notes toward a sexual liberation

We really do need to start talking about sex politics in the context of true social change. When you think about it, how we relate is the basis of the social.

How and why to act is still a question for deliberation. This is for now my main proposition.

The sphere of action I am deliberating in is love, intimate, sexual and friend relationships. I feel the need to defend this choice of sphere. Favi writes that speaking about open relationships is as hard as talking about the war on drugs.

— What does this mean? —

First — speaking is done to communicate something. Are we to engage in a dialogue or a polemic? Polemic. Why? Because the opposition to any argument for change in sexual relationships or the politics of intimacy is short circuited by an institutionalized desire. Design and architecture, there’s the word ergonomical, what word describes design for the couple?

The couple is “natural”, “normal”, and as such the reaction against a difference… (think about the punishment for actions outside the institutionalized couple — stonings, ostrasizing, shaming, dehumanizing) both homosexual love and extramarital love are, when you consider the actual effect of such acts, extremely punished.

The subject is not in the public sphere of variability. More harshly, the subject is taboo. Consider the love taboo. George Orwell writes of the taboo and the limitation it places on freedom.

Here’s as good as any point to connect the limit on freedom imposed by the love taboo and the connection to socail justice and democracy.

The point has its critics. The desire to maintain familial relations (exclusive love contracts), even in breakout communities (ei: same sex marriage struggles), is so strong and the image of the libertine or pervert so sticky, that any talk of sexual politics is abstracted and the sphere of deliberation actually begins outside the sphere of the body (person). The reduction of a call for a discussion of an everyday activism to its limit (ie: the limit of communal living vs. the expance of governmental directives(policy)) and the seperation of everyday life from an abstract social in which a future justice is imagined.

The complex of social relations

The bondage in love relations. parent child social bonds.

total independence and absolute freedom are fantasies. No one would argue for these, but love relations as they are practiced are excessively binding. (closure – lack of ventilation)

“Were it not that human sensibilities are ventilated and continually called out into exercise by the great phenomena of infancy, or of real life as it moves through chance and change, or of literature as it recombines these elements in the mimicries of poetry, romance, etc., it is certain that, like any animal power or muscular energy falling into disuse, all such sensibilities would gradually droop and dwindle.” – Thomas De Quincey from The Literature of Knowledge and the Literature of Power

Socialized sexual constraints as block to communal living. The discomfort of living in close proximity. resonance of desire )Bodily(  in a social where the body is subservient, secondary, base.

Emotional reactions as thought objections to communal living as inarticulable discomfort.

Good has a communal quality.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: