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

[Novina]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/feb/09/kink-anthology-book-fear-shame

"In the meantime, despite its increasing visibility on social media and dating apps, kink is still generally thought to be unfit for the public eye. Unfit for children, especially, as in the recurring argument that kinky attire should not be visible at Pride parades, which echoes the old, bad argument that any signs of queerness should be kept out of sight of minors. But consider what it might do to a person, whether child or adult, to primarily see one’s sexual desires represented in the flattened form of a punchline or stock villain. To see and hear, in the books and shows and movies that can constitute much of our experience of the world, that one either doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t."

The 'k' are borrowing language from the lgb to push for more visibility, even wrt children.

Honestly, do what you like - with, or without, consenting adults in private - I don't care. But I do not consent to being part of it if you bring it into public life. This determination to get children involved, as if it's good for them, is a huge red flag.

This is one reason I can't stand the queer theory approach of blurring, or transgressing, boundaries. Yes, some boundaries have been bad and needed challenging, but others are there for very good reasons.

Yes, that reflected the thinking about childhood development of the time. Did you think I hadn't read that?

There were several communes that lived this as an experiment in the 70s. You might want to read the accounts of the children. It's gobsmacking just what the adults thought they were doing.

We now know that this thinking was wrong. That's the point I made in my previous comment and which you are studiously ignoring. Queer theory continues to advocate for breaking down these boundaries between adults and children. Today. In real life. Not as a thought experiment. Radical feminism does not. We now take the opposite view.

If you cannot see the difference between imagining the breaking down of boundaries 50 years ago and actively working on breaking down boundaries roday, well, I wouldn't be surprised, but Im not going to let that sway me from my position. I stand by what I said.

The basic premise of queer theory is breaking down the boundaries of society. Today. This includes, and queer theorists' works and advocacy demonstrate this, the breaking down of the boundaries between adults and children that exist to safeguard children.

Many of these safeguards were created in response to new research into child development, especially childhood trauma and research into sexual predators and child abuse. Long after Shulamith Firestone's thought experiment.

Queer Theory ignores all of this. It has not abandoned this aim. It advocates for it now.

What idiots on the internet conflate with queer theory is outwith my control (and I very much doubt the people you mention care what women's rights campaigners like me think about queer theory). What they think about radical feminism is outwith my control, too. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm not the thought police, nor would I ever want to be. Especially not after growing up in a totalitarian country where I was punished for thought crime as a child.

Simple question jj:

Do you think it is appropriate for children to view and be actively involved in adult kinks/fetishes?

@NotBadConsidering

Simple question jj:

Do you think it is appropriate for children to view and be actively involved in adult kinks/fetishes?

*The basic premise of queer theory is breaking down the boundaries of society.

That is one of the premises of Queer Theory, within the bounds of adult informed consent. Breaking the bounderies of society was also, and still is, a premise of radical feminism. There is a difference between advocating for things like polyamoury, less rigid sexual defintions and gender diversity, within a framework of adult informed consent as the vast majority of contemporary queer theorists do, and advocating for paedophilia, rape and other forms of abuse. Queer theorists are not saying go out and rape and murder if you want are they? The breaking of bounderies has limits.

Dr Em's piece, in particular her thoughts on Butler are nothing but a lazy smear - based as they are on couple of out of context sentences and a misreading of the term inter-generational sex as meaning paedophilia rather than it's usual meaning of sex between people of different ages. Pat Califia is on record as having modified his views. And whilst some of his work was influential, Foucault is not even a Queer Theorist, and it could be argued he was equally an influence on some aspects of feminism. It's a shameful set of essays that's intent is not to inform but simply to smear by cherry picking the facts, using emotive language and ignoring anything inconvenient - just like all conspiracy theorists do.

I asked you a simple question and it requires a yes or no answer. Not waffle about queer theory.

Do you think it is appropriate for children to view and be actively involved in adult kinks/fetishes?

@NotBadConsidering

Sorry got replies mixed up. In answer to your question no I don't, and I'm not sure what you think I've posted that would suggest otherwise. I think it becomes a little more complex at events like Pride, where traditionally there have always been things like leather man - where do you draw the line at what is kink and what is acceptable? I found myself caught up in Pride at Paris before the lockdown and there was a lot of women marching bare breasted (and lots of kink, I remember thinking mumsnet would have a server meltdown if they saw this) but it was largely an adult event and presumably those who did take kids knew what to expect. So I think that is probably where and how to draw the line, if Pride is promoted as an event celebrating adult sexuality then I think that is different to one which promotes itself as a family event. But my views aren't completely fixed on this, I'm not 100% sure what I think. In general, in other circumstances away from the very specific area of Pride marches then my answer to your question is a hard no.

Thanks jj that’s good and reassuring. Regardless of your need to challenge what you view as misconceptions about queer theory, this thread is about eroding boundaries between adults and children. It’s clear to me that Pride is no longer a family event if it means demonstrations of adult sex - not sexuality - and wanting to protect children and Mumsnet servers being overloaded as a result is not a bad thing. I think people dressed in leather is very different to people actively acting out their fetish with children is a pretty easy thing to draw a line between, don’t you?

I don't think anyone should be engaging in any form of sexual activity in front of children, and straight people are hardly entirely innocent of that either. I don't have the same concerns about people who are just dressed up presuming they are not exposing themselves. I think there's a lot to be said for people just having a bit of common sense about such things.

It’s not a straight people vs gay people issue though is it? Has anyone made it so apart from you? The fact that people are criticising Pride doesn’t mean anyone is criticising gay people or claiming straight people aren’t innocent. But it remains an incontrovertible fact that Lancaster Pride, as an organisation, were happy to allow adults - regardless of their sexuality which I don’t know and don’t care - to act out their fetish including children. No one was exposing themselves as far as we know, so as a benchmark for safe behaviour I don’t think that is a high enough bar.

The problem with “common sense” is that its now become “common sense” to encompass such links and fetishes like pup play into Pride because it’s “common sense” to put people marginalised for their sexual lives all together as an oppressed group.
Which is just bullshit.

So to me, “common sense” is to not let people act out their fetishes in public. Would you agree?

Well I agree although what acting out a fetish actually means is obviously debatable as is what is a fetish and what is 'normal' and whether there should be any distinction. But there does seem to be a hyperfocus on LGBT people when it comes to this. I've seen straight people literally fucking at festivals where children were present, as well as people walking round naked etc and this seems to go without comment. I've never seen people sharing pictures of straight couples snogging in the local park and people zooming in on the man's crotch to try and see whether he had an election or not. There are visible displays of (non kinky) heterosexuality everywhere from advertising billboards to music videos to couples pawing each other in the street but it seems to be LGBT or kinky people, and in particular kinky LGBT people who draw the most hostile attention. So I do think there is a bit of a double standard going on.

That is one of the premises of Queer Theory, within the bounds of adult informed consent. Breaking the bounderies of society was also, and still is, a premise of radical feminism.

Not in the same way. Not involving other people non consensually in your sex life. Radical feminism is about restructuring society so women are equal to men and doing away with the patriarchy as structurally oppressive to women.

Queer theory is based on sex and sexuality. Some of the things it advocates are reasonable, others not so much. It tends to have a liberal attitude to porn, prostitution and age limits in sex.

've seen straight people literally fucking at festivals where children were present, as well as people walking round naked etc and this seems to go without comment.

I doubt many of us here would support that jj. Seems like whataboutery to me. It's about safeguarding, whoever is involved.

Pride parades are billed as family friendly events and take place in public spaces. Having adult men dressed up as dogs as a sexual fetish in a public space is nonconsensually involving others in your fetish, especially when they are too young to understand the dynamics.

Not sure why you are trying to defend it, jj.

Look I'd like to leave it there tbh, I've made my point about Dr EMs piece and answered the questions I was asked about what I think of the op I don't want to be accused of derailing the thread and I'm not massively interested in dissecting the Guardian piece, I can sort of see both sides a bit, although the part about kids troubles me, so will be interested to see how the debates plays out.

We saw the same whataboutery regarding sexuality when rubber suit pissing man was caught filming himself in the toilets at work at the NSPCC. People like Owen Jones calling criticism of the guy’s actions “homophobia”. Give me a break 🙄. Show me an example of a heterosexual person or couple demonstrating equally inappropriate sexual boundaries around children and I would quite happily equally condemn it.

You wouldn’t show kids internet videos of pup play (I hate even typing that) so I don’t see why it’s appropriate for kids to see it on the streets of Lancaster.

The existence of dodgy m/f sexual material doesn't mean that dodgy m/m or f/f sexual material is OK - there are certain things not to campaign for equality on.

There is absolutely a history of same-sex-centric material being disproportionately censored and that is a concern that many women here are aware of. The idea that some men love other men, some women love other women - this can and should be explained to children. Specific practices relating to sexual pleasure are not appropriate, whether straight or gay.

If something falls under the term 'kink' it's for adults. Saying that something is for adults-only isn't 'shaming' anyone. Protecting kids from this stuff isn't saying it's 'bad', it's just saying kids aren't ready for it yet (or not ready to choose if they are).

jj1968

I'm not massively interested in dissecting the Guardian piece, I can sort of see both sides a bit, although the part about kids troubles me, so will be interested to see how the debates plays out.

I find it extraordinary that you can be so clear and decisive on QT but can't be on child protection.

You can 'sort of see both sides a bit'.
It 'troubles you' but you are not massively interested in dissecting the Guardian piece.
You are merely 'interested' in how the debate plays out.

This makes you appear to be at best a bystander and at worst an apologist for unconsenting children (and adults) being exposed to and included in sexual practises.

This makes you appear to be at best a bystander and at worst an apologist for unconsenting children (and adults) being exposed to and included in sexual practises.

Does that apply to every mumsnetter who hasn't posted on this thread? What a silly argument.

I had never really heard about puppy play; but apparently it's great:

"If you're having trouble understanding the appeal of puppy play, just imagine how amazing it would be if there were a form of group relaxation where you could empty your mind of all your cares, forget all of your responsibilities, lower all of your defenses, and bypass small talk forever. Now imagine that vigorous cuddling and praise are key components of this relaxation technique. And did I mention snacks? You get snacks. Awesome. Why aren't we pupping right now?

The rules are simple: There aren't any."

www.thestranger.com/features/feature/2015/06/24/22437022/what-is-puppy-play-and-why-is-it-so-popular

Personally I think "kink" is only suitable to (give limited) mention to teenagers as part of sex education; but in reality, it's not like they aren't going to have picked up quite a bit already from all the inappropriate TV shows and films that kids normally watch.

But real life puppy play? Bad doggie!

@Novina

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/feb/09/kink-anthology-book-fear-shame

"In the meantime, despite its increasing visibility on social media and dating apps, kink is still generally thought to be unfit for the public eye. Unfit for children, especially, as in the recurring argument that kinky attire should not be visible at Pride parades, which echoes the old, bad argument that any signs of queerness should be kept out of sight of minors. But consider what it might do to a person, whether child or adult, to primarily see one’s sexual desires represented in the flattened form of a punchline or stock villain. To see and hear, in the books and shows and movies that can constitute much of our experience of the world, that one either doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t."

The 'k' are borrowing language from the lgb to push for more visibility, even wrt children.

Honestly, do what you like - with, or without, consenting adults in private - I don't care. But I do not consent to being part of it if you bring it into public life. This determination to get children involved, as if it's good for them, is a huge red flag.

This is one reason I can't stand the queer theory approach of blurring, or transgressing, boundaries. Yes, some boundaries have been bad and needed challenging, but others are there for very good reasons.

Just want to say I agree with what you say here. I haven't read the whole thread. I don't honestly think I can bear to. This morning I read a post on FB equating consent in the kink community with consent needed in a yoga studio. I honestly think I am going crazy with all this. Keep this stuff away from people living their lives. I find I am very very triggered by this. I don't say that lightly.

jj1968

Does that apply to every mumsnetter who hasn't posted on this thread?

Of course it doesn't, are you suggesting every mumsnetter has read the thread and decided not to post?

You are the one who posted that you can see both sides etc., only you, so not so 'silly'

Perhaps you are regretting showing too little interest in child protection and too much in queer theory.