Against Government Definitions of Sex Offenders
I just received ULK 55. I would like to offer a clarification in the area of so-called "sex offenders." Now I will speak of the situation in Corruptardo (as most call this imprisonment state) only, as I am not sure what other states are doing in this area. Also, I will speak of the "causation" of "sex phobia" which infects most Amerikans.
In Colorado, a sex charge does not automatically indicate a "rape" situation where a victim was forced to do something. Three actions which will bring a sex charge are: 1. Someone caught pissing on an alley dumpster at night; 2. Someone caught pissing on a bush in a park; 3. A juvenile (14) who pats a girl on the butt while she stands in front of him in line in school. Also, in Colorado someone caught "mooning" someone from out a car window, or "streaking" (as was big in the 1970s), can be charged with a sex offense, and, required to register as an SO. The first three situations are from actual cases (people) that I know.
So just because someone is labeled by a sex phobic system as an SO, it does not mean that he/she hit someone over the head and dragged them into the bushes.
Nothing freaks out an Amerikan more than almost anything to do with sex(!). Want to torpedo a politician, just clam he had an affair with a staffer. Want to panic a neighborhood, just let an SO move there. A robber, a mugger, a drug dealer, no problem. But sex(!!), oh shit!
All our laws and regulations about sexual conduct come from the Jews (the Pentatench, those rules say unruly children should be stoned to death), and the Christians (their bible saying "slaves obey your masters" and that wives should be submissive to their husbands). The people that brought us the flat earth, heilo-centrism (the sun revolves around the earth), and the claim that diseases are caused by demon possession, have written the laws that say when, how, at what age, and with who for any sexual action. No sex unless we say so!
As part of their education efforts, I encourage all prisoners trying to learn the how, why, when and where to research more than political science (socialist, etc.) theory. I say, look into the history of the laws that have been used to oppress you. Who wrote them? What was their agenda? Were they following a semitic religious philosophy? And what were the social/societal conditions when the law(s) were written?
Despite the claims (often unstated) by the rightists (fascists) that cry for "law and order," the laws of the U.$. did not come down with Moses (the mythical one) on stone tablets. People created them in their efforts for power (control over others, social control, control of the money).
Some books on the history of "sex" laws, or of attitudes concerning sex-related behavior (marriage, etc.) that I recommend are:
From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity by Kyle Harper
Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social Control by D. Pivar.
Marriage, History by Stephanie Coontz
Rescuing Sex from the Christians by Clayton Sullivan
Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America by Nancy Cohen
MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer raises some important points about how we define crime in the United $tates. There are many people locked up for sex crimes (and other crimes) who, under a revolutionary government, would be immediately freed. Of course, we would still fight against things like boys patting girls butts. That behavior is made acceptable by the patriarchy, and in a revolutionary society it will not be ok, and we will provide re-education for those who don't understand why. But in patriarchal society those who commit these "crimes" are no more guilty of patriarchal behavior than 90% of the males on the streets. All (males and females) will need significant re-education to overcome a lifetime of patriarchal training. That doesn't mean we need to lock everyone up in prison. And it certainly doesn't mean we trust the Amerikan criminal injustice system to decide who gets locked up.
Certainly religions have strongly influenced a backwards view of sex under patriarchal imperialist society. But the sexual Liberals draw a false dichotomy between themselves and such "social conservatives." They are merely too sides of the pornographic culture — one prefers its rape hidden in the halls of the church, the other prefers it on display for all to see. Both fetishize the power relations of the patriarchy. We are far from the time when we'll be able to eliminate laws and rules about sex. Instead we are going to need an interim period where a revolutionary government enforces revolutionary laws. These laws will dismantle the patriarchy by mobilizing those oppressed by it and re-educating the oppressors. At the same time we will be creating a culture that rejects the patriarchy and gender hierarchies and divisions and promotes equality for all people.
The Marxist approach may line up with the Liberal approach at times because it is open about talking about sex as a way to combat gender oppression. But we don't talk about it nearly as much, because most talk is just the reproduction of pornographic culture for titilation rather than scientific analysis for solving problems. In practice, Maoism in the Third World has shown the benefits of things like the separation of genders in both work and living spaces as a means to attack the patriarchy. Something Liberals are quick to condemn in the non-revolutionary states of the Muslim world today.
Some people think that MIM(Prisons) is too conservative around sex because we uphold the idea that monogamy is the best practice within revolutionary organizations. But this is necessary due to the unfortunate reality of our patriarchal culture. We just don't have the power or resources to create an alternative culture and system of government yet. And so instead we need policies and practices that do the most to fight against patriarchal culture and behavior today, while we fight for a society where these are abolished in the future.