Disagreement with my original post in this thread in some cases meant the poster thought Thorstad's view was defensible at the time, but no longer, either because it was tried and didn't work or because feminism today is something fundamentally different from feminism in 1980. Others thought Thorstad's approach was just wrong in 1980 and remains wrong. Even though your earlier post in this thread was under the subject heading "Obsolete" I think you fall in this latter category. Perhaps our perspectives diverge over the role of the state. My view is as follows: The authoritarian state everywhere invades sexual privacy, enforces existing sexual norms, and punishes sexual difference. It does this through surveillance, propaganda, social stigmatization, and if all else fails, incarceration. Sexual liberation movements support sexual privacy, seeking to constrict the state's power to interfere with human life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, at least in this particular realm of endeavor. In your earlier post in this thread you wrote: Thorstad and NAMBLA's mistake was to think this reductionist paradigm was remotely rich enough to address the immense complexities of boy love, and human relations generally, or even to establish a ground for analysis. I would suggest that the aim of sexual liberationists is more modest than addressing the complexities of boylove and other stigmatized sexual behaviors. It is merely to carve out a space within which these complexities can be addressed free from the modern state's increasingly intrusive powers of coercion. hugzu ;-p |