father right (and the silence that culture wraps those rights in.)

And (again) by saying that these are social (and that the solutions are political) is not identical with saying that they should all automatically become public or police matters. People need privacy -- but not the historical "privacy" that shrouds and protects the enforcement of "personal" and "private" male supremacy.

One final point: the main problem therefore is not the more exotic subcultures (BDSM etc.) The main issue (in intimate relations) is the boyfriend who says "if you break up with me, i will kill you." Or the father who smacks his 15-year-old daughter for going on a date without permission. Or the thousand other "ordinary" acts that have passed as "normal" and "private" for centuries. I have talked with many high school girls who "get a boy friend" and quickly find that these boys think a quick slap is part of the "privileges" that come with the status -- or the right to order them to "change your clothes" or "i don't like that make-up" or "don't talk to those girls anymore, i don't like it."

Just personal? Or part of the revolution?

Gangbox: yes, your argument is exactly Hannah Arendtish.

The argument of absolutizing the individual and the personal are classically liberal, and are tied to fencing some parts of society off from change.

Now we can cross those fences in destructive ways -- and that would not be good. And the myth of "totalitarianism" was constructed by exploiting times and ways that "fences" have been crossed in senseless and destructive ways.

But if the emancipation of humanity (which you uphold correctly) can't be accomplished without the emancipation of women -- and because the oppression of women is so often carried out (and enforced through dependence and violence) precisely in the "private spheres" (and even in the intimate sexual spheres).... that emancipation NECESSITATES a discussion of how to revolutionize those spheres without destroying the existance of privacy. It is a contradiction and a difficult one.

Mao said "where the broom does not reach, the dust does not disappear on its own."

Gangbox, conventional masculinity, in our culture, is PRECISELY tied to violence, alienation, non-femininity and power over. Masculinity is DEFINED by these things. I don't mean this as something to self-flagellate over, it is just expressed to me constantly in this culture; I notice it everyday, and it is reinforced in men's behavior by other men. Really honestly please read Michael Messner's "Taking the Field". It is a fascinating study of how violent hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity and misogyny is forced on men from childhood, and how this particularly asserts itself in the sports industry--when my partner read it, he was horrified. It is an easy and very informing read, written by a man with sympathy for men--as well as sharp analysis of violence in our culture.

On androgyny, I said:
"RedFlags, I don’t mean to say we should actively promote androgyny, in some forceful way. But the breaking down of segregation between genders–material (in certain spheres of work or military) and cultural–organically breaks down polarized differences between women and men, white people and black people, etc., etc. Difference and individuality should be celebrated, not erased, but polarization–meaning a dominant group defines itself by how it IS NOT the group it oppresses–reduces with contact and the development of mutual respect. Like I said above, men who grow up with sisters are many times less likely to sexually assault or rape women. The ‘otherness’ of the women they dominate in our patriarchal culture is broken down. Thats what I mean! Of course, ‘add women and stir’ is not what I am advocating here, but something more radical." and

"Sorry, too bad! I find that the biggest opponents of androgyny tend to be men, as they would lose some advantage in power relations. Where for a woman, her appearance and ability to be sexually appealing to men is so tied to her self worth and survival, androgyny would be a fucking weight off the ol’ shoulders."

Like I said men seem to be the most afraid of androgyny. How scary to have your tough exterior swept away...And who wants to be like David Bowie? forget him being an artist--what a fag, right Gangbox?

Any form of gender oppression is wrong and fundamentally limiting. In our society gender oppression and attacks of androgyny, gender queerness are quite prevelant. Some of these attacks are connected to forms of homophobia other have cultural roots of there own.

I think looking at the culture around the thin white duke David Bowie or say glam rock is quite useful. there are many liberatory moments and things to revisit. Yet at the same time, and one can only look at Bret Michael's TV show, Rock Of Love, there is a strong patriarchial undercut that exists side by side with these actually existing forms of alternate gender expression.

And looking at the gay and lesbian community, for many years, domestic battery and abuse remained hidden, often cloaked in secret because we (the LGBT community) couldnt believe this existed in the "new" world. But it does, regardless of people's gender expression. regardless of people's gender. regardless of people's sexuality.

What this says to me, at the least, is we need both a liberatory movement that celebrates ALL forms of gender including uber butch masculinity, high femme (as its called amongst many dykes) and everything in between.

So we put forward alternative models of expression and behavior we have to model both. I would love a world with a million genders and a million sexualities. All with equal rights. All with a liberatory vision. And we need a feminist movement that seeks to undermine patriarchy and male privilege. And we can expect some people to stop being who they are.

oops.

the last sentence should read.

and in the process we can't expect some people to stop being who they are and stop expressing their gender.

Intimate relations are both personal and social by definition, because they involve two people.

But simply because they are social in this sense, it does not follow that they are necessarily political,ie, subject to the law, the state, the party.

And don't carry on about what some men demand as a right. They can howl anything at the moon all they want, just so long as they don't become abusive, a public nuisance or violate the laws of assault. Any women also has the right to say 'No', not to be bothered, and to walk away unharmed. (And if they change their ways, they might even have a shot at getting a date on Saturday night! )

All that goes without saying in civil and civilized society.

I used 'the personal IS the political' because it is popular from the feminists of the 1960s till today, without many people realizing the feudal and theocratic implications in the slogan.
The Islamic society envisioned by the salayfists (bin Laden, etc) is exactly one were the personal and the political are one.

Finally, my point about Pol Pot wasn't hyperbole. I was editor of Class Struggle when Kampuchea was under fire from Vietnam and others. We sent reporters there, were taken on 'the tour,' and published a book of smiling photos of kids in revolutionary Kampuchea, where the old 'social relations' were being transformed, even money was being abolished and new communist relations were doing away with family ties, status an so on.

It was a big lie, for the most part. In fact, in every critical part. We learned how big a year or two later. And my responsibility is not to hide or deny it, but to own up to it, and work to see it doesn't get repeated.

I wasn't on the tour, but published the stuff, and put a piece by Pol Pot in our journal.

One thing I dug into about Pol Pot was his fascination with Rousseau, something he shared, at least a bit, with Lenin. you see, most of Pol Pot's outrages ad crimes were not so much applications of Mao, as they were his understanding of revolutionary democracy (very totalitarin,actually) of Rousseau's variety and the French revolution, in contrast to John Locke, who influenced some American revolutionaries.

But that's a long and interesting topic for another time.

"I used ‘the personal IS the political’ because it is popular from the feminists of the 1960s till today, without many people realizing the feudal and theocratic implications in the slogan.
The Islamic society envisioned by the salayfists (bin Laden, etc) is exactly one were the personal and the political are one."

Carl this is so guilt by association, you're good at that.

RedFlags,

You made a lot of good points in your last couple of posts!

"Socialism is not an enshrinement of rights or imposing on those who have imposed. Is people are not at liberty to think, exchange ideas and present their own bodies as they wish – how can we begin to think about “liberation”?"

"The habits of austerity and sacrifice that attend revolutionary work are not a model for society."

"Without ganging up on Gangbox, if we don’t have room in a fighting movement for people with different ideas on these matters, we will be in effect creating a subculture within this world and not revolutionizing the base of society. Without political revolution, I don’t think a progressive social revolution is possible in this world."

I really have to second what you say here...

We can't change the world by forming some perfect little utopian community (folks have tried that, again and again and again over the last 150 years or so, and it NEVER WORKED ONCE!!)

We have to live in the real world to change it - and yes, that means dealing with folks who, while quite revolutionary on political issues, are totally NOT in favor of giving up gender differences (and I for one am DEFINITELY one of those folks - and I know I'm not alone in that!!!)

I'm all for abolishing gender OPPRESSION - and yes, that includes oppression of folks who defy present gender norms - in particular, the LGBT community (especially the B's and the T's) but including straight folks who don't do the whole masculinity or femininity thing.

With that said, I personally really like the whole tough guy masculinity thing, and I would never ever want to give up on that as far as my own personality is concerned.

We CAN do without the whole masculinity = abusing women and children thing, and I'd be among the first to resolutely oppose that - but, I am absolutely not prepared to throw out the baby of masculinity with the bathwater of male chauvinist violence.

=============================

more big ups for RedFlags -

"and many of the other kids I met who grew up in these fairly encapsulated networks became cynical about what it was they actually were… believing that democratic centralism was a technique of manipulation where the central committees were a bourgeoisie and the cadre a proletariat to be drawn from. Because what else could it be if these so-called freedom fighters were breaking women down in private?"

A whole LOT of so called "democratic centralism" in practice breaks down to the party bosses ordering the cadre workers around.

Quite honestly, I don't think I've ever seen anywhere on the left where "democratic centralism" DIDN'T work out like that!!!

And I know what I'm talking about here, cause I've done quite a tour of the far left in my time (YCL,USA and CPUSA - where I got my start politically as a high school kid - PLP, a brief tour of the anarchoid world of Critical Resistance - where they have their own special "consensus-based" dictatorship that's different than the Leninist kind, but is just as oppressive - the League for the Revolutionary Party and, most recently, the RCP)

And, despite the "line differences" it always seemed just like work - there were foremen, and there were workers (exept the foremen on the jobites on the whole tended to be a lot less psychologically abusive!!!)

And, I've always had this voice coming from the back of my head telling me "well, capitalism IS horrible and all, but would you REALLY want to live in a world run by folks like these?? They're bad enough WITHOUT state power - imagine them if they had access to a secret police and firing squads!!!"

And yeah, that's cynical, and yeah I fight against that attitude - but frankly, the way the left is, there is constantly new data coming in to reinforce that cynicism!!!

So when folks talk about imposing "democratic centralism" on people's personal lives.... well, knowing what "democratic centralism" almost always REALLY MEANS in practice, I just have to jump up and scream NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad enough this system makes us have a "cop in the head" I do NOT want to replace that with a "commissar in the head"!!!!!

Spare me the Clinton charge. I never voted for Bill. And most likely, won't have to for Hillary, either.

But who knows? a lot depends on time, place and circumstance.

Same goes for Pol Pot. Defending him was not only our party line, but the line of China and the line of the international movement we were part of. Take a deeper look at some of your own trend's weirdness, and things you defend from afar. You may be surprised, sooner rather than later.

"Same goes for Pol Pot. Defending him was not only our party line, but the line of China and the line of the international movement we were part of. Take a deeper look at some of your own trend’s weirdness, and things you defend from afar. You may be surprised, sooner rather than later."

Well maybe if if your poltitics were more personal then groupthink you would not have made such assanine decisions. Also your view of voting for liberals or conservatives has also been beaten throughout history

I hope my quip about Carl's resumé wasn't taken too seriously; I don't really know who Carl Davidson is or what his politics are, other than what he has posted on this site recently, so I wasn't trying to make some huge criticism of him. It perhaps is more understandable why some might have been misled by the Khmer Rouge at the time, given the desperate situation they were dealing with and how it was predictably exploited by the imperialists.

I agree with Carl here. Ridiculing him for a self-admitted political error was below the belt.

Groupthink? I'm the one of those arguing against it here, if you'll read over the posts. No worry, I have a thick skin. But with all the non sequitors and ad hominems around here, quite a few here would have flunked my Philosophy 101 class in Logic from 1965. I'd rather discuss the substance of the matter--and don't give me any crap about 'bourgeois' logic, since I included Dia-Mat and other N-Valued Logics as well as Aristotle in teaching the course.

Why 'collective thinking,' whatever that is. Why not just dialogue, discussion, debate, inquiry? Scientific method requires these, and it also requires peer review, and an open and democratic community.

If this sums up 'collective thinking,' fine. But if you mean something more, spell it out.

My two cents toward spelling this out:

Often the word "group think" is used to disparage that kind of collectivity -- it even goes back before libertarian or "anti-totalitarian" criticisms of communism, it goes back to the very old prejuedices against "the mob" (the idea that when ordinary people think and act "in groups" their "worst instincts" come to the fore.)

We all need to be creative and critical thinkers -- as individuals. We need to be looking at things fresh, and comparing ideas to reality.

Working things out collectively needs to involve debate and inquiry -- it does objectively, it will inevitably, and we need to develop methods for having that be more openly developed.

But the reason the collectivity of the process is important is because it goes to the question of "what are we trying to do?"

We are not just exchanging "individual ideas" and reaching "individual conclusions." We are also trying to reach collective conclusions as a basis for common (and disciplined) action under difficult conditions.

But the point (the actual goal of our discussion and debate) is not to make for a better "individual journey" -- toward truth, or discovery, or self-fulfillment, or maximum personal contribution or whatever.

The point (for those of us who are rev's and com's, that is) is to change the world -- and that requires a collective process, that arrives at common insights and plans.

[Salute on May First!]

On the Groupthink question:

In my experience on the American far left (and I've been doing this stuff since I was a high school freshman - and that was 27 years ago) I've found that the "collectivity" that some speak so fondly of usually amounts to what the Marine Corps would call a "chain of command".

That is, the bigshots at the top make all significant decisions, and those decisions are in turn handed down through the leadership chain to the folks on the ground who carry those decisions out.

In the Corps, it looks like this: from Commandant of the Corps to Divisional Commander to Brigade Commander to Batallion Commander to Company Commander to Platoon Leader to Squad Leader to Fire Team Leader to you, the grunt on the ground.

Every left wing organization I've ever been around worked just like that - but, unlike the USMC, where they're intellectually honest enough to admit that it's an authoritarian structure, and they really don't care what you think about their orders, the left usually puts up this whole Potemkin village of "discussion" and "debate" when, on the real, the real decisions were made by the bigshots on the top.

I'd respect the communist movement a whole lot more if they'd be HONEST ENOUGH to admit that they follow orders that come from the leaders at the top, and if they'd dispense with that whole gloss of "democratic discussion" which we all know is, in practice, meaningless.

The only time I ever saw real democratic discussion on the left was when the CPUSA split in 1991.

One wing - the "Committees of Corrrespondence" wanted to openly subordinate themselves to the Democratic Party, and stop even pretending to be communists.

Another wing - the CPUSA leadership, wanted to continue pretending to be communists and maintaining the pretense of independence from the Democratic Party while in practice being the caboose to the Democrat's locomotive.

Still another wing - the CPUSA left wing, wanted to actually move towards being real communists. This wing was mostly composed of rank and file CPUSAers who were blue collar workers (and yes, I was one of those folks).

Since our wing was unrepresented in the leadership, in practice we ended up being footsoldiers for the CPUSA leadership (and I do mean "footsoldiers" quite literally as in we were used as a goonsquad to intimidate the Committees of Correspondence folks at the 1991 CPUSA convention)

Oh yeah, there was also the money.

Mikhail Gorbachev had cut the CPUSA off financially in 1987 - and the satellites in Cuba, East Germany and Czechoslovakia soon cut off the cash spigots as well - and that cost the party about US $ 2.5 million a year in income.

That money had helped hold things together in a party that was actually pretty deeply divided internally.

But, without the Soviet cash, the party leadership had to lay off a lot of folks and disband a lot of the party fronts - and that caused a LOT of hurt feelings (not to mention empty wallets), so that helped bring things to a head in 91.

The debate leading up to the 1991 CPUSA convention was the only time I can remember when a left wing party I was involved with had any kind of real internal debate that had any consequences.

Problem was, the CPUSA leadership basically LOST that debate in the only places where it really mattered - the bigger party districts (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Northern California, Southern California).

So, they had to stack the deck at the convention - and they did.

The leadership controlled the credentials committee, so they uncredentialled as many Committees of Correspondence delegates as possible.

And, they had a goonsquad in place to make sure they didn't try to come into the convention unauthorized (and to create a general atmosphere of intimidation).

They got us on the CPUSA left to do that for them - since most of us were blue collar or service workers (unlike the other factions which were largely white collar or middle class) it was felt - correctly - that we would be able to handle ourselves in a fight better than the other side.

Also, the CPUSA leadership used the Cleveland Police as reinforcements for the goon squad.

Yes, you read that right, the CLEVELAND POLICE...

The convention was at the Cleveland Hilton, which happens to be a franchized hotel that's actually owned by the City of Cleveland.

Since it was a municipally owned venue, the CPUSA leadership was able to use the police to kick out folks that they didn't want to attend

And no, they actually didn't see just how deeoply and profoundly fucked up that was politically.

Some of us on the goonsquad saw it - but of course as low ranking party members (and mere blue collar workers at that) our opinions simply didn't matter... in fact, we wern't even asked beforehad about how we felt about standing shoulder to shoulder on the same side of the barricades as the cops.

Even with the intimidation, there was, for the first and last time in my time in the CPUSA, an actual lively debate at the convention on real live political issues.

This discussion wasn't window dressing - it was REAL cause it had real consequences (that is, if the CPUSA leadership lost, the party as such would be disbanded and merged with the Democratic Party).

Of course, if you are a Gus Hall (or a Bob Avakian, or a Sam Marcy, or a Jim Robertson ect) that is, the big tunafish in a tiny left wing party, a mini me version of Nicolae Ceausescu who is the absolute dictator of a couple hundred people, you do NOT want to risk that power trip with the possiblity that you might lose your spot and go back to mere mortalhood.

You still have to make a show of having internal debate - but at the end of the day, the big tunafish make the real decisions.

And I know all of y'all know that!!!

So let's cut the bullshit, and keep it real - the left is run by groupthink and a chain of command.

Some of the better groups (the RCP for instance) WILL actually ask your opinion.

But at the end of the day, the big tunafish decides what will be done.

Now, this works against individual initiative, and it continues the bourgeois path of suffocating the immense creativity that burns inside of the skull of every human being, at the expense of the ideas of a few bigshots being imposed on all.

If you want to take on the CPUSA, CCDS, or any left group, set aside anecdotal quips, and deal with the substance of the issues. I'm a CCDS member, often a minority gadfly, but your little descriptions aren't accurate or helpful here. It is a group that posits 'pluralism' as part of a description of its internal political trends, and it has more interesting discussions than most on socialism and the issues of the day. It doesn't claim to be a party or democratic centralist, and I'm not presenting it as such. At best, it's a transition to something better.

There's a grain of truth in your Marine Corp analogy, but if you leave it at that, without going into an alternative, you just reinforce anarchism and anti-Leninism.

Carl,

I'd like to ask you to take the bass out of your voice, and speak to me respectfully, if ya don't mind!!!

I'm giving a historical narrative here of events that I was actually a part of - and that I have a rather unique perspective on.

Now you can agree with me, or disagree with me, but you cannot deny my voice on this, Carl!!!

I took part in the same events, and do my best to be respectful to all. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'base' in my voice. Make your points however you like; I'm asking you to elaborate, especially as to the alternative.

Okay, admittedly I haven´t read through all 101 responses to "On telling each other how to fuck," but do think it interesting that there have been 101 fucking responses.

And I would bet out of 101, plus of course Mike E.'s original post, someone has touched on what I think is and should be the main "thread" running throughout this discussion: "Women's oppression."

Simplistically put, we live in a world where there's not one society that isn't male dominated, and patriarchal--patriarchy affecting everything from economics to politics to sexuality, to moral/human values, yada yada.

Three female, NON-Marxist/Leninist/Maoist writers are the ones who really got me to thinking about how deeply ingrained this all is, even amongst more enlightened and revolutionary-minded folk, and how women's oppression permeates all societal relations--sectors, classes, genders, et al. Think this has everything to do with how we look at sexuality, the "4 alls," et alls. (I personally think that women's oppression is going to be the last bastion of struggle.)



The 3 authors I'm referring to are: Andrea Dworkin, Margaret Atwood, and Marge Piercy. In Dworkin's "Right Wing Women" she discusses and exposes the roots of homophobia, e.g., that because women are basically viewed as vehicles for procreation, homosexuals, notably gay men, are seen as the ultimate threat to the straight male (never mind worrying about whether or not this same straight male is pleasing his female partner sexually). Dworkin, who I often times didn't agree with but she sure as hell was provocative--also had an incredible essay in her "Letters from the War Zone"--"A 24 hr. truce on rape." She was addressing a crowd of 500 "enlightened" men, "who were in touch with their feminine side," and suddenly stopped her lecture. Basically she said, "why the hell are all of you trying to impress me with your (new found) feminism? Instead why don't you go into your locker rooms at the gym or wherever, and talk to those guys about a 24-hour truce on rape?" (Interestingly enough, the most success so far in quelling the rapist is when he is made to feel like the objectified victim of his own violent crime.)

I would bet that most participants in Kasama are familiar with "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood first published in 1985. Certainly still relevant today with all the reactionary moralistic, maniac fundamentalists running rampant.

But Marge Piercy proposed a whole different society in "Woman on the Edge of Time"--a kinder, gentler, and more equal society, and while the relations, be they sexual or more in terms of the society at large, were pretty much androgynous, Piercy proposed a whole other mind-set, and for the most part eliminated the oppression and exploitation of women. The greatest irony in her novel was that the narrator was locked up in an insane asylum...her "insanity" of course determined by the for real criminally insane, i.e. the government.

Am not trying to sell all 101 responses short, but so far some of the responses strike me as not being particularly scientific. On the other hand, just because Dworkin, Atwood and Piercy were not quoting Marx, Lenin and Mao line and verse, doesn't mean they should be dismissed either.

Linda,

Fascinating list of writers. I've been influenced by all three as well. While I don't agree with everything Dworkin says she is a much more serious thinker than many who dismiss her realize. I haven't read "Right Wing Women" but "Letters from the War Zone" really woke me up to these issues. I also like Piercy and Atwood's novels. Atwood wrote an interesting piece in the NYTimes a few years back about how "The Handmaids Tale" was inspired by a visit to Afghanistan in the late 1970s and the experience of seeing the condition of women there. Piercy has a bunch of interesting novels, but "Woman On the Edge of Time" is the one that made the biggest impression on me.

welcome back Linda. And amen to the list of books, and the thumbnail summation of the writers. "Woman on the edge of time" -- i have been planning to read it again, and expect to find it even wiser now that it was when i was first impressed by it.

Dylan: "ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

Linda D.

I really can't cosign any of those sisters - in particular Andrea Dworkin. From saying all man on woman sex is "rape" to helping the capitalist state criminalize adult media producers, Dworkin's kind of feminism has serious problems.

I haven't read "The Handmaid's Tale" (although I did see the movie), and I think one of the serious flaws with it's narrative was it's RCPesque vision of a Christian Fascist future that I, quite frankly, don't think is going to happen.

As for Piercy, I really cannot get behind this whole "androgyny" deal!

This idea that the only way men can be revolutionary is for us to become some kind of latter day Chinese court eunuchs is as far from emancipatory as we can get.

Beyond that, it's rather odd that feminists would embrace an old patriarchal custom - restricting male sexuality.

Remember, polygamous Mormon cults in present day Utah exile young men - the better to force women into polygamous marriages with the male elders by denying them other possible mates.

And they aren't the only ones - throughout history, patriarchal male elites have restricted the sexuality of lower class men, so as to give the wealthier guys the opportunity to engage in polygamy.

This has taken many forms - from doweries to long terms of drafted military service to monastaries to outright castration.

It's odd that communists would embrace this idea - but, since the days of mandatory celibacy for male enlisted men, non commissioned officers and lower ranking commissioned officers in Mao's 8th Route Army and New 4th Army, we see this medeival phenominon presented as somehow revolutionary.

Look, communism is supposed to be about the working class liberating all of humanity (including the men!!!)

Thank you TellNoLies and Nando. Glad to hear that the likes of Dworkin, Atwood and Piercy have struck a meaningful chord with you as well.

Thought the comment about the interview with Atwood and Afghanistan fascinating. Am going to try and look it up in the NYT archives. I of course thought the main thrust of THT was an expose of the "moral majority" and where their "thinking" leads.

But you inadvertently raised something else--and while this post is mainly about sexual relations,I wanted to add something, perhaps insignificant, about women's oppression and circuitously about Afghanistan, via Turkey.

Eons ago I was in NYC and saw Yöl by Yilmaz Güney, when it first came out. Was by my lonesome, seated on one side by two women, the other side a couple of punkers, and in the entire row in front of me, a huge family from Turkey. After this incredibly profound and complex movie was over, the two women said, "That's ridiculous. How could those women allow themselves to be treated like that? Why didn't the director raise the issue of equal pay for equal work," etc. This just blew me away. So I say to these two women--"Excuse me, you are taking the oppression that these women face totally out of context. They live in a semi-feudal society. How can you even be thinking about the ERA?" Well, this caused somewhat of a furor, but unfortunately not with the two "sisters" whom I was addressing. Instead, one of the Turkish women stopped me on the street later, and said, "I totally agree with you," and she and I proceeded to yak together for hours over cups of coffee--unfortunately not Turkish coffee, and she told me lots about women's lives in her native country.

My point is--when we're discussing women's oppression, or even "telling each other how to fuck" I think it would behoove us to analyze the different social systems that still exist, even though women's oppression is obviously universal. In many parts of the world, the answer to a woman "committing adultery" or even not being covered properly is outright assassination at the hands of either the state or the woman's clan. And as far as women being satisfied sexually--hey in many countries a clitoridectomy is still performed like the woman was having her tonsils out.

Which brings me back to what I was thinking while reading a lot of the responses to the original post--think there is a tendency to view sexual and/or "intimate" relations, and women's oppression from our own experience while living in the most developed capitalist and imperialist country in the world.

Was also curious as to why I didn't see much mention of AIDS/HIV and the worldwide devastation from this disease. As long as people were misinformed and homophobic, and AIDS was thought to be limited to gay men, most heterosexuals didn't give a damn. And certainly with the over the top chauvinism in the U.S., the fact that the highest death rate of African women amongst AIDS victims meant even less to the status quo.

Am beginning to sound like Oprah's book club--but if it hadn't been for Randy Shilts and "The Band Played On," and his important exposure of the Reagan administration, etc., am not sure that many in the U.S. wouldn't still be fairly unaware of AIDS.

In 1994-5, I took part in a discussion of sexuality on the Marxism mailing list. During the debate, I made the innocuous comment that women liked sex also. It oughtn't have been controversial, but even in the 90s, many people in general, and on the left, were under the impression that sex was a burden imposed upon women by men. I was actually threatened by some Maoists, who said they wanted to drive from Detroit to Chicago to kick my ass. I don't know what party they were with. All I know is that is pretty fucked up.

For a number of reasons, communists in the U.S. have some of the worst hang ups about sex I've ever seen. I have a quite few misogynist comrades, who nonetheless saw fight to chide me about my relaxed attitudes about sexuality. I've seen or heard of a few "harems" of female comrades. I've met a few extremely creepy comrades. Then there's the whole SWP defense of the rapist, Mark Clark. In Democratic Kampuchea, the number one reason people were sentenced to death was for sexual misconduct (according to Michael Vickery in his book <i>Cambodia, 1975-1982</i>.

Really, these are not the people I want to create a sexual revolution. When it comes to sex, I side far more with Alexandra Kollentai than with Lenin. Sex, like any other human action, can be liberatory, oppressive. I don't like the idea of privileging sex outside the realm of all other human activities. Feeding someone is an incredibly intimate act. And if the cooking is good enough the pleasure achieved can rival great sex. The intense pleasure of good company can rival the "afterglow." We're socialized to put sex in a different sphere, and I'd like to see a liberated society get away from that. I'd like to see a liberation movement get away from that.

your comrade,

chegitz guevara
SUN! SURF! SOCIALISM!

To Gangbox and Chegitz G., más o menos:

Don't you find it a little fascinating that this topic has received 107 responses, while something about say Nepal has received half that many?

Anyway...re Andrea Dworkin. Like I said originally, I didn't always agree with her but found her provocative, and at least willing to be controversial. Even her attitudes toward controversy were controversial. But often times she was misquoted or misinterpreted (she had many law suits pending to prove it)--e.g. heterosexual sex being "rape." What she did say in "Intercourse" was that it was invasive, almost likening the male to an imperialist, which to me was ridiculous and extreme. But as far as "helping the capitalist state criminalize adult media producers" I personally could care less about the adult media producers and care much more about whether or not pornography is exploitative, abusive, and bolsters the objectification of women. Furthermore, those same adult media producers make a bundle off of the exploitation of women. So do you think Dworkin and thousands of others, men and women, were in error to "Take Back the Night" and expose (if you will) pornography (and sexism) in the first place? Ironically, Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon backpeddled on pornography because of the First Amendment, and were in a dilemma about the exploitative workings of pornography vs. censorship. (A tricky question for sure.) But all of this should be viewed in the context of a capitalist/imperialist society.

My main point about Dworkin was more about her analysis of homophobia and the hypocrisy even amongst more revolutionary forces when it comes to sexism.

Think there is a HUGE difference between snuff films and say the art of Robert Mapplethorpe! Even his "X" photos were more a display of some of what was happening in the gay community before the onslaught of AIDS, and not some "sadistic" titillation while the Jessie Helms types were having coronaries about all of Mapplethorpe's photos.

As far as androgyny goes...well, not my bag, but in a more open and less oppressive society there's room for that too. And as far as "The Handmaid's Tale" goes...hey written long before the RCP's freneticism around Christian fascists rising to power. THT wasn't just about Christian fundamentalists and/or fascists, it had everything to do with how women are viewed within those ranks...and those same views reinforced by the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Seems to me we have to look at things more all-sidedly and not take them out of context or put our own personal preferences at the helm (or Jessie Helm(s).) But I think that both the responses from Chegitz and Gangbox get away from what the main deviation is when it comes to sex, as well as human relations, even if you prefer fucking a giraffe on some "free"way.

SEX SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT POWER...BUT sexism is all about power over others, most prevalent over women.

Andrea Dworkin has been labeled a "misandrist"--misandry being the hatred of men. There are numerous men who are misogynists (overtly and covertly). In the new society we are striving for we can't afford to be labeled misanthropes--but instead somewhat like Chegitz said, striving for a liberated society that is not based on exploitation and oppression (and the outright avariciousness of a few)--where none of us gets fucked over.

Gangbox,

Can you write a little more about what you have read of Dworkin, Atwood and Piercy?

Dworkin is a contradictory figure. I think her expansive definition of rape was wrong (if nonetheless fruitfully provocative of critical self-reflection) and I saw her anti-porn work up close in Minneapolis and think it was deeply misguided. At the same time I found her actual writings to be much more nuanced and compelling than the public caricatures and soundbites of her that most people felt was all they needed to know. She was ferocious in her determination to bring before our eyes the very real victims of the porn and sex industries. While I think her characterization of how porn shapes ideology was mechanical I also think it is naive to pretend that it hasn't had massively pernicious effects. I don't embrace her solutions, but I think we ignore her critiques at our peril.

I agree that Atwood's dystopian book shares some central features witht the RCP's view of the threat of Christian Fascism. The critical difference being that one pretends to be a scientific analysis of the present trajectory of US society while the other is a dystopian novel. The point of a dystopian novel, I would think, is not to predict what is actually coming but rather to think through some possible implications of current trends. I don't think Christian Fascism is the dominant tendency within the US ruling class or eventhe Bush administration, but I do think it is in the mix and worth contemplating the possibility for it to gain the upper hand in a moment of crisis. I think, for example, that in a context in which the ruling class felt compelled to resort to wholesale repression of popular movements that there would be a powerful tendency to give an enhanced role to the religious right.

Finally, on androgyny in "Woman on the Edge of Time" I think again the question is what we ask speculative novels to do. I get the sense from your comments that you regard any expectation that you look critically at your own masculinity as something other than a force of nature as some sort of intolerable hassle. Piercy's androgynous utopia is an attempt to envision a society that doesn't oppress women. I think such thought experiments are worthwhile even when the particular solutions arrived at are unsatisfying. I've been struck here by the characterizations of the RCP's internal culture around male sexuality. As a matter of policy I of course agree that celibacy is a non-starter, but I do respect the radical willingness to uproot existing man-woman relations and I'd be interested in seeing a more extended discussion of how central this was to the RCP's internal culture. I do think that there needs to be room for people to experiment with such things as they work through the ways this society has made them complicit in women's oppression.

My basic view is that if we take womens oppression seriously we need to also take seriously the way that a sexist society constructs men as "masculine," think what that is in the service of and be prepared to fight it. Real life and literary experiments in celibacy and androgyny seem like neccesary starting points more than ultimate solutions to figuring out how to construct a counter-sexuality that does all the things we needto do. I understand why people might not have big expectations of such experiments, but the hostility directed towards them suggests that they touch nerves and we should be open to investigating what that is about.

In this vein I had a professor who once said something to the effect that when you find yourself experiencing a revulsion towards an idea before you've even really taken the time to think about it that there is a good chance it has touched on matters, that for reasons of psychology or socialization, you are seeking to avoid thinking about and that this is a good reason to make a real active effort to really entertain the idea and to try to excavate the reasons for your revulsion. Its a proposition that has forced me to constantly rethink not just deeply felt and cherished views but also vast areas of personal ignorance. Its forced to me to see my own discomfort as a productive thing.

There is a big difference between Handmaid's Tale and BA's "Coming CW".

Handmaid's Tale is fiction. The author was not suggesting that this is where things are literally (or necessarily) going. she took a movement and a way of thinking and said (to herself and her readers) "Ok, let's imagine an America where these people have their way..."

And that produced a biting satire, and a revealing social critique in the form of fictional distopia.

By contrast, BA implies that this kind of Christian fascist culture/state is where the dynamics of dominant politics are almost certainly heading if not prevented by a powerful oppositional movement that can (in his view) only really effectively be led by himself and his followers. It is reductionist, and simplistic. (Many people have pointed out its two extreme manifestation in print: "God the Original Fascist," and the posters that imply that girls will be stoned or executed for dressing as a witch on halloween etc.)

One is fiction, the other is hyped prediction based on reductionist analysis.

As LindaD points out: Handmaid's tale was both prophetic (in the way it pointed to the growing danger, which started with the rise of the Religious Right as blowback to the 60s) and engaging.

The RCP's analysis was a snapshot of what was happening at the time it was written, but has seemed less and less prophetic as time has gone on. Certainly the Christian Right is around, and we will hear from it again. It is a part of the reactionary coalition that may remain in power after November. And it has "marked" the dominent culture in some lasting ways, already. And it has succeeded in some arenas -- the judiciary has been a focus of their demands on their various coalition partners, and an area of creeping ascendency, and their influence in schools and the military are also worth noting *and combating*.

But the predicition that no other section of the ruling class could get a coherent program together to challenge them.... (see BA's Pyramid Piece which generalizes that moments Democratic politics and projects that moment's weakness as a fundamental trend) well, that prediction (on which so much was based, tactically and strategically) was simply wrong. The Dems may still lose (obviously, perhaps likely!) but who can deny that they have an oppositional program (or even that forces among the republicans have come up with a program less marked by Christian rightism)?

Here are some details missing from those assessments: First the Christian Right is a minority (even among republicans). And the overestimation of their "hard-core" character rested on the assumption of too close a correspondence between fundamentalism and fascism. In fact, while Christian fundamentalists (especially in the south, and in their geographic areas of hegemony) tend to form a hard core "voting block" (and political base) -- this is not simply true overall. There are plenty of Jimmy Carter Baptists... In other words, the real theocrats (those who really want a theocratic Christian state) are a minority among Religious Rightists, who are themselves a minority among Republicans.

These are forces who work in coalition (within a ruling class coalition) to get a seat at the table. And they were given some payback for their efforts (particularly a veto over judiciary appointments, and influence over federal reproductive policy, like birthcontrol policy for foreign aid etc.) They have, as they will quickly tell you, been bitterly disappointed with Republican governments on abortion (from reagan to bush 1 and bush 2) they think they got lipservice and rhetoric but no action. And the reason is that any party that forces through a ban on abortion will have to deal with the major political fall out for years (knowing well that there remains close to a majority of people pretty clearly supporting women's choice).

Is there a clear rise of christian fascism that is serving as a "stage manager" for a rev in this country -- comparable to the Japanese invasion of China....? (This is the core theory of BA's analysis of the political moment four years ago.) No. They had a growing influence with Bush's election (and then his re-election)... but that moment passed and the situation quickly became more complex. With the fiasco in Iraq (lack of quick victory) and the departure of (the genuinely christian fascist) Ashcroft from the Justice Department, and the related congressional victory of Dems in 2006 -- all of these trends shifted. These trends could shift again, of course. McCain could pick a religious running mate and pass away in his first month of office -- which could change things again. But such new twists would not make the BA analysis of larger trends any more correct.

Put another way: Handmaid's tale was prophetic fiction. BA's Coming Civil War was simplistic analysis that proved somewhat fictional in its lack of prophetic power.

Dworkin is thought provoking and does good exposure. But she is wrong on that: Not all sex between men and women in this society is rape. It is simplistic, one-sided, pessmistic, and misses what else goes on.

People can and do carve out moments and spaces of mutual love and support -- in struggle against the counterpressures in society (and within themselves). Even as we all struggle for a larger society whose values and structures make those moments more common and generalized.

And that means we have to have a sense of proportion:

The traditional family (which has many forms and variations, including classic dating, teenage pairings, child abuse, ) is a major source of intimate oppressions, and needs to be our major target for exposure and radical rethinking. We need to speak to the quiet unhappiness men and women (and girls and boys) have with what this society "offers" them (and imposes on them).

That means a few things:

Unlike previous c movements, we can't mainly target the fringes of sexuality (for criticism as "decadent") as if the core relations (i.e. the traditional family) is OK.

And it also means that we have to understand that most people find important solace and value in their families (in raising kids, in being loved, in having ongoing connections) -- and not mock or dismiss all that in a generalized, one-sided and cranky way.

We can't be so locked into our assumptions (in general favor of monogamous marriage, for example) that we take a jaded view of experimental and alternative sexualities.

Part of that is having living discussions (especially among people in high school and college) about what revolutionary views toward relationships are, and how we think people should treat each other in intimate relations, and how to struggle for that (both by creating a social culture for it, and by making it part of the relationships themselves.)

What does that look like?

I think we (i.e. as a rev movement) need to be strongly, fundamentally, loudly and fearlessly against the oppression of women. Not just the forms it takes in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but the also horrific (but very different) forms it takes here. We need to call it out -- the date rape, the physical abuse, the belittling of women, the sale of sexuality, the unrelenting objectification of women as things and toys, etc.

And i think we need to do it in a way that doesn't seem bitter, hostile to men generally, pessimistic about love and human contact, or devoid of enthusiasm for human pleasure and intimacy.

Linda D. Says: "SEX SHOULDN’T BE ABOUT POWER…BUT sexism is all about power over others, most prevalent over women."

But here's the thing. <i>Everything</i> in class society is about power over others. Sex is no different in this regard than eating, working, drinking at a public water fountain, etc.

Wish I had the energy to respond further to Nando, Redflags, and TellNoLies and their thought-provoking responses...but instead will have to settle for a quick response to Chegitz:

Everything is everything...right Bud?

What a cop out...

There's way too many people on this planet, and little wonder with the number of posts on this thread.

BTW Linda D. I posted a follow-up to you over at the "Flat Earth" thread. Thanks for the memories. No pun intended on this thread, either.

i, for one, don't think its true. And, I specifically don't like any implication that since we (supposedly) can't get away from such power relations, we should accept being part of them (and reproducing them ourselves.)

Yes, if you raise kids in this society, the school, the state, the ties of economic dependence, etc. force you to be a certain kind of parent and exercise certain kinds of authority... but that does not provide us a reason to abdicate our responsibility to struggle through to relations that are not typical (and that don't simply mirror the dominant, traditional models of intimate relations).

We live in the framework of class society. It stamps (but need not define) all our relations and all our ideas.

I sincerely appreciate everyone's contributions to rethinking Dworkin. I feel a bit humbled as I think I should go back and read her one more time.

As a queer feminist I more often fell on the other side of these debates arguing against restrictions on pornography. We tended to argue that anti-porn feminists were sex prohibitionists and drew more reasonable linkages to there "anti-sex" politics that tended to treat men, BDSM, porn, eroticism, sex and gender expression all as pariahs.

That said, and I've mentioned this before on this thread it is worthwhile looking at the queer community as both a real world model (with all its faults) of the utopian feminist novels of the 1970s. Discussions of challenging masculinity sound so good on paper but when played out in the real world there contradictions readily appear.

The weirdness of some feminist and anarchist shunning people rather than engaging them and alternatives forms of masculinity actually have and are being explored in our world in all there grandness and limitations.

Redflags -

What do you mean by class character? Please elaborate?

Some comments that will not do the thoughtful responses justice...but am pressed for time.

And BTW...thank you Cassiusghost for your other (heartfelt) comments on the DWTMI post.

Am a little hesitant to make blanket statements, because often times Mike (or Nando) refreshes my memory, and I realize as far as the RCP or rev.com.jargon goes, am lots of times incorrect. Sorry folks...however...

Just a couple of things on Dworkin, male bashing, etc. As far as "rape" goes--there has been a lot of debate as to whether or not Dworkin was equating heterosexual sex with "rape" or heterosexual sex as being "invasive" for women. And while I personally don't think that heterosexual sex is necessarily invasive (Hello, we are physically different, ¿verdad?)--I can't help but think Dworkin was making a larger point here. My interpretation of Dworkin's invasive proposition was that she wanted to reveal women's traditional role sexually--e.g., that more often than not, men are dominant--exemplified by sex, but symbolic of the society at large. Personally, I find it invasive when a man just assumes he can "woo" me (whoa, I just gave away my age!)because of course I'd think he was attractive and he doesn't know shit about me. Or the fact that I can't freely take a walk, without some idiot hassling me. Etc. Am sure every single woman, be they straight or gay knows what I'm talking about.

Rape, on the other hand, is something very different. Rape is NOT a sexual act, but an outright violent crime against both women and men. It has nothing to do with mutual or consentual sex, love-making, sexual preference, etc. It is one of the ultimate "power trips". (Mike, you can correct me if necessary but what I thought significant in revolutionary China was that rape was considered a capital offense--above murder!)

So when Chegitz lumped everything, ala power over others together, in a class society, I went into orgasmic convulsions.

Chegitz: "But here’s the thing. Everything in class society is about power over others. Sex is no different in this regard than eating, working, drinking at a public water fountain, etc."

So is sexism, racism, ageism, classism, etc. on par with eating, drinking and being merry? or not merry depending on your position in class society? When we talk about transforming society, social relations and people's thinking, where the hell do we start? At a drinking fountain?--although under Jim Crow a drinking fountain was an appropriate place to do battle. Yes, we have a shitload of contradictions to deal with, but what's primary and secondary, or even tertiary? General and particular, etc.

As Nando pointed out: "We live in the framework of class society. It stamps (but need not define) all our relations and all our ideas." I might add to that that I think, in terms of say sexism and male chauvinism, we are all "victims" of this rancid system and its ideology. I don't like being a victim!

In small part in answer to some of what Saoirse touched on: Here's what I see as a problem, as people righteously fight against their oppression, whatever form that may take. Often times, a particular oppressed and exploited "group" thinks they have a monopoly on being oppressed. I say it is time for people to have more compassion, and downright outrage at any form of oppression be it racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, classism, etc. Aren't we about liberating humankind?

Also, don't you think that a lot of these feminists (or separatists) were proposing and envisioning a more "utopian" society in reaction to the outright reactionary society we live in and not simply engaging in male bashing?

Redflags asked: Is this the same as the argument that every piece of art, every sentiment has a “class character”?

This is a very legitimate question, and one that we hopefully can discuss further. Maybe we can start with a debate about Mao's Yunan Forum?

P.S. to Redflags re Ursula LeGuin--wow, haven't thought about her in ages. To me she was coming more from an anthropologist's point of view but always thought it interesting that she tried to create a universal language, kind of like Esperanto, to try and break down language barriers between people.

I think you have grossly misinterpreted me.

"So is sexism, racism, ageism, classism, etc. on par with eating, drinking and being merry? or not merry depending on your position in class society?"

Not necessarily, but <i>sex</i> is "par with eating, drinking and being merry," and the <i>act of sex</i> is what we are discussing. <i>Sex,</i> like every other relationship in class society, is mediated through power relationships. I'm a man, my wife is a woman. I'm white, she's black. I'm employed, she's not, etc. No matter how decent a person I may be, no matter how much we strive to create an egalitarian relationship, it will never be egalitarian, because while I may reject the power, it exists. It cannot be escaped, and both of us are aware of this (her more than me). Within <i>this</i> society, we can only fight against it. We cannot defeat it permanently. We must destroy this society in order to destroy the power I have. (We could also destroy me, but I find that a rather unpleasant option).

This is no different from <i>any other relationship that exists in class society.</i> My boss, no matter how decent a human being he is, always holds power over me. I cannot escape this. If I go to a restaurant, I hold power over the waiter. No matter how decent a human being I am, I decide whether or not he gets paid, and he is completely aware of that throughout the relationship. Every relationship in class society is a power relationship.

So what privileges <i>sex</i> over every other type of human relationship as a special concern for communists to scrutinize, to make decisions about?

My argument is that it should not be. While I wouldn't argue that it should be like drinking a glass of water, I might argue it should be like drinking a glass of really good wine. Neither the intensity nor the sensuality put sex onto a higher plane. Thanks to advances in contraception, it has <i>largely</i> been decoupled from its procreative aspect. If it's the act itself, then why don't we discuss autoeroticism? We're only concerned in these discussions with sexual relations between two or more people, and once you involve more than one person, a power relationship enters in to the picture.

It is the power relationship, not the sexual nature of the act, then, that is the key. <i>This</i> is what we need to attack. This is what we need to examine and overthrow. If we destroy the relationships of power in our society, racism, sexism, etc., then the act of sex becomes free. That's what I want. I don't want communists telling me how to fuck or who to fuck or who I can't fuck. I don't think anyone else does either.

I agree with Chegitz Guevara:
&gt;I don’t want communists telling me how to fuck or who to fuck or who I can’t fuck. I don’t think anyone else does either.

"The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an nightmare on the brains of the living," not least in matters of human
sexuality. Chegitz Guevara's analogy with food and eating is useful to explore. Consider how absurd the early
denunciations of gluttony now seem: "Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony." I anticipate that imprecations
against sexual pleasure, including moralism that is confused with struggle against gender oppression, someday will seem equally ridiculous. That in no way implies that there is not such a thing as enlightened self-interest, or a conflict of
interests, or a mutuality of interests, in either sex or food (not excluding the interests of the animal being consumed).

I think it's wisest to sever the political from the moral, since Western leftists descend into moralism so readily. Communism,
in which individual interest and social interest no longer stand in opposition, is not the "Reign of Virtue." Marx, who wrote,
"We do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one," is not
Rousseau, who wrote, "if it is good to know how to deal with men as they are, it is much better to make them what there is need that they should be. The most absolute authority is that which penetrates into a man's inmost being, and concerns itself no less with his will than with his actions." Reactionaries, as well as pseudo-Marxists like Zizek, make the error of
confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat with Terror, "the dictatorship of Virtue."

The statement, "I think our approach to different forms of sexuality CAN’T simply be liberal tolerance and laissez-faire" is itself imprisoned by the discourse of liberalism; there exist only the options of liberalism and anti-liberalism. What is
absent, what cannot be conceived, is the self-liberation of the oppressed.

[...] On Telling Each Other &#8220;How to Fuck&#8221; [...]

[...] continues several discussions here on Kasama including &#8220;On telling each other how to fuck&#8221; and Jed Brandt&#8217;s &#8220;Misuses of the Erotic: Debate Among [...]