Thanks for the comments. We can always count on figleaf for a fresh, erudite angle on a question. I do think there many ways to play and there will be creepy ones, and exciting ones, and liberating ones, and oppressive ones. I posted this thread because "anarchy kink" got me thinking about this site (SitPS) and my own conviction that sex does belong in the public square in some ways, and that I want to push against the cultural and legal frameworks that insist on it being private or contained (within particular expressions in the commercial sphere)...but also my experience among sex-pos/kink/bdsm types that often display a kind of libertarian attitude: to each his own, your kinks okay-my kinks okay, stay out of my business, I'll stay out of yours, etc. This doesn't really work for me either, though I hesitate to say state it so baldly. (I also feel like I have to give the caveat that 95% of my experience has been in Texas, so factor that in.) But, does the whole sex-pos project suffer (or even work) if the practices of public discourse and engagement aren't there? Is there a relation at all?

I think the anarchist rejection of representation is connected here - the people that matter are the people in the room, the people that show up. A lot of people find that pretty naive as a way of organizing a society, but it fits the BDSM ethos - you have to show up, communicate, put your self out there. There's a widespread assumption that this is happening whenever kinky people are playing. I hope so. But we don't know, really. Is that a problem for"sex in the public square"?

ps - I'm traveling for a few days sans computer. I'll catch up with you fine folks later...

RC McCloud also writes at The Safe Word