![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
talktoolooseThe news this morning featured stories about the trial of a former boarding school teacher in Toronto who allegedly abused his 10 year old boy charges and also about the cracking of a huge child porn ring in Australia. I always freak slightly when I hear these stories. I have inherited a knee-jerk reaction that says, "When people talk about sex crimes, their disgust will somehow spill sideways onto me as a gay man."
This is not a terribly healthy reaction, but it prompted me to spill out the words behind the cut.
One of the basic rhetorical platitudes of the gay rights movement has always been to distance the visibility and acceptance of the sexually divergent from societally harmful practices like child pornography. The links between the first (basic equal rights for identifiable groups) and the second (non-consensual sexuality) have always been made by the enemies of queer rights, most recently by those saying, "First we give marriage to gays then next it's paedophiles and bestialiists."
But I would posit that it's wrong to completely separate the positive and negative manifestations of sexual freedom. Sexual repression has been a negative force for those who would love members of their own gender, for those who would change their gender, for those who would separate bodily pleasure from reproduction and from legally sanctified unions. The slow lifting of this veil has made the lives of millions bearable and survivable. At the same time, the cover has been lifted on the stewing pot of non-consensual and potentially harmful sexualities that are perhaps themselves the products of repression.
So, yes, I'm free to write about same-sex love before an Internet audience of people of vastly differing sexualities. But at the same time, I could find child porn on the same 'Net with a minimum use of my search skills. The revelation that more of our neighbours are queer than we would have thought 20 years ago can be shocking or liberating to us; but it is also clear that all but the most bull-headed will ultimately come to at least grudgingly accept it. The parade of revelations of children who are being abused by teachers in boarding schools or by other trusted adults is shocking and upsetting. It is tempting to link these discoveries, but that is poor analysis. When victims of child sexual abuse came forward 20 years ago, the cloud of repression -- the overwhelming desire to pretend their is no deviation from the norm -- halted any investigation or action. Now, these former children and ones who are currently experiencing abuse have a chance of being heard.
...Precisely because we are talking about sexuality and looking at it square in the eye.
(Note: I accidentally typed "Sexualites" instead of "Sexualities" at one point. I like this new word. It sounds like those who attend thrilling parties featuring canapés, fine cocktails and strategically placed lube dispensers.)
This is not a terribly healthy reaction, but it prompted me to spill out the words behind the cut.
One of the basic rhetorical platitudes of the gay rights movement has always been to distance the visibility and acceptance of the sexually divergent from societally harmful practices like child pornography. The links between the first (basic equal rights for identifiable groups) and the second (non-consensual sexuality) have always been made by the enemies of queer rights, most recently by those saying, "First we give marriage to gays then next it's paedophiles and bestialiists."
But I would posit that it's wrong to completely separate the positive and negative manifestations of sexual freedom. Sexual repression has been a negative force for those who would love members of their own gender, for those who would change their gender, for those who would separate bodily pleasure from reproduction and from legally sanctified unions. The slow lifting of this veil has made the lives of millions bearable and survivable. At the same time, the cover has been lifted on the stewing pot of non-consensual and potentially harmful sexualities that are perhaps themselves the products of repression.
So, yes, I'm free to write about same-sex love before an Internet audience of people of vastly differing sexualities. But at the same time, I could find child porn on the same 'Net with a minimum use of my search skills. The revelation that more of our neighbours are queer than we would have thought 20 years ago can be shocking or liberating to us; but it is also clear that all but the most bull-headed will ultimately come to at least grudgingly accept it. The parade of revelations of children who are being abused by teachers in boarding schools or by other trusted adults is shocking and upsetting. It is tempting to link these discoveries, but that is poor analysis. When victims of child sexual abuse came forward 20 years ago, the cloud of repression -- the overwhelming desire to pretend their is no deviation from the norm -- halted any investigation or action. Now, these former children and ones who are currently experiencing abuse have a chance of being heard.
...Precisely because we are talking about sexuality and looking at it square in the eye.
(Note: I accidentally typed "Sexualites" instead of "Sexualities" at one point. I like this new word. It sounds like those who attend thrilling parties featuring canapés, fine cocktails and strategically placed lube dispensers.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Sexualite
Date: 2004-10-08 06:55 am (UTC)As a pansexual, polyamorous, transsexual, versatile switch, god knows I am.
But seriously. It drives me kind of nuts. The line is "consent" but defining consent is so slippery...
Can I be a sexualite, too. I'll make hors d'hoeuvres.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 06:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 07:29 am (UTC)A few weeks ago at the ONE I found a stack of NAMBLA magazines in a late ONE founder's personal collection. My supervisor hurriedly removed these from the carton, in fear, and I'm not sure why because most of the people viewing these materials are LGBT folks anyway with incredibly varied pasts.
In any case, I looked through those NAMBLA journals, and not one mentioned or displayed in any way a pornographic/sexual act with a child, or any representation of a child in a titillating position. Most of the "children" mentioned by the NAMBLA folks were really young teens, not preschoolers or elementary school children.
I am curious now to find out how many confirmed "child molesters" are NAMBLA members, as 85% of child molesters are usually heterosexual relatives or close friends of the mother.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 02:37 pm (UTC)For some reason, this post reminded me of that. I have no idea any more what connected the two together. Um.....oh, gotcha... sexually divergent and socially harmful, adn where to draw the line. That kind of triggered this thought process of how it seemed that Judy Shepard was definitely playing up how harmless lgtb community is, which kind of made me uncomfortable and...
Ok, this response is going nowhere. Gah. I think that's what I meant to say.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 04:38 am (UTC)And I love the word sexualite...we need a LJ community or a membership card of some type to promote it ;-)
Re: Sexualite
Date: 2004-10-09 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:21 pm (UTC)I agree, I am attracted to the LGBTQ etc. community because it represents diversity. That is why str8 boys and girls who are also into diversity number among my intimates. I have no use for a) queers who reject various aspects of the queer universe or str8s OR b) queers who want to embrace a new consumer suburban SUV "norm".
I want to be harmless, but I also want to be disruptive.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-09 03:31 pm (UTC)The only time it becomes a problem is if any adult figure, regardless of orientation/desire/fetish/whatever, makes a move on someone (a student, a patient, or a fellow employee) in the workplace. It creates an uncomfortable situation for everyone involved.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-10 07:40 am (UTC)It is much the same way for me when I see the phrases "black", "african-american", etc. Even though I would prefer to live in ignorant bliss, I recognise that I need to aware of - not victimised by - the fact that when I walk into a room, people's impression of my race, sexuality, religious beliefs, etc walk in their with me. So I really see it as my continual aspiration that where the assumptions are incorrect (whether they are positive or negative) that I correct them in words if necessary, but always in actions.
Sorry I got a bit off topic, but your post really hit home...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 08:33 am (UTC)Like with our own kids, society must make the horrible and very possibly wrong decisions about when to let go and let them make their own mistakes.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 08:37 am (UTC)I am writing a black character in a story now who handles racism by ignoring it and rising over it on a cloud mental helium. He refuses to see. That couldn't be me and I don't think it serves him in the long run; but I sort of envy him.
harmless
Date: 2004-10-13 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 03:27 pm (UTC)I would extend existing sexual harassment laws to minors, however. No means no, no matter what age or who starts what.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 01:45 pm (UTC)Re: harmless
Date: 2004-10-14 01:46 pm (UTC)But I am naive to think that any change can happen without some harm.
Re: Sexualite
Date: 2004-10-15 06:17 am (UTC)You said:
But I would posit that it's wrong to completely separate the positive and negative manifestations of sexual freedom.
I said:
Somedays it feels to me like we are really trying to have it both ways.
Sexual freedom does have positives and negatives. However, most of the pro-sex activists I know keep trying to have one without the other. Which seems like trying to have it both ways, to me.
more freedom = more responsibility.
re: Deviated
Date: 2004-10-16 10:55 pm (UTC)"Gay people have the RIGHT to be as human as anyone else"
I thought about what you said much since then. This means that we have the right to have our heros like Svend Robinson (don't even think of the fucking ring thing ! such a trivial, over-with event) and our villians like Dalhmer and everything in between. Some gay men have sexually exploited minors and/or sexually assaulted innocent adult gays.
But so frigging what?? It just means that we have the same range of humanity as any other group. And we have a right to that range without being all swept into it with the same broom.
Would my Dad feel guilty by association if some guy somewhere raped and murdered a woman? Well as a man he may be concerned about ensuring safety for women and look at his own issues of aggression (which he used to have toward my mom) but he wouldn't think himself a rapist or that merely because of his orientation.
But thank you Anita Bryant and Falwell for drumming that guilt into us from childhood.
Or if we don't have guilt for having to defend ourselves for teh actions of another individual?
As a result, the efforts that some people in the gay community to be better than human, this perfectionism, is really ridiculous and unrealisitc. And it puts unrealisitc pressure on us to the extent that some of us (them) alienate those who are labelled as too divergent, such as transgendered people. All for fear of not being seen as norm or deviated by association. It's like a pink version of the Chrysalids.
As for fear in myself, I can't say I'm absent of that as you know of my hesitancy to take certain materials -gay college student manga comic books! -across the Canadian border from Japan for fear of being wrongly thought to be importing child porn.
But, ttl, I appreciate you for helping me fight the power of such negative thought.
Cody