responds: "I don't mind you used my comment as a post, but i'd say I was very sad to read your reply. To say that the current sexual environment is a "consumer good" is a very mean thing to say. I'm sure you don't tell gay people that their sexuality is a "consumer good". Another thing: the people championing the sexual revolution thought their approach to sex was "better" than the repressed and myth-prone approach their parents had, not just "different" or "countercultural". if tolerance and openness are dominant now, that is a GOOD thing. plus: the unbelievable smugness of this expression: "those who seek more radical social and cultural change".
LHG: Let us clarify the position taken in our offices. First, we purposefully didn't use gay rights and gay sexuality as an example because we believe that the movement toward full acceptance of gay rights - including those rights that are most controversial because of their sexuality (marriage, adoption, etc) - is perhaps the most progressive cultural/sexual movement available today, especially in the United States. Gay sex and gay sexuality, as far as we at the LHG can see, has not been turned into a consumer good.
Second, you're right, those involved in the sexual revolution thought their position was not just countercultural but better, the former word doesn't do justice to the position. But the sexual revolution wasn't just about the physical act of sex, it was, more importantly, about transforming the way people related to each other; it was about a transformation in human relationships (which is also how we understand the struggle for gay rights). Today, when heterosexual sex has seeped into every aspect of culture, from the mass media to advertising to illness to the pharmaceutical industry, abstaining from consuming heterosexual sex as a product could very well be the beginning of a change in human relationships.
Third, often "those who seek more radical social and cultural change" have fallen prey to an elitist snobbery. If so, however, the fault lies in the person and not the ambition. It seems to us that the call to consumption, made from the First world, begs the question of who's doing the consuming
. The expansion of what could be called the right to consume in the Third world would be the product of "radical social and cultural change." Within the First, however, it seems if not reactionary at least irresponsible.
PS. Are we really far apart in our views?
PSii. A recent office poll revealed that those at the LHG who abstain from sex, sadly, don't do so of their own free will.