Wed, 15 May 1996 16:06:48 -0400

It seems to me much of the emphasis on sex among us political-and-cultural
radicals during the late sixties came out of the Reich/PerlsHefferlineGoodman
/DHLawrence/and Wlylie-esque-pop-advice to women, repeated by many a horny
intellectual beloved, that "sexual maturity = ability to love
(healthily/maturely) = super (vaginal (f.)) orgasms" dogma, perhaps a mirror
of the search for naturalness and/or tenderness warped by everything in WASP
culture from frontier Victoriana through the Cold War.
Combined with the search to escape the Ego (as well as superego,
obviously)--which after all was our internal version of the System that made
war--and thus to escape from "judging"--this led nicely to the belief that a
healthy, mature, free (non-egobound) person could make love joyously with
anyone. And if, a loving person, would, necessarily.
It's too easy to knock/laugh, now, at what's dated in this. There was also
something genuinely outreaching, opening, searching. Of course, many of us
were hurt; but many of us (also) grew.
I think it is that seeking to extend beyond the bounds (of ego, of
S/system) that linked the political and cultural movements, to a large
extent, by the way.
And isn't there something in this--or in our idealism, generally--we still
believe? and/or that WAS/IS true?
Paula Friedman