-‘ Enos

by: STAN DALTON ” *

This article is an extension to last weeks,"Dialect of Liberation". What I pro— poe to do is‘to show how ,the relationship of the sexes will be perceived and what possible forms they may take. The central thesis of my argument in last weeks'Cadre' was that in order for true liberation to be possible, men must cease to be "men" insofar as that role defines them, and women must cease ‘

‘ to be "Woman" fOr the same

reason: the reason being

»that they were prevented from

being— a "Self" so long as they were caste in a role. When they transcend the role differentiation true lib- eration is then possible: this would be manifested

by "Selves" relating to ” "SelVes" which are sex-~ ually,racially,politically, ‘and religiously, undiffer- entiated.

'To begin then: As is now stands, the pro- per relationships between the sexes is socially, politiCally, and religious— ly defined. Marriage must.be a heterosexual relationship, it excludes homosexual re- lationships because they are considered deviant. They are N_also non-procreative.- ' The male and female roles take on a new form in marr— iage: they become "husband" and "wife." These new roles

carry with them very specific

definitions which serve to reinforce the original - male - female distinction. Not only does society and .its institutions have a "life-plan" for men as "men" and women as "women", but

it also‘has outlined the new

roles of "husband" and "wife".

The individual, again, finds

himself struggling from with-

in a role, the nature of which was determined by others before him. He is expected to relate to this "woman" as "wife" as "man" as "husband". Indeed, they are to love! but loving is the free act of the free"Self". No need to worry though, for society has already outlined just how one acts towards ones "spouse" in a loving way.

it

All you need to do is-respond

' accordingly. Do not be sur- prised that you Will find yourself forced to respond,

beCause so far there has been

no freedom in which to act

or love freely and genuinely.

When one‘s "Self" has been 'immersed in a role there can 'be no true love — the kind which cements relationships— rather, it must be feigned: one must "act as though one loved" (say all the approp— riate "things", do "what_ loving spOuses do", etc.)

EXIIA'LI‘I'Y (a 'I-IOM

The enlightened, liberated "Self" is free from this drudgery. It loves freely. ‘ No role of any kind deter- mines how it will act or with whom. All decisions belong to it alone. It can love makes as well as fe- males and in the same way, for it does not choose on

ithe basis of sex because it

is\sexually undifferentiated. Heterosexuality then is the exclusive relationship of one sex with its opposite. That is, it is "proper"for men" to relate to "women" exClusively.Although "men" may relate to "men", but

not sexually. The roles and their definition determine this.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is sexual relationships

- with those of one's own sex.

This is deviant because it

is not "provided for" by soc- iety. It is socially unprod- uctive(e.g. children) and does not fit into the social fabric in any way which could contribute to the growh th of society and its instite utions. _

Does this imply that society does not have the interests of the individual in mind,

but rather is only concerned,

with its own growth‘and de— velopment and therefore structures all roles to serve that end? Yes!

The liberated individual will not have "hetero— sexuality" and "homosex- uality" as part of his vocabulary because it is not to particular sexes ,he relates.He is relating to” '" Self"‘ or "Selves"which are sexually undifferentiat—

ed. That means a "man" can

'love a "man"as well as a "woman" Also, he will be

capable of genuine love

because of his freedom

and enlightenment.As it is

today, love is’not poss-

ible for the vast majority

THE CADRE, APRIL 3, 1973. PAGE 9

OSEXUALITY

because of their immersion in roles which define love and its actsaLove is not determined by any role! Love is the free act of a free "individual".

It is amusing to watch you today as you first choose a mate then set out to love her (or him) a though love were comma ded!

One fist loves then 0 e chooses — on the basi of that love. It is easy to understand the comtem or- ary marital dilemma. ll marriages today are 0 the inauthentic kind-determined by society. They are des- tined to fall apart—they may not divorce but will "adjust" in order to keep some semblance of a marr- iage or to "save face". Obviously these marriages are not based on love-if they were it would be. super flures to marry in the social sense.True love is the only binding

force-law is not ad— equate. And, where law is necessary there is not love.

Has it never occured to you that you all date in the same fashion? Of course there are tiny differences, but not of importance! Could it be that because of this same- ness in dating practices you are all falling into these socially-prescribed dating roles which are preparatory for the true gruesome roles of"husband"

“sdfifi "wife"? Yes! this is true.

This is further shown where some of you seek to be different in your dating practices. This is the struggle of the in- dividual trying to shake off his role—or, at least, to find some individuality within it° But, for the most part, you conform.

‘9‘. ,-'::——I§...—~~ . l'»3’l‘ ‘if‘fw Jul ‘—

az ‘ L

/

Vuetnam Report: We are deptoyed in an area Wthh might have Been a hash forest at One tune extending

eastward through terram scorched and churned to a cluster of annihilated race paddles. A halt mile tarther

andshghflytothe nonhtsprobamya wHagesne.asevdencedbytherewmuwsofa;hwken:00p.ThereIsno fohage;no wgn oflnev '