Dr Em The Trojan Unicorn, Queer Theory and Paedophilia

[Exploitedteadrinker]

Excellent article(s) on the connection between queer theory and Paedophilia.

Read it before it disappears from Medium

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-a0cf30ef7bfa

That the NSPCC have changed their definition of child abuse to something dependant on the response of the child is truly chilling

A very good point too that the queer theorists quoted seem to be consistently advocating that children have the capacity to consent to child sexual abuse, but they seem less interested in campaigning for children to be able to, for e.g. become brain surgeons or MPs. The belief in children’s agency seems to be very focused on one area

Now why might that be?

I found this video gives quite a good explanation of Queer Theory outlining the victim blaming, rationalising the rape of children and women. Links with a lot of the factor's Dr Em has raised, handy for those who finding listening easier.

That the NSPCC have changed their definition of child abuse to something dependant on the response of the child is truly chilling

Kilbranan It is the definition of sexual abuse that they teach to children that they have changed the meaning of. So why are they teaching children, during their Speak Out, Stay Safe assembly, a different meaning to the one that parents might access if they just look at the general NSPCC website? It is also a different meaning to what most reasonable adults would think.

I do understand that definitions given to children may need to be changed a little so that children can understand them, but I don't see how telling children that sexual abuse is dependent on their response to it will in anyway clarify things to a sexually abused child who is already being groomed to believe that what is happening to her or him is a very special thing.

In fact, I think that alongside the confusion, that the definition will cause in children, it will also lead many sexually abused children to feel as though they must have been partly to blame as they did not react with fear or upset, like 'normal' children do and therefore it is/was as their abuser stated because they wanted and enjoyed it.

The NSPCC are not teaching children that physical abuse or neglect depends on a child's response to it, so why is it just the definition of sexual abuse that contains the phrase "for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them. "?

Thank you HumberElla for highlighting the thread to me.

so why is it just the definition of sexual abuse that contains the phrase "for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them. "?

They also teach the directly conflicting message that if the thing that frightens or worries you is having to get undressed in front of a boy who identifies as a girl, you shouldn't say anything and you're being wrong and unkind.

The NSPCC are not prepared to discuss this conflict at all.

Also note that the queer everything/its all just prudish interpretation, relax and chill thinking is not extended to those they deem 'bad' such as women pointing out safeguarding issues. You will not be encouraged to chill and attempts made to understand and empathise with your needs and feelings; they advocate extremely punitive, rigid, harsh measures direct from the origin of the culture they claim to be trying to overturn.

Almost like there are three casts in this 'queered' society - those who are serviced, those who serve, and a slave cast of those who served but broke the rules. Nothing new about this at all, the 8th century has been missing these people and wants them to pick up some thumb screws and an iron maiden on their way home.

I have always been uncomfortable about Pride marches because it of this breaking down of a taboo; not that of homosexuality, but of the idea that sex is a private activity for adults. It starts to normalise expression of sexualities of all sorts as a family-centred event.

I've just read those articles. And what the NSPCC are saying.

I feel sick.

This thread got me so mad that I started a twitter thread. I can't believe the NSPCC guidelines. If anyone can think of any more good links please let me know and I will add them to the thread. Fuming.

twitter.com/makemorenoise1/status/1137687601287241728?s=17

Excellent thread DJ really brings it all together. All in plain sight, this is a top down manoeuvre for sure.

I'm a lurker really, I'm not very good at articulating my thoughts and others usually put it much better.

This is terrifying to me, but it does make sense in that its helped me understand why a lot of what I read on mainly Twitter about queer theory makes me feel uneasy.

I had never heard of anti carceral feminism before, that's crazy. Doesn't sound like feminism at all.
On the plus side, I'm glad I found your twitter DJ, I'm now following

A bit of an aside DJLippy but that Brenda and her Beaver book! WTAF?

Other books in the series include: Suzy Likes to Look at Balls. Come Swing with Us! Spank the Monkey Lends a Hand! Put Tony's Nuts in Your Mouth!

Good thread DJ. Gathers a great deal of material into a very short thread - including the references to PIE in the 60s and the fact that this isn't the first time we've been here (I liked your turn of phrase about people pushing for sexual liberation opening the door, and the abusers following them right on through).

Though in fairness, I think the "Brenda shaves her Beaver" books are intended for adults as satire, a bit along the lines of "Go the fuck to sleep", "Five in Brexitland" and "The Ladybird book of the husband." I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting buying them for children.

Framing the trans agenda as 'progressive' and therefore 'good', is what needs to be dismantled. The problem is the idea that permissive = progressive = positive.

In the 60s and 70s, the idea that anything that was more 'liberated' was progressive and therefore good became mainstream. Paedophiles jumped at the opportunity to legitimise their activities and PIE was accepted by many on the left.

The problem is that the left doesn't seem to have the ability to think critically and understand that not everything that is permissive is progressive and therefore positive.

theoretical freedom is a very different fish to real life, no laws, freedom. Mainly due to the fact that there are predetory men who put their sexual desires above all else.

only started to read the article and while the writer makes some important points I have some bones to pick with her about categories. I have not yet finished it and will probably want to read it several times before commenting fully.

Concerned that I might spend all day reading and thinking about this I decided to listen to the video that LeftHandDown posted while I did some chores. I didn’t get very far before I found something I wanted to clarify.

I have never studied queer theory but have studied structuralism in relation to anthropology (helped a friend to revise and found it interesting, I am not an expert) and my understanding of "binary oppositions" is that it is a concept from structuralist theory not queer theory.

Queer theory may have appropriated the term and perverted it to mean something completely different to the original meaning. I will look into this further as the hijacking of language is something that is an important element of social engineering and should be scrutinised and made conscious.

I’m just mentioning it as when I referred to binary oppositions in a much earlier post someone dismissed by post as “queer theory” which was a surprise to me as I have never studied it.

Secondly, re the audio / video, Cox states that in psychoanalytic theory women are defined by the “lack” of a penis.

Certainly when I studied various models of psychoanalytic and other psychological theories, the writer who focussed mostly on the identification of females with “lack” was Jaques Lacan.

Lacan is not an easy writer to engage with and I do not believe that he was a very pleasant person, however he did have some fascinating ideas.

I struggle with Lacan but my understanding of his use of the word “lack” while it does signify the lack of a penis also has a deeper meaning similar to how, when Freud talked about the phallus, he was talking about the penis, but was also talking about the phallus as a symbol of masculine authority and what we would call the patriarchy.

If readers are interested in depth psychology and its relationship to current trends re transgender narratives then they would do well to explore the Lacanian concept of “disavowal”, especially in relation to paraphillias. The fantasy of a penis wielding woman is central to the disavowal fantasy and is, I think, fruitful for women to explore.

Just some provisional thoughts, please don't read these as too critical, it is always good to engage with clever women on these kinds of issues and I look forward to reading the rest of the article and hearing the rest of the podcast

I have read your thread DJLippy and the replies.Thank you for doing it. I am not on twitter although can read it. I know that one person replying was concerned that although clearer, the PANTS advice limited children's understanding of sexual abuse to just the areas covered by underwear. I absolutely agree that the definition of sexual abuse given to children needs to be widened to include other things such as kissing etc. However that can still be done without defining the abuse in terms of a child's response to it. in the same way as is done for the definition of physical abuse. It would be different if the NSPCC was teaching children a clear definition of sexual abuse and then just stating that if children are worried about any sort of touching or kissing then that can come and talk to a trusted someone. The difference here is that the child's response is the actual definition of sexual abuse. That is what I think is wrong and I think that it is harmful.

This is, I think, the NSPCC Speak Out Stay Safe programme which clarifies that they are stating that it is a definition of sexual abuse.

www.st-michaels.surrey.sch.uk/application/files/4415/0832/1522/NSPCC-Speak_out_Stay_Safe_Content.pdf

This series should have been shocking, but the connections to what we've seen pushed through already made so much sense...

Put me in mind of this recent article from the US:

For years, the principal of Springfield’s Chestnut Middle School Talented and Gifted had two identities: living at home as a man, but known as a woman to the school community.

This week, Declan O’Connor will finally be true to himself, telling parents and students at Chestnut TAG that he is a transgender man.

He is the third school principal in Massachusetts to publicly come out as transgender.
www.masslive.com/news/2019/06/i-was-living-two-different-lives-springfield-middle-school-principal-declan-oconnor-comes-out-as-transgender.html

Please note: I am not implying that O'Connor (or any of the other individual principals or teachers transing now) has any dishonorable intentions toward students.

Simply that pushing this ideology into schools, telling ever-younger children to mistrust the evidence of their own senses and disregard their own discomfort in order to make adults feel better is wildly, perilously contrary to every principle of safeguarding as I understand it.

telling ever-younger children to mistrust the evidence of their own senses and disregard their own discomfort in order to make adults feel better is wildly, perilously contrary to every principle of safeguarding as I understand it.

Yes absolutely

I came across this organisation on Twitter prostasia.org/ - a new “child protection” organisation touting for business. I don’t know why but they strike me as extremely creepy. My spidey senses tingling all over the place.

Namechanged for this.

I grew up in a family where my parents were swingers and used to have big parties with us kids in the house, take us on holiday with other families so they could swap partners etc etc..

My brother went on to sexually abuse me and I have done quite a lot of reading about siblings who sexually abuse and a common risk factor for this kind of abuse is having parents who are very open about sex and don't boundary it properly, but rather present it as all there out in the open.

The 'sex positive' movement really frightens me when it is pushed onto children - there was a MNer on here a while ago talking about her polyamorous relationship and how she was very 'sex positive' with her child (or children can't remember which) or primary school age and it really, really upset me.

Children need boundaries about sexual behaviour and without that it's very easy for there to be a re enactment of what goes on around them, just as children pick up other habits and norms from within the family!

I used to think I was very liberal but on matters like normalising sex for young children I am as conservative as they come.

As a child I paid the price for an adult's hedonism and I will never, ever support this agenda. Thank you for posting this.

lokithor I'm so sorry you were put through all that by those who should have been keeping you safe.

I feel sick about this. Placemarking to read tomorrow.

I've become aware of a new 'LGBTQ+' in the primary classroom resource that I'm increasingly becoming very concerned about, not least that the term "LGBTQ+" is used with primary children, because of these contexts.

Thanks neurotrash.

I sometimes have friends want to know the ins and outs of the reasons I don't speak to me family and - not wanting to disclose the abuse - will often give an outline of the sexual behaviour and how it didn't feel like living in a real family because the focus was all on sex (and alcohol, actually).

And people often try and tell me I'm just not liberal enough and hey it's their own sex life.

Obviously these are people who didn't grow up in a sex cult themselves but see perfectly fit to lecture me on why I should be ok with it.

I don't discuss it now.