5 ms·

nothing, of course children shouldn't sexualize - however that is not what they were discussing. they were reinforcing the harmful & factitious association betw

• olah_1 6y ago
  > of course children shouldn't sexualize - however that is not what they were discussing That should be part of the discussion, though. It's difficult to separate Queer philosophy from predatory pedophilia. It's part of the system of thought, back to the beginning. Age becomes relative, and Parenting is seen as an oppressive structure that is imposed on children.
  • ausbah 6y ago
    what? what parts of queer theory deal with normalizing pedophilia? any sane individual studying queer theory is still going to understand the relationship between consent & age, and how pedophilia is a mental illness and not a sexual orientation specifically because it violates the ability of younger individuals to give consent
    • olah_1 6y ago
      Even if they don't believe in abolishing the age of consent laws like Michel Foucault did, they still believe that children actually can consent. Pat Califia makes this argument explicitly. They believe that "normal" sexual ethic is imposed on children by oppressive power structures (enforced by parents). So they believe that they're liberating children by exposing them to queerness. They don't see it as peer pressure or coercion because they see sex as something similar to choosing between ice cream or cookies, which a child is capable of. Gayle Rubin also defended NAMBLA quite clearly. Many examples of this stuff.
  • LordDragonfang 6y ago
    >It's difficult to separate Queer philosophy from predatory pedophilia. It really isn't.