Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
It's shit like this that makes me see why some people were historically homophobic. Two consenting adults is one thing, grooming children is entirely another.
Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender
But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.
-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality
tl;dr Not fucking children is somehow child abuse.
It's shit like this that makes me see why some people were historically homophobic. Two consenting adults is one thing, grooming children is entirely another.
You know that "church sex abuse" thing from a few years ago? Try to find a mainstream media report stating that 80% of the victims were male
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
And then remind yourself that the clergy is virtually all male.
Meaning virtually every pedo in the church is gay.
see I was trying to be a bit more subtle than that but yeah there it is
I do wonder what else are two unattractive aging gay men with no children of their own to raise are doing or thinking about.