Sorry Caceral
'Transgress generational boundaries' - it is awful, this rebranding of child sexual abuse. Gayle Rubin's former partner and another core Queer Theorist is Pat Califia, someone else I have worked on in terms of CSE and Queer Theory. I have posted the thread I did below. My intention is to show how that Rubin reference is really significant, the BACP is endorsing her arguments no?
I thought it may be worthwhile to contextualise Rubin’s thought.
Rubin was in a sadomasochistic relationship with another queer theorist – and yes, you guessed it – paedophile apologist Pat Califia.
Pronoun wise Pat has now transed to Patrick. Here is Califia’s twitter profile, he describes his work as a trans therapist.
P. Califia, ‘Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights’, Paidika (1991), & in The Culture of Radical Sex (1994)
The Califia text is available here, n.b. NSFW it is hosted on a website which is and contains pro-paedophilia literature. www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/califa_feminism.htm
Califia sets the tone for the article from the off, explaining that ‘In 1980 I published a two-part article in The Advocate, critiquing American age-of-consent laws’. When QT converges with legislation this seems reasonable =(.
Califia describes how she/he created an Overton window shift. Califia claims that ‘While extremely controversial, the articles did hit print and spur discussion about the sexuality of young people, intimate relationships between men and boys, and the dangerous implications of banning all erotic images of minors’.
Right there – men and boys – also understood as adults and children.
Califia was not only aware but excited that her/his work would be published in a European journal for paedophilia – Paidika: this piece ‘will be translated into Dutch and published abroad in a special issue of Paidika on women and pedophilia. I support Paidika and enjoy working with the editors of this special issue’.
There you go Califia publically stated that she/he supported paedophiles.
At least Califia, unlike Rubin, admitted that most gay and lesbian people do not want to have anything to do with child sexual abuse, here it is: ‘I also know I probably could not get anything on this topic published today in the American gay and lesbian press’. Hurrah!
Commenting on part of the reason feminists abhor Califia, she/he laments that ‘Doc and Fluff, my recent science-fiction novel, has been banned by some women's bookstores because it supposedly depicts a cross-generational lesbian relationship, and I've been attacked as “an advocate of child molestation” in the feminist press’.
Notice that term again ‘cross-generational’. What’s that I hear… alarm bells.
Califia argues that ‘The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims’.
Yes. Correct. However, the American government didn’t convince this feminist the harmful actions of paedophiles did.
Califia claims that in its refusal to accept NAMBLA in its movement ‘The adult gay community here has cut off its next generation’. Nope, it is protecting children from sexual abuse.
Califia posits that ‘I know very few lesbians, and even fewer gay men, who waited until they were eighteen to come out’. Age of coming out shouldn’t open one up to sexual abuse. Notice how Califia doesn’t critique that gay and lesbians have to come out because heterosexual is culturally held as ‘normal’.
Califia argues that child sexual abuse is desired by the child claiming that ‘Most of us were aware well before puberty that we wanted to be close to or sexual with members of our own sex’.
‘It's impossible to sum up thirty years of American politics in a short article. But a sketchy chronicle of this background is important for anyone who wants to understand the suspicion and hatred that most American gay-rights activists and lesbian-feminists display toward pedophilia’.
Finally, a queer theorist has admitted that paedophilia is unwelcome in the rainbow. Oh no, does that entail that I agree with Califia about something? Oh, it didn’t last long, Califia describes the feminist movement of the 1970s as a ‘social purity movement’. No, no, no.
Califia laments that her/his feminist critics have characterised her/him ‘as [a] pervert and advocate of rape, battery, and child abuse’. Well, if you don’t wish to be characterised as such don’t advocate it.
Califia argues that ‘The panic over child pornography and pedophilia that has racked American society since the '70s is an inseparable part of our society's denial of the shortcomings and failures of the family’.
No I don’t get the link either, nor is her/his statement justified in the text. Califia’s argument that many children are murdered by their families does not explain why child pornography is not bad (hint, child pornography is bad and Califia is wrong).
‘Moral crusades have also been used to attack both feminism and gay rights, and neither of these progressive movements has been very successful at defending itself against such attacks or at presenting a complete analysis of them’.
Notice how Califia is trying to align pro-paedophilia with genuinely progressive movements.
Here we enter the big section – ‘Child Pornography’. Grab a sick bucket and gather round.
Califia maintains that ‘Child pornography has been a special category in American law since 1977’.Hurrah!
Califia goes on to argue that homophobia, particularly the legal campaign by Anita Bryant, is the reason that child pornography is banned. Once again a queer theorist is linking gay rights with the right to sexually abuse children. It is an appalling argument to make.
In the next section Califia tries to downplay the damage child sexual abuse causes by describing it as ‘kiddy porn’. Let’s call it what it is – the rape and abuse of a child including and horrific pain.
Califia then argues that the Post Office is targeting gay people in a huge conspiracy. It is quite the read.
Califia in her/his various arguments – first it was the feminists – now it is the Post Office is kind of suggesting that feminists are in league with the Post Office in a grand conspiracy. This is the only original arguments I can discern in Califia’s article.
Califia states that ‘American society has become rabidly phobic about any sexual contact between adults and minors’.
Califia tries to use feminism to support paedophilia. Throughout the article and without signal Califia switches between talking about the sexual abuse of children and teenage sexual activity. This is a calculated attempt to obscure the argument that adults should be allowed to have sex with children.
Califia claims that ‘Lesbian-feminism supposedly empowers women, but we are reluctant to see young women's sexual experiences as anything but victimization’. That is a deliberate distortion.
Here it is, as predictable as the sun will rise, opposing adults having sexual relationships with those under the age of consent is ageism. ‘We give lip service to confronting ageism, but we do not really include underage lesbian and bisexual women in our community’.
‘You may argue that adolescent dykes should experiment sexually and romantically with each other. But when they are trapped in schools, neighborhoods… where being called queer targets them for harassment and assault, how many young lesbians can afford to come out or seek out others like themselves’?
Rather than target the culture of bullying and non-acceptance Califia targets age of consent laws and child protection. Go figure.
‘The state is not willing to take the radical action that would be necessary to protect child victims of abusive adults. That would mean challenging parents' ownership of their children. It would mean providing viable alternatives to the family’. Well that is chilling. Califia is sick of parents safeguarding children.
The online Paedophile collective have provided a hopeful after note. They report that ‘In Pat Califia's 2nd Edition of Public Sex, The Culture of Radical Sex, she expresses a sad change in stance. As of 2000, she no longer accepts prepubescent children's and many young teenager's possibility to consent to erotic or sexual contacts with adults’.
‘She has become much more cynical about adults and their ability to listen to children, and now as a parent she thinks more in terms of making the child's welfare a priority than of consent’.