hmmm, thoughtfulness!

You said: [Floyd Dell's Love in the Machine Age] revealed a prominent antipuritan of the 1930s using the dire threat of homosexuality as his rationale for greater heterosexual freedom. The [New York] Times [Book Review] quoted Dell's warning that current abnormal social conditions kept the young dependent on their parents, causing "infantilism, prostitution and homosexuality." Also quoted was Dell's attack on the "inculcation of purity" that "breeds distrust of the opposite sex." Young people, Dell said, should be "permitted to develop normally to heterosexual adulthood." "But," The Times reviewer emphasized, "such a state already exists, here and now." And so it did. Heterosexuality, a new gender-sex category, had been distributed from the narrow, rarified realm of a few doctors to become a nationally, even internationally, cited aspect of middle class life. == What came to my mind was how the social sciences SYSTEMATICALLY "dance around" actually going to the heart of the difficulty, to bring change. Instead, they incrementally APPEAR to change things, similar to how the automobile industry only slooooooowwwwwwly "evolves" its cars (I'm not so sure that the new carphone is an evolution tho!). Too much $$$$ are being made for the solution to be gotten "too quickly", and SO MANY are SO INVESTED in that status-quo. That's what my institutional analysis leads me to see, anyway. Comments? You said: What has been and is the social function of sexual categorizing? Whose interests have been served by the division of the world into heterosexual and homosexual? Do we dare not draw a line between those two erotic species? Is some sexual naming socially necessary? Would human freedom be enhanced if the sex-biology of our partners in lust was of no particular concern, and had no name? In what kind of society could we all more freely explore our desire and our flesh? == Well, as my analysis leads me to see, the proverbial "Bottom Line" is about how empire builds up. How it organizes the masses to do its "bidding". How its masses willingly sacrifice the lives of their sons for its profit-driven terrorism, er, "wars" at home and abroad. Sexual categorizing helps put a mass movement into boxes so that everyone gets divided via the "manufacture of consent" (the propaganda to which we "First Worlders" are inundated and psychologically enslaved). Yes, oppressed persons (like those refusing the binary) seem to need to name their difference in this context. As for the last sentence, i happen to think that the kind of society we'd all be more free within would be a society not addicted to propaganda/thought control of all (masses, middle management, and elites). One where institutions would not need HYPE to mobilize for their supremacy (i.e. today's social sciences taking up where the State Church left off in terms of anti-sensual/sexual desires). Then there'd be no thugs to scare us back into the ideological corrals that keep all divided and conquered.