Welcome to the uninformed and butt hurt discussion of feminst politics. If they would please read Shulamith Firestone and Ellen Willis and Pat Califia and Gale Rubin and ... "Gayle Rubin summarizes the conflict over sex within feminism. She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege" ". With women freed from their traditional roles in reproduction, Firestone believed that a different kind of parenting could emerge. The nuclear family, which she saw as a symbol of male power, could be abolished and replaced by a diffuse structure of parenting in which children would be raised by groups of adults, named households. Sharing parental responsibilities would enable women to become mothers without having to sacrifice their former occupations and identities. Children would benefit from having nurturing relationships with multiple adults, while parenting would open up to people unable to become biological parents themselves. (stolen from The Conversation) What is not as well known is this sex positivity extended to childens sexual autonomy. Notice not 'our' rights but expanding childrens choices including to their bodys. In their arguments with the cultural and sex negative feminists, they won the battle but lost the war. As Angelides argues the patriarchy was more in tune with the anti porn feminists who went into the universitys, teaching womens courses that became the more mainstream discourse. The ideas of Sick Rose et al, disgust me, and feminism informs that disgust (sorry guys). But boyCHAT is a refuge and still a place where sexual politics is taken seriously. from a post by Onyx "We must combat feminist victimology of course, but feminism is a striated movement with promising signs of sex-positive tendencies that could benefit us. Moreover, taking a masculinist stance alienates us from girls and girllovers, a divide-and-conquer mistake we must avoid. I believe we must find a way to align ourselves with elements of gay, feminist, and trans movement if we are to gain any traction in the public sphere. Furthermore, if we reject any association with these movements, it's hard to imagine how exactly our relationship to them could be any different than the antagonism we face today. It's also not clear to me what the alternative is! and from 'barmy' Pharmy (not my view) but it rhymes "BLs need to express their sexuality politically and socially. These two overlap. Politics includes both activism and intellectual exchange aimed at achieving a correct and useful understanding of our political situation. Social expression of BL includes both of those, plus friendship and sharing with similarly oriented people, plus friendship and sharing with boys, plus sex with boys." and "BC has a more limited range. It is not per se activist, though activist projects get advocated and discussed. We certainly exchange political ideas, form friendships, and share things we could not share with non-BLs." Lets be clear, other BL's even if we find their views 'difficult' at this point in time should be allies till the overton window has opened far enough to allow nuances to become important. Then they will need us, so they can say, look we are not radical like those guys. and now for something completely different... I'm reminded of a conversation I once overheard in which one person told another person that trans kids are born that way referring to an anecdote about a 3-year-old boy who had asked his mom if Santa was going to bring him some girl parts for Christmas that year. At first it stuck me as ridiculous, but after a couple of minutes it really made me wonder. Just three years old... could belief in Santa Claus be genetic? (joke from errant) Still I miss Laarka who took no prisoners. Does this make me bad? |