You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #71: While he is a male [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Women's Rights Donate to DU
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
71. While he is a male
Justice Potter Stewart says something both cogent and vexing when he says "I know it when I see it."

Vexing because it admits that a justice of the SCOTUS cannot define porn. This subjectivity is the root of this hydra.

Certainly, photos of lynching, child abuse, etc are not enjoyable to healthy individuals. But when compiling history, say of the lynchings in Omaha in 1919, that same photo might be very illuminating.


Also, I try not to be normative about human sexuality unless it is pathological. Sure, there is an awful lot of sick stuff out there. But that is because our society struggles to find a healthy way to express sexuality in a punitively normative church/media/state environment. Our cultural neurosis on sex allowed us to do essentially nothing for the initial half decade of the AIDs epidemic out of some misplaced shadenfreude regarding the sexual other. The tone and tenor of this discussion has shown that the ability to discuss sexuality without is being about the participant's aesthetics rather than discourse about a very complex subect in an objective way.

I am just saying a lot of people who are very worked up about porn/erotica (two spots on the continuum between undeniable depravity and petty flirtation) are just as worked up about almost any sexual expression. Here I refer to the 'all penetration is rape' rhetoric of folks who mimic Lysistrata, without the inflatable penii, or other visible signs of humor.

The first diagnostic sign of neurosis rather than rational concern is that when someone has to ignore a post that is not adopting this Dwarkinian view of sexual expression.


I don't waste time usually spreading my bona fides, but trust me, as a Wiccan priest of thirty plus years, who has done handfastings and pastoral counseling for couples of all stripes, I recognize that there is such a thing as abusive, pathological sex. But for every unambiguous example of unacceptable behavior there are several less egregious, harder to define as unambiguously unacceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Women's Rights Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC