File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9804, message 147

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:46:02 +0200
Subject: M-TH: Re: Good sex is for normal people

Yoshie is so far over the top here that she's in orbit.

However (for the record, since Yoshie herself has stopped listening to what
people are actually saying, and refuses to acknowledge it):

Yoshie writes:

>Procreationists find themselves fundamentally in opposition to women's
>attempt to enlarge our realm of freedom, because the 'necessity' Hugh is
>speaking of here is a burden carried by women, not men.

In the first place, Yoshie's definition of "procreationist" is ridiculous.
It covers everybody (presumably man or woman) who thinks that sex is
related to procreation. The number of people who seriously think that sex
has nothing whatever to do with procreation is minimal. This does not mean
that every act or reflection concerning sex is directly and materially
going to produce a baby or should produce a baby. It merely means, as more
and more people are pointing out, that there is a sufficient statistical
relation between our procreational needs and the sexual behaviour by which
these are satisfied. Enough babies are produced out of the myriad different
sexual acts and behaviours of  individuals to reproduce humanity.

I don't think Yoshie accepts that there is a biological need for humanity
to reproduce, otherwise she wouldn't fail to grasp this simple relationship.

What she definitely fails to grasp is the biological distinction between
the sexes when it comes to the mechanics of reproduction. Women carry the
baby. Thus she can write the following lunacy:

>Hugh doesn't know
>enough to recognize that positing 'social necessity' in the naturalized
>link of sex, sexuality, and reproduction makes for diffrential burdens for
>men and women. Under his communism, women will never be equal to men.

My 'social necessity' is the necessity for humanity to reproduce itself. If
Yoshie rejects this, that's her privilege.

The link between sex, sexuality and reproduction that Yoshie is attacking
is one that she has demonized, not one that I have made. Because I say that
procreation is the necessary ground of our sexual behaviour, Yoshie claims
that I am promoting a moral and intentional imperative that every sex act
and thought must and should be aimed towards procreation. Like James H, she
can't handle the inescapable necessities of our social existence, and
thinks that freedom consists of the complete annihilation of necessity.
This is so amazingly idealistic that even Doug reacts:

>Too bad we have to work all the time to make the fucking car payments.

As for the differential burdens of men and women, Yoshie is the one who is
completely trapped in a naturalized argument. Refusing to accept the
biological differences between men and women with respect to procreation,
she imagines, it seems, that any society in which women get pregnant and
men don't will be basically unjust.

There is a difference between saying "women will never be equal to men" and
"women will never be the same as men". So far Yoshie has given no sign
whatever that she understands this difference. If she does, then it's time
for her to tell the list what her view of an equal society would look like
in this respect, and how it would differ from mine, in which I say that all
the procreative needs of humanity would probably be taken care of by
voluntary reproductive behaviour, with the women bearing the babies in
their wombs and men and society assisting as best they can.



     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005