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

[Imnobody4]

www.petertatchellfoundation.org/stephen-fry-backs-our-call-to-revise-sex-education/
I think this sounds reasonable but still some niggling suspicion. IF the quality and calibre of the training and trainers were beyond reproach, if there was a broad consultation beyond just LBGT I might accept it.
I'm pleased to see they acknowledge asexual. What do you think?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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/

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.

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 !

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.)

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!

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.

*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.

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.

I think that is rather a simplistic analysis of what happened with regard to HIV, certainly in this country. Gay men were the ones setting up support groups for those with Aids and providing sexual health information. I spent 10 years working for an HIV/ Aids organisation in the nineties and what you describe is not my experience. Gay men were either dying or watching their friends die, at the same time they were handing out the condoms. I think what Peter tatchel is suggesting is deeply worrying, but that doesn't mean we can create a narrative about that time.

I ted to agree with both of the previous posts actually. I do think there was, on the one hand, a kind of reckoning, a withdrawing, a bit of a new attitude about the need for individuals to be careful about sex, that it could have consequences. I remember very vividly the effect that all these people just dying quite horribly had on the public consciousness.

There was also a big effort to avoid attaching this to a question of moral or immoral sexual behaviour. And the reasons for that were understandable - for one there were people saying things like God was deliberate striking down homosexuals, and people wanted to repudiate that. There were also worries, in terms of public health, that shame and secrecy would make it impossible to deal with containing the virus.

But in terms of looking at sexual activity as an activity that maybe should in itself be regulated (and I don't mean by law but by self or in terms of being away of the social effects of our actions.) That did not happen and was actually worked against. There was a real effort to avoid thinking about sexual expression as anything but universally positive, "natural" so long as people were individually responsible.

I think that is rather a simplistic analysis of what happened with regard to HIV, certainly in this country

What are you suggesting is simplistic?

Jeffreys; doesn't say that gay men were not involved in trying to halt the spread, but that the general consensus was that 'safe sex' ( condoms) was the answer. She says that the very culture of 'free sex' and the many multiples of partners, or public and commercial sex practices were questioned at all. Well they were, but the men who dared question this central tenet of gay culture were closed down immediately.

...were not questioned at all.......

There was also a big effort to avoid attaching this to a question of moral or immoral sexual behaviour

Well, yes- -Jeffrey's says that the culture of 'free sex' was set up in opposition to what was seen as morality ( free/public sex was seen and promoted as transgressive & revolutionary). Partly as a consequence of all of the previous years of oppression; but also as it gave free reign to a purely 'masculine' take on sexuality. She also says that the ideals or stereotypes of gendered masculinity were rarely questioned or critiqued ( or they were not allowed to be critiqued in the mainstream).

There was a real effort to avoid thinking about sexual expression as anything but universally positive, "natural" so long as people were individually responsible

....and this kind of thinking and culture is what gave birth to Peter Tatchell and his take on making sexuality both public and positive in schools. The idea that enforced(public) teaching about the technicalities & intimacies ( private) of sex, are somehow liberating & revolutionary. His ideas and approach are very much rooted in masculinised, gay male culture. He's trying to wash away his own feelings of shame.

That absolutely wasn't my experience. The hiv positive men that I knew were in committed relationships , and actually were having sex with condoms even then because the risks to their health with someone with a different level of the virus were high. The young gay men who volunteered in the organisation I was involved in were watching their friends die and were frankly terrified of casual sex.