Anthony, in the comment above, in your response to KerwinK, you wrote something that confused me and I'm looking for a clarification. (In other words, I'm not raising any argument for or against. I just need to better understand a distinction you are making.) Here is the quoted passage:

Yes, a union does need to represent the collective needs of its members, and it certainly must defend its members' interests. And yes, indeed, those dancers, if they were worried about being priced out of their livelihoods by dancers who were willing to "go further", had every right to use their collective bargining power to protect and defend their jobs. My dissent is NOT about that at all...and please, try not to put words to that extent in my mouth.

My dissent to your argument is simply this, though: when you talk about how "individual sexual freedoms" should be trumped by the collective will of the "majority" and that the "sexual freedom" of individual dancers who choose to "go further" should be constrained by those in the majority who don't want to go that far, how am I to react other than to say that you are condoning restricting the sexual choices of people???

I am not clear about the distinction between "using collective bargaining power to protect and defend their jobs" which you seem to agree is a good thing (and which would have, in the instance we've been discussing, involved limiting other people's sexual freedom at work) and allowing the "sexual freedom of individual dancers who choose to go further" to be "trumped by the collective will of the majority."

Can you clarify the difference between those two kinds of collective power constraining freedoms of individuals? I think that's the part that we're all bumping heads on, and if we could clear up that difference I have a feeling we'd either all be saying the same thing, or at least we'd more clearly understand where the disagreement lies. Or I would, anyway. (Wow, how self-centered of me! ;) )

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth