Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:17:11 -0800
From: DSU <jwalker-AT-fs1.li.man.ac.uk>
Subject: M-TH: Re: Toward the Abolition of Heterosexuality?


Just to continue adding my opinion.... (sorry but I do think it is quite 
an interesting topic and one which has often interested Marxists & 
Feminists)

I think one of the major issue which would face any movement taking hold 
of state power would be the issues of reproduction, sexual relations and 
family relations.

Kollontai's radical programme of the reform of sexual relation did not 
get much beyond the experimental stage and other pressures on the USSR 
left it rather unresolved. China has instigated what they see as a 
necessary population limitation programme. And from what I can gather in 
Cuba family relations have become far more relaxed and fluid.

As well as the necessities of a revolution and the building of socialism 
there will also be a necessary change in people ideology which will have 
profound effect on how they organise all aspects of their lives and 
attitudes. The effect this has I do not think can be accounted for by us 
now, which is why the question has to be related to a utopian future 
society.

Many survey and lots of people own experience show that sexuality is far 
more fluid and variable than the labels hetrosexual / homosexual allow 
for. So any change in society will threaten these division. 

I don't have any answers (no often one hear that on this list!) but I do 
hope the debate continues. 

Also just to comment on some of the previous mailings on this subject, he 
re is a few more thoughts.

Carrol wrote:
 
> the *labels* "heterosecuality" and "homosexuality" are relatively recent, and
> >that coinage of the labels corresponds to increasing social
> >self-consciousness about "manliness" and "womanliness." So
> >"heterosexuality" does not just mean a sexual practice, it means a
> >self-conscious choice to follow a certain practice. 

These terms are not that recent the arguments for and against same-sex 
versus opposite-sex sexuality were made by Plato 2500 years ago. The 
labels gay, straight, queer are more recent terms referring directly to a 
lifestyle and an attitude.

Shelia wrote:

>If heterosexuality were abolished (assuming there's a good reason for
>abolishing it, which I can't fathom anymore than a good reason for
>abolishing homosexuality...)  if it *were* abolished, would there be
>something good about continuing sexual relationships that were NOT
>hetero?

I'm not exactly sure what the person who originally chose the heading to 
this tread meant by hetrosexuality but I think it was a reference to it 
habit of leading to undesirable pregnancy and in that sense should be 
abolished - homosexuality has no such by-product and therefore is not 
comparable here.

Yoshie wrote:
> For a woman to be unmarried after a certain age, for instance, meant her
> failure to conform to the socially sanctioned ideal of womanhood in the
> past (and may be even now, depending on localities). At the time of moral
> panics, such a woman might have been burned as a witch.

The question of marriage relations are not the same as sexuality one can 
abolish marriage without abolishing hetrosexuality (you could even 
possibly abolish hetrosexuality without abolishing marriage !)

regards

john walker


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---