Stephen Fry backs P Tatchell's call to revise sex education

So yes, I think Jeffreys was right- to some gay men, absolute and unrestricted sexual freedom is key and any attempt to restrict it is to be resisted

Unrestricted access to sex seems to have become a cornerstone of gay male culture and identity; a non-negotiable; an article of faith, and to question it, according to Jeffrey's, was forbidden even at the height of the epidemic. Men were content to believe that the disease had afflicted primarily gay men in a purely coincidental way - nothing to do with behaviour or lifestyle at all. It was/is thought of as 'homophobic' to question the sexual practices of the community.

In the same way that 'Trans Women are Women' is now no longer to be questioned; is an article of faith - and anyone who questions that is either transphobic, or self loathing. So much of transgenderism has borrowed concepts and practices from earlier movements.

My feeling is that if people are not permitted to question something - then we need to be looking very closely at what that 'something' is - because it certainly sounds very vulnerable and on shaky ground indeed.

*Justadathought:
Just in the process of re-reading 'Un-packing Queer Theory' by Sheila Jeffries. such an informative book. The current chapter is dealing with the position of 'Sexual Freedom' as the cornerstone of the gay male cultural scene - and how Queer Theory positioned that as revolutionary. Unbridled sexual freedom, free from morality. Public sex ( now morphed into commercial sex - saunas/bath houses etc)). BDSM. Pornography. Paedophilia.

Given that the book was written over 15 years ago now, she does say how even the Aids political scene simply refused to accept any restriction on absolute sexual freedom as the cornerstone of gay culture.

It would seem for gay men, certainly of a certain generation, that sex is absolutely central to everything.*

Have you ever read 'And The Band Played On?' It's about how HIV and AIDS spread globally in the 70s and 80s and the failure of governments, healthcare institutions and communities to respond adequately until far too late.

In the book, the author talks about how a public health official in San Francisco identified bathhouses as one of the key ways HIV/AIDS was being spread throughout the gay male population in the city. Condom use wasn't common because you could cure most STDs with antibiotics, so they weren't seen as that big a deal.

The public health official considered the bathhouses to be a risk to public safety and recommended they be closed; and the gay community went apeshit about it- including many in influential political positions. As far as they were concerned, the bathhouses were a cornerstone of the SF gay lifestyle and to suggest they be shut down was almost sacrilege. Eventually, they were closed but not before time thousands upon thousands of men had been infected, and went on to infect others. So yes, I think Jeffreys was right- to some gay men, absolute and unrestricted sexual freedom is key and any attempt to restrict it is to be resisted- even in the face of a massive, deadly epidemic that was claiming the lives of millions.

Tatchell is relying on the power dynamic that he knows is there, in order to pretend you can place responsibility for sexual abuse in the hands of the abused.

A million different ways of saying it's not the abuser's fault, seems to be the number one MO of the paedophile.

Thank you Datun for articulating some of my thoughts about Tatchell's arguments.

Not only is Tatchell victim blaming the children who don't manage to 'repel' their abuser but he is then placing the responsibility for preventing further abuse on the child. "This includes the right to say 'no’ to unwanted sex (whatever the age of the other person) and the right and responsibility to report attempted and actual abusers." (My bolding)

I can't believe that Tatchell actually thinks that a young child could, with some education, be so 'sexually assertive' that she or he could repel a manipulative adult predator. Surely, the power balance is obvious here.

All the stuff about lowering the age of consent to give children sexual rights in order to prevent sexual abuse, is just awful.

Yes let's lower the age of consent, educate children explicitly about sexual practices (and after all if the age of consent is lowered, then so will the age that the explicit material is taught), tell them that they can say 'no' and assert their sexual rights and then let's see who will be and feel disbelieved and blamed when they are abused. After all they have had all the education needed to 'repel' it!

You've got to be rather intellectually challenged not to see that. Or overwhelmed by your own needs

Or have a very sinister agenda.

He's also saying that because children of 10 are deemed to be old enough to know that murdering someone is wrong, they are also mature enough to navigate sexual relationships and take full responsibility for consent. With adults.

What kind of person would even try to argue that? (clue: not someone who is putting the interests of children first.)

Chicken totally agree. It's like a brain dump. I read elsewhere he had a deeply religious upbringing and wonder about his formative years.

Nobody who can write "It neglects the very important, effective role that young people can play in stopping abuse." should be anywhere near a sex education strategy. They are CHILDREN !

Jessica Eaton is fighting the attitude that children can stop themselves being abused. It is victim blaming, in the extreme.

Tatchell is maintaining the children can stop themselves being abused, with, presumably, the flipside being that if they don't, it's not abuse.

People who sexually exploit youngsters often get away with it because the victims feel embarrassed and ashamed about sex and are therefore reluctant to report it. This shame and embarrassment is reinforced by a cultural mix of prudery and puritanism,

He is saying that a negative reaction to being abused is the result of pearl clutching.

Absolutely disgusting.

And transparent. Absolutely transparent. You've got to be rather intellectually challenged not to see that. Or overwhelmed by your own needs.

I read this written by Tatchell last night and was horrified. I left it and then have reread it a few times today to try and make sense of it but I can't. It still horrifies me. There is so much within it that is wrong, that I am struggling to articulate it my thoughts.

www.petertatchellfoundation.org/why-arent-schools-educating-kids-against-sex-abuse/

looks horribly like grooming with the purpose of removing inhibition to me
To me too.

Pertinent question, isn't it? Looks horribly like grooming with the purpose of removing inhibition to me, which couldn't possibly have negative consequences, could it.

Why on earth would you need to teach someone how to masturbate? Quite apart from the likelihood that they don't need it to be taught, what's the point?

P Tatchell and PIE being called out on the twitter thread.
That is the big problem for Pete and friends - you can never hide from social media.

Just keep up the marketing campaign so everyone can see you.

My DD will be 16 this year.I haven't asked her but am sure she already knows how to mastubate and I suspect most boys do to and have for a few years.
She will also be going to sixth form college this year Time is self managed so any attempt to put a non a level class in she could simply opt herself out of and if it is mixedsex very few children would turn up.
As for teaching how to masturbate a partner as if we are automations.
Respect, boundaries and an updated The Joy Of Sex book,the beards are back!

According to Jeffreys' even the few gay male theorists who did question, and criticise, the overly sexualised nature of the gay scene, and were, unequivocally, rounded upon, stopped short of critiquing 'masculinity' as a social construct.

So much of the contemporary gay scene fetishises masculinity - and she suggests - so do the lesbians who renounced lesbian feminism in favour of Queer Theory - with its centring of gay men, and typically masculine sexual practices. Might well explain Linda Riley and her take on things.I've wondered whether she even likes or relates to women at all.

And of course if you don't support this progressive ideology, they can call you bigots for being anti-gay. Or anti-queer. Or just jealous, dry, bitter old frigid women. And nobody wants to be any of those things, right?

You know, I've heard Sheila Jeffries speak on YouTube and in person, and I've even met her and sat in a pub with her, but I've never read her books. This evening's remain time will be spent sorting that.

these progressive men for whom anything which creates an orgasm can only ever be good

Just in the process of re-reading 'Un-packing Queer Theory' by Sheila Jeffries. such an informative book. The current chapter is dealing with the position of 'Sexual Freedom' as the cornerstone of the gay male cultural scene - and how Queer Theory positioned that as revolutionary. Unbridled sexual freedom, free from morality. Public sex ( now morphed into commercial sex - saunas/bath houses etc)). BDSM. Pornography. Paedophilia.

Given that the book was written over 15 years ago now, she does say how even the Aids political scene simply refused to accept any restriction on absolute sexual freedom as the cornerstone of gay culture.

It would seem for gay men, certainly of a certain generation, that sex is absolutely central to everything.

Let's face it, Tatchell's proposals use all the jargon about consent, boundaries and helping to educate children to have healthy relationships, but the only reason they use that jargon is to obfuscate that their aim is clearly to stop all the dull, old fashioned 'kink shaming' that is so distasteful to these progressive men for whom anything which creates an orgasm can only ever be good.

Why anyone in their right mind would think these men have any authority in this area is one of the mysteries of our times.

SirVix "Sex education ought to tell the whole truth about every kind of sex and relationship – including sexual practices that some people find distasteful, such as anal intercourse and sadomasochism."

From the link that a PP provided www.kaleidoscot.com/peter-tatchell-time-for-a-radical-rethink-of-sex-education-7678

Also www.tes.com/news/schools-should-teach-pupils-about-sadomasochism

The problem is that he has tried (and to the uncritical eye perhaps succeeded) to make his proposals seem very reasonable and in the children's best interest but where is his evidence that is they are and where is the safeguarding?

PT and SF are probably utterly revulsed by your daughters, if they could even be bothered giving them a second thought.

It’s your baby boys they seek to ‘educate’.

Anyone else imagining the interview panel for these specialist sex education teachers..

..so Mr Kiddiefiddler what is it that makes you want to teach sexual technique to a group of impressionable children..

So a creepy , adult, childless male wants to teach my daughters about sadomasochism ?

Elsewhere, Tatchell specifies that he means sexual practices such as sadomasochism (his words). I cannot see how talking about this in a mixed sex class, even if the teacher emphasises that some people may find the practice distasteful, won't risk some of the young people especially the girls being pressurised to try it.

Even if the idea is that sadomasochism is explained very briefly, how will the teacher prevent some of the sixteen year olds discussing it in more depth either in or outside the classroom?

How will a teacher teaching both that consent must be gained and that you shouldn't do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable ensure that the young people will actually go away with a respectful understanding? If only it was as all as simple as educating about consent. Equally, educating about boundaries and coercion, whilst incredibly important, needs to be sensitively done.

Whilst I am sure that some young people will discuss sadomasochism anyway, this will surely legitimise it being discussed in the school dining hall or at home between a young couple. How can the teacher ensure the safety of the girls, in particular?

I don't get the impression that the idea is to actually discuss how unrealistic porn makes sadomasochism appear or that it can be harmful.

Equally, a lesson like this on such sexual practices could well be deeply upsetting and traumatising for any child who has experienced sexual abuse. Not all of these young people will find a way to get out of attending the lesson, or any discussion that takes place outside the lesson, but Tatchell does not make any suggestion in his proposals about how to deal with this.

Where is the safeguarding framework within some of those proposals to protect girls from being pressurised into potentially harmful sexual practices that have been discussed, and perhaps in the minds of some legitimised, in class?

Where is the safeguarding to ensure that abused children are not traumatised or made more vulnerable if these proposals were implemented?

15 Give Pupils All The Facts
Sex education from the age of 16 ought to tell the whole truth about every kind of sex and relationship – including sexual practices that some people may find distasteful.
The purpose of such frankness is not to encourage these practices but to help pupils deal with them if they encounter them in later life. This includes advising them of their right to refuse to participate in sexual practices that they dislike or object to.

Every kind? Really?!? That’s going to take up the entire curriculum if google is anything to go by.

Children of all genders should share RSE lessons and not be segregated, to enable them to learn about each other’s bodies from the start, including boys learning about periods and girls learning about wet dreams.

No thank you. This would have horrified me as a child.

And why do Tatchell and friends think early years primary school kids need to know about the ‘desires they will have’ at puberty?!?

WTF have I just read?
But I'm reminded of a photograph I saw 2 or 3 years ago on an anarchist-ish forum on a thread about something to do with social issues (sorry, I forget the context but it's all suddenly snapping into focus) where PT was sitting eating his lunch, unidentified and pointedly alone. It was clear from the photograph, which wasn't actually about him, that he was being ostracised. I was surprised no one had mentioned him but the reaction was as if I'd mentioned dogshit. I had no idea why.