Compare and contrast. First, this statement from a young feminist writing in the UK’s left-of-center publication New Statesman:

Until they stop doing so, any revolution will be incomplete, because women are not just afterthoughts in the global fight against tyranny and austerity. Any “revolution in favour of the people”, of the sort that Anonymous anticipates in its guide, will not be worth having if it does not agitate for social, political and sexual liberation for every single one of its members. To paraphrase Emma Goldman: if I can’t wear a short skirt, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.

Second, this statement in the combox from on the “Sex and the single seminarian” thread, from an academic theologian:

Finally, let me briefly note that sexual obedience does have a major impact on economic justice. It is all nice and easy for white middle-class people to enjoy their sexual pleasure without consequences, but I teach in a place where more than a quarter of my students are black single moms who have been economically devastated by the sexual liberation enjoyed by the middle class. The separation of sex, love, and procreation has had dreadful consequences for my students and for their impoverished children. This isn’t just an issue of prudery, but one that has serious consequences in the lives of women and children, though ones that most of us, sheltered in our middle class enclaves, rarely see.

As Niall, who sent the New Statesman clip, drily notes, “Ah yes, because sexual liberalism and economic justice never, ever come into conflict…”