Peter Tatchell says bisexuality will be the new normal for many

www.newsmax.com/amp/pre-2008/academics-defend-pedophilia/2004/09/23/id/680642/

What nonsense!

x-posted:

‘In 2019, Twitter quietly changed its terms of service to permit discussion about "attraction towards minors" with the proviso that "they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way".’

mobile.twitter.com/mike_salter/status/1212888057252171776?lang=en

Hope I’m not derailing this, but just thought I’d let you all know that Kinsey was a sadomasochistic porn addict who adored Crowley and one of his boyfriends (who’s still alive) and him visited Crowley’s so called Abbey 🤨

Judith Reisman legal action:
www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/liberty_counsel_amicus.pdf

Kinsey and Kenmeth Anger at the Satanic Thelema Abbey:
studiomatters.com/crowley-hubbard-and-the-new-individualism/resource_53ad7cb67318d

Attached photo of Kenneth Anger and his lovely tattoo:

There is a longer clip of that Derrick Jensen lecture where he did the Queer Jeopardy, here. It gives a little bit more context. It seems, from listening to this, that he was giving a lecture that was supposed to be largely about environmental issues, which seems to be his main work. But because he has issues with queer theory, a large number of protestors came to heckle him and the rest of the audience who went to see him in genuine interest at hearing him talk.

Guess who posted before refreshing the thread

Here's the full article anyway.

www.queermajority.com/essays-all/sexbeyondlabels

Oh queer theory = grim nightmare.

Queering society from my reading:

-Muddying, breaking down, blurring social legal boundaries. Oh and with a big focus on things to do with sex.

-I've read stuff with hierarchy of oppressed sexualities. Peadophilia most oppressed. Oppression is bad obv. So that means...

I mean while I mean sure philosophy/social theory etc think write if you want, mainly uni etc this been a topic at least in publishing thoughts etc. Thinking about extreme stuff can reveal truths about things now and maybe insight into why happens etc.

These ideas widely being acted on? Queer theory based ideas across schools?
Transing things, in effect we see clearly queer theory in action.
Destabilising norms, discarding definitions and replacing with means whatever anyone wants.
Upturning embedded separation, barriers around anything to do with hard line between the sexes.

And yes even worse.
Seen plenty.
Penis is just a piece of skin. No reason to keep away from women girls in xyz situations.
Data essentially banned.
Science dismissed. Belief is all.
Etc etc.

'Kotatsu

I guess he means vulnerable people will be coerced into crossing their boundaries and having even more sex with people they aren't attracted to than they do already. Progress!

I think this will be the likely outcome, as as FlyingOink says, the origins of biphobia are much harder to get around, even in an accepting (and not fetishising) society.'

Vulnerable people are already coerced into those things. Globally, historically. No need for anything to change to facilitate that.

Have you all read the article? It's quite interesting. I could see nothing wrong in his thoughts apart from him being wildly optimistic!

It's worth a look. Unless extrapolating wildly on a few words in a tweet is more fun...

I'm finding it really interesting how there are posts scattered through thread that essentially express a threat to their sexuality.

About being forced to be bisexual and similar. Why anyone on here would express anger about heterosexuality being threatened/under attack. I'd be really interested why those posters took it that way.

The fact is that vast majority of societies all over the world, now and through history. Have enforced heterosexuality. Sometimes through social pressure, often through violent means.
Forced marriage involves enforced sexual partner. Het.
The countries which have penalties including imprisonment, some have death penalty on the books. Enforced heterosexuality.
Here there is still homophobia obv. Bi people if with same sex date/ partner also at risk.
Corrective rape.
Etc etc.

Here, less fixation on pressing narrow gender roles and het as a given and so much entertainment, stories etc ending man woman living happily ever after.

Would improve so many lives for children and adults.

A. Commonly called the Godfather of Queer Theory.

Audience: Who is [Michel] Foucault?

He then points out Foucault argued for the eradication of age of consent laws down to infants . Not mentioned in the video, but there have been people after Foucault’s death who have revealed his abuse of young boys in North Africa.

Next.
A. The author of the founding document of Queer Theory.
Q: who is Gayle Rubin?

A. 50%
Q: what amount of that document was a specific defence of paedophilia, specifically “boy lovers”?

He then quotes a passage talking about how “boy lovers” struggle to find people to defend their cause and how she compares paedophilia to a preference for spicy food .

A. Author of Macho Sluts
Q. Who is Pat Califia?

Before he quote Califia he’s accused of being a homophobe, which he rightly challenges with “wait, so I’m accused of being a homophobe because I’m against paedophilia?” [he doesn’t add the MN eyebrow raise, I added that].

He then quotes something Califia wrote about kids being allowed to masturbate and have sex with adults “should they want to”

A. The most famous Queer Theorist of today.
Q. Who is Judith Butler?

Before he quotes Butler, an audience member shouts how “we see you! You don’t care about trans people’s lives” which is remarkable that given the fact that blatant paedophilia apologists are being pointed out and this is the response they come back with.

He then quotes Butler’s views on how she doesn’t think all incest is necessarily harmful .

A. The Queer theorist who has spoken out strongly against paedophilia.

Q. Who is no one?

So those are the names he referenced.

The Queer Theory Jeopardy video was interesting. It's a shame it's not close captioned well enough to be able to understand some of the talk or to know who he is citing but I think I have a correct overall impression.

[quote NotBadConsidering]That's a good spot. Why is it that some people are so keen to blur boundaries, remove barriers?

This video was in the replies to Tatchell, I hadn’t come across it before.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=n-NseFg2kno[/quote]
Thank you for posting this. Short and snappy. I think it should be piped into the homes of politicians and anyone involved in safeguarding on loop until it sinks in.

I feel like we're nearly at the point with younger people where 'queerness' has become the norm.

This suggested blurring is nothing to do with inclusivity. It breaks boundaries that we all know predatory men will exploit to gain access to women and children.

I guess he means vulnerable people will be coerced into crossing their boundaries and having even more sex with people they aren't attracted to than they do already. Progress!

I think this will be the likely outcome, as as FlyingOink says, the origins of biphobia are much harder to get around, even in an accepting (and not fetishising) society.

Personally I'm exclusively straight, but it turns out my ex enjoyed having sex with men occasionally - which wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't already in a relationship with me, and thus putting me in danger of whatever he might catch at the sauna he frequented. Internalised biphobia is as harmful as that from other people I think.

Queer theory is a reactive theory that academics/followers/proponents believe should resist definition because it only exists to subvert, deconstruct and question.

Maybe interesting as an academic thought exercise; I'd say possibly highly dangerous and questionable premise to base legislation and regulation on - society depends precisely on shared definitions and agreements - queer theory attempts to undermine every shared connection in society, as far as I can see.

Whether intentional or not, that could be dangerous. A movement that seeks to destabilise and undermine consensus and understanding is not a movement that should be informing government.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

'The term can have various meanings depending upon its usage, but has broadly been associated with the study and theorisation of gender and sexual practices that exist outside of heterosexuality, and which challenge the notion that heterosexual desire is ‘normal’.[2]

The Queer Theory Jeopardy vid is great.

For anyone looking into queer theory, this is a good read on Judith Butler:

newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody

Queer theory jeopardy.

Answer for 500. The queer theorist who has spoken out against paedophilia.

Who is no one?

[quote NotBadConsidering]That's a good spot. Why is it that some people are so keen to blur boundaries, remove barriers?

This video was in the replies to Tatchell, I hadn’t come across it before.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=n-NseFg2kno[/quote]
Just wow!

Anyway.

Within groups which experience oppression. Where there is a word that is accepted and understood totally by the population, and is/has been used for rights activism, loads of writing and debate and slogans shouted at rallies and etc.

Is there a friction between different views within the group about who it includes, and the general usage, understanding, and importance in raising issues, activism, and so much other stuff?

And this is a thing people do a lot. Labour well known for division, splitting, forming of break away groups etc.

Ditto IME radical feminism. The constant arguments over a lot of things relating to opinions on what means person ok to be in those groups or not.

This sort of thing is so common esp with things broadly left politically.

The result is the infighting over definitions, who is what, splitting of the original group into pieces mostly with v bad feeling about it on both sides.

That distracts from the things about things from outside that are impacting whole original group.

I suppose it's individual Vs group. And about something fundamental and relating to whole life and deeply personal.

I suppose question is. Do you/ would you like to see activism etc within lesbian spaces groups etc to tighten up who is included, ok to be there etc?

Or is this a personal opinion which is totally understandable, and obviously no one can tell you shouldn't feel that way. Rather than (which I did get a feeling of from your comment) that action or something to change who goes where is needed.

No need to answer at all if don't want to obv.

Oink really interesting post thank you.

There's a lot going on here isn't there.

What are your feelings on my POV around the inversion of the importance of the label /those the label describes?

I am straight and so totally accept that your position is how it is Vs my outsider view.

In general I do think biphobia is rife across the population in general. If open about it, then there's a lot of wariness about getting involved from men and women.

The way that bi people seem to be thought of often as more likely to be promiscuous, unfaithful. Unlikely to get everything they need sexually from a monogamous relationship. Likely to 'need' to have sex with people the opposite sex to their partner. Irrespective of their personality, their feelings for their partner etc. That's really shitty.