More visibility for 'kink' - this is so disturbing.

Jesus Christ 😳^

objectnow.org/2019-6-27-puppy-paedophilia-at-pride/

I'm not sure what you're all talking about regarding unwilling participation and children. From the article they author was talking about how lots of people actually like kinky sex. Tbh I feel like then it becomes so mainstream is it not just sex? But anyway I don't get how they are advocating for involving people unwillingly?

The difference jj1968 as I explained last time you misrepresented the work of Andrea Dworkin, another second wave feminist, is that Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex imagines the breakdown of these boundaries in the context of a utopian world, where humans no longer reproduce naturally, thus freeing all female people from oppression on the basis of their assumed reproductive function.

A world that only exists in her imagination, where children have no genetic connection to the group of adults raising them. Where her thinking on childhood sexual behaviour did indeed reflect the known facts about child development that existed half a century ago. And where her utopia of adults and children sharing equal rights imagined a world where predators simply couldn't exist. It's a thought experiment.

At no point does Firestone suggest breaking down the barriers that protect children in the world she actually lived in.

Queer Theory, as Dr Em's essays show (which extensively quote Queer theorists' own works) wants to break down barriers in this world. Remove boundaries that exist to safeguard children today. A world where predators very much exist.

And the people Dr Em cites didn't advocate for breaking down these barriers 50 years ago and then thought better of it - as many radical feminists did following our much better understanding of childhood development - they are advocating for that today.

So again, these two things are not the same.

And remember, you must quote what people have freely and openly said about themselves if by quoting, you draw attention to the fact that they've made themselves look bad make them look bad.

Still I suppose it's one of those things that's not women's problem if Queer identified people are violently attacked by males for being paedophiles due to dishonest and frankly quite vile gender critical propaganda.

Rules Of Misogyny #1: Women Are Responsible For What Men Do

Grayson Perry has acted out his very well known fetish while visiting primary schools interacting closely with young children. He was invited along by Princess Kate. One instance is photographed here: www.zimbio.com/photos/Grayson+Perry/Dame+Vivien+Duffield.

'The risk of discovery and humiliation gave him a sexual thrill. Dressing up as Claire is still a turn-on, he insists, but the circumstances have changed. "I like dressing up. I’m a transvestite. So, I get excuses to dress up all the time. It’s fabulous.”

From amp.smh.com.au/culture/art-and-design/provocative-artist-grayson-perry-centrism-is-now-an-insult-20191126-p53e55.html in 2019.

From my thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4099715-Grayson-Perrys-Art-Club-Exhibition?pg=4 after he was acting out his fetish on Channel 4 family TV while interacting with children, disabled people and unconsenting adults. Please read the thread for dozens more quotes from him. (Trigger warning because it includes some disturbing things he has said about 'little girls', how he has a fetish for dressing up as his idea of a little girl and details about how his favourite artists draw and depict naked children in sadistic sexual contexts.)

This self described 'unapologetic fetishist' is considered a fun UK 'national treasure'. He says he has attended many kink events and been involved in the kink community for decades and he is a fan of psychotherapy, so why has nobody told him involving children in his fetish is not acceptable in kink? I have had no responses from anyone involved in facilitating those events in the thread, so is acting out fetishes/paraphillia deliberately around children really taken to be unacceptable like kinksters on this thread say it should be? If kink-involved people could contact Grayson and the organisations on that thread to explain that it is unacceptable, that would be great as he was still doing it a few months ago and has not responded to my complaint with any apology.

Consenting adults can do what they like in private. Children need to be protected from abuse.

Everything in between is a cultural and societal choice. Society is made up of many different opinions, ALL of which are of equal value, not just those of a vocal minority.

there is nowt as queer as queer theory

Queer theory isn't the same as people identifying as queer though?

From today's Guardian:

"France’s post-1968 generation adopted an intellectual position that 60s promiscuity encompassed adult sexual relations and those with youngsters. A 1977 petition supported by a group of leftwing intellectuals, including Bernard Kouchner, called for a lowering of the age of consent to 13. Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and Simone de Beauvoir were among the signatories." www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/10/france-begins-to-confront-decades-of-neglect-of-incest-cases

It is true that a couple of early influencers of Queer theory had ideas about paedophilia that are deeply troubling. But that is hardly unqiue to Queer Theory. Simone De Beauvoir, for example, signed a letter calling for the decriminalization of sexual relations between children and adults. Germaine Greer was quoted* as saying "A woman of taste is a pederast - boys rather than men," and published the Beautiful Boy, of which she said:

"'A boy is only a boy for a very brief space. He has to be old enough to be capable of sexual response but not yet old enough to shave. This window of opportunity is not only narrow, it is mostly illegal. The male human is beautiful when his cheeks are still smooth, his body hairless, his head full-maned, his eyes clear, his manner shy and his belly flat."

I note that Dr Em refers to Butler's work on the incest taboo in her later essays. What she doesn't mention is that it is very likely she referred to this specifically because in the Dialectic of Sex, considered perhaps the most important text in radical feminism, Shulamith Firestone placed the incest taboo at the heart of women's psychological oppression. Firestone called for the liberation of child sexuality and she was not alone. Kate Millett, who wrote the equally important radical feminist text Sexual Politics has said:

""one of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well" and that "the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution ... if you don't change the social condition of children you still have an inescapable inequality".

Does this mean that radical feminism was a plot to normalise paedophilia? Does it mean that these thinkers and their ideas should be rejected wholesale? Or does it mean that social attitudes were different once and that the damage to children from sexual abuse was not properly socially understood or acknowledged and much of the early writing on feminism and queer sexualities reflects that?

To claim Queer Theory today is some clandestine paedophile plot based on a handful of writings decades old, and often out of context, is not just ridiculous, but dangerous to all those who may refer to themselves as Queer which includes many lesbians and gay men.

And I realise that's slightly off topic but damaging shit like this should not go unchallenged.

*www.smh.com.au/entertainment/its-all-in-the-delivery-20080315-gds5fm.html

I agree with merry. There is nothing wrong with couples of any flavour being affectionate with each other in front of children- holding hands, kissing, using pet names etc
I even think some sexual expression is OK in the house to show a healthy married relationship has a physical aspect. So would see nothing wrong with a pat on the bum or more passionate kiss in front 9f children at home.
Anything else is not appropriate, regardless of the orientation

No, I’ve noticed discussion around safeguarding children isn’t really your thing.

Odd that, innit? Considering that most of us alight upon this issue because of safeguarding concerns. Because there are red flags all over this. You don't even need to know where to look. It's in plain sight, for all to see.

But we're all just stuck-up soon-to-disappear wicked old witches.

i looked at the code and there isn't really a heading it comes under. There isn't an 'incitement to commit a crime' heading . i know that sounds melodramatic but looking at ways to include and expose children to sexual activities of any nature (not just kink) is concerning.

jj blanchard says there are two clear groups of man to woman transitioners: a young group who are predominantly gay (male attracted) and have settled gender dysphoria from very young and an older group of heterosexual males (female attracted) where this develops over adulthood (AGP), which i think he describes as a type of fetish.

He certainly isn't suggesting anything about exposing fetishes to children and you are being very unreasonable in implying that mumsnetters who discuss AGP are somehow supporting fetishising children

Personally I would see kink acceptance/sex positivity relating to trans being more trans people talking about their AGP, like Grayson Perry

I have always advanced the view that two men or two women holding hands in public or kissing

But holding hands and kissing is not sex, it is a display of romantic love. It's what you expect from members of the royal family in engagement photos.

Note - the specific references to children in the code are about naming individuals, not promoting harm to children.

"Before contacting the readers’ editor, you should read through Guardian News & Media’s Editorial Code to understand whether the readers’ editor is the correct route for your complaint. The Editorial Code handles complaints in 16 areas. They are:

Accuracy
Opportunity to reply
*Privacy
*Harassment
Intrusion into grief or shock
*Children
*Children in sex cases
*Hospitals
*Reporting of crime
*Clandestine devices and subterfuge
Victims of sexual assault
Discrimination
Financial journalism
Confidential sources
Witness payments in criminal trials
*Payment to criminals
Where there are asterisks above, the Editorial Code recognises that complaints should be weighed against a judgment as to whether the story is in the public interest."

I feel a bit wretched to be honest. I may be straight but I’ve always advanced the argument that homosexual love should be in no way taboo. I have always advanced the view that two men or two women holding hands in public or kissing, should be no more noteworthy or unacceptable than when straight couples do it.

I have had the argument thrown at me that this will lead to all manner of sexual fetishes and kinks being visible to children and always held that this wasn’t likely at all, and not the argument at all.

It seems I was very wrong indeed. There is good reason we keep sex away from children, and I apply that evenly across the spectrum including heterosexuality. Children lack the experience and maturity to place these things in their proper context, and emotional development/management is far more the priority for them. Inflicting this aspect of the world on them too young is very wrong.

www.theguardian.com/info/2014/sep/12/-sp-how-to-make-a-complaint-about-guardian-or-observer-content

How to make a complaint.

Anyway not really interested in this thread,

No, I’ve noticed discussion around safeguarding children isn’t really your thing.

ANYway, on the subject of the thread, people who advocate for children to be exposed to adult material on the streets of cities are no different to those who advocate for children to be exposed to adult material on the internet and should raise multiple 🚩 🚩 🚩 , be investigated, and kept well away from children.