38

40 comments

[–] muliebrity 23 points (+23|-0) Edited

I read about this a week ago, and it was so freaking creepy I couldn't believe it.

The professor, so grounded in queer theory that she can't see anything outside her own views, was apparently asleep during 90s because if had been awake she'd realize that her stupid views now (which I'll paraphrase as, "animals... why not?") were among the homophobic arguments made by Evangelical Christians that were against gay marriage. The whole, "it's a slippery slope, first they want to marry each other, but what's next... marrying Fido?" She's bringing it up as if, "why couldn't this be included under the umbrella of LGBQWERTY?," which is like when they added the T & Q to LGB, piggybacking onto an established, successful movement.

[–] Carthimundia 15 points (+15|-0)

Exactly, and the LGB alliance got a tweet deleted and were accused of being a hate group for making the same argument! They pointed out that queer theory opens up the possibility for all these conservative arguments to come true … and apparently this was “hate speech”because absolute morons interpreted it to mean that trans people are the same as zoophiles.

[–] Boudicaea 13 points (+13|-0)

You read something like this and you can't help but wonder when they will start openly advocating for pedophilia. I know a lot of them say the quiet part out loud sometimes, but seriously, if bestiality doesn't get you fired, will pedophilia? You know there are tons of queer theorists just dying to justify kiddie diddling.

[–] emissch 16 points (+16|-0)

I feel like 'softening' the taboo of pedophilia at the minimum has already started. I know I've seen a growing sentiment that pedophiles (especially ones who do not actually act on their urges) should be treated with sympathy because they "can't help who they are attracted to."

What's M.A.P. (minor attracted person) but a rebranding? Pedophile is going to be a very hard sell to the general public but a string of very specific identity coding labels and acronyms are pretty commonplace at this point, aren't they?

[–] Ghostofbelaabzug 16 points (+16|-0) Edited

The only way the article can be truly “transgressive” is for her to argue that our love for animals is already sexual or should become sexual. After all, Rudy seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs:

“I know I love my dogs with all my heart, but I can’t figure out if that love is sexually motivated.” For some reason, I’ve never grappled with this problem, but then again, I’m not versed in Queer theory. As Rudy explains:

“Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I'm having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?” Indeed, what is the difference between inserting a piece of bread into a toaster and penetrative sex? According to postmodernism, nothing at all! As Rudy explains:

“The widespread social ban on bestiality rests on a solid notion of what sex is, and queer theory persuasively argues we simply don't have such a thing. The interdict against bestiality can only be maintained if we think we always/already know what sex is. And, according to queer theory, we don’t.” Despite earlier claiming that she is not advocating for sex with animals, Rudy has just provided us with an indirect argument for it. She states that we can only maintain a ban on sex with animals if we know what sex is. She next states that queer theory has proven that we don’t know what sex is. Therefore, we cannot ban sex with animals. She suggests her indirect argument again at the end of the article by masking it in the form of a question:

“But without a coherent and agreed upon definition of sex (which queer theory persuasively argues is impossible), the line between ‘animal lover’ and zoophile is not only thin, it is nonexistent. How do we know beforehand whether loving them constitutes ‘sex,’ and how can such sex be so dangerous if it so nebulous and undefined?” Not only is it false that we have no idea what sex is, but it is also false to say that we require a taxonomy of every kind of sexual feeling before we can forbid certain acts (such as coitus) with animals (or children and the cognitively disabled, such as Chris Chan’s mother with dementia).

This is bananas. So queer theory is just an argument that since sex can't be "defined" we can't set boundaries? Since we don't know where the line is, cuddling your dog is exactly the same as full-blown intercourse? The fact that people pretend to be blind to the end result of this for the sake of "open-mindedness" is so disturbing.

[–] nobitary [OP] Brainoeba 23 points (+23|-0)

Queer theory is an absolute win for all perverts. It's also really simple, in a way. Whenever A objects to B doing something perverted (like, having sex with an animal), B can say "but, what is sex, really"?

[–] Ghostofbelaabzug 16 points (+16|-0)

Yeah, it's disturbing. It kind of kills the whole notion of consent, too. The big argument against sex with animals (like there really needs to be one) is that animals can't consent. But if it's not sex, since sex is so nebulously defined, then it doesn't matter if there was consent. And if you extend it to people, a woman says she was raped because she didn't consent, someone's going to argue back that it wasn't really sex. How can you be raped if sex can't be defined?

[–] emissch 13 points (+13|-0) Edited

It kind of kills the whole notion of consent, too.

Killing the concept of boundaries and consent are 100% on the TRA docket, and you can see them actively grinding against them.

edit: Also, haven't we seen arguments coming from TIMs who say that "trans people can't rape" because of "fundamental power differences"? i.e. They're sOoOoO oppressed that them being rapists is impossible!

[–] Suffrajitsu 1 points (+1|-0)

You can extend it to pedophilia as well, or incest. After all, if sex is this strange thing that you'll never really understand, then how do we ever know if something sexual actually happened?

On that note, sex for most animals species is hormonal in nature. When the cycle kicks on, they look for partners, and often any partner will do. This is different from the affection and loyalty your cat, dog, horse, etc. shows specifically to you. They know the difference, making them smarter than people like Rudy.

[–] Free_Metis RadFemMcGonagall 20 points (+21|-1)

The fact that people pretend to be blind to the end result of this for the sake of "open-mindedness" is so disturbing.

Agreed. It is not a slippery slope fallacy to assert that the outcome of this thinking is dangerous to children. If sex with an animal becomes kosher, sex with children and the physically/mentally disabled is next to be approved. That's a fact.

[–] bannedrui_resin 15 points (+15|-0)

Oh my goddess I hate deconstructionism. Get OUT of here with your strategic, selective uncomprehension of perfectly sensible words :(

(I don't mean you, obviously, but rather the person who is helplessly unable to distinguish sex with dogs from not sex with dogs)

[–] IronicWolf 8 points (+8|-0)

This is how queer theory ended up endorsing paedophilia. If you can’t define sex, then you can’t define consensual sex. And consent ends up going out the window.

Bestiality and paedophilia are wrong because it is people in positions of greater power (ie adults) imposing their will on somebody who can’t consent to the act. Sometimes it’s okay to make children and animals do what they don’t want: eat their greens, have a bath etc because you are doing these things both for the child or animal’s good and for wider societal benefit. Having sex with children or animals is not done for the benefit for anybody but the adult human doing the thing.

[–] Fredrica 0 points (+0|-0)

Also incest taboo due to possibility of offspring born with birth defects. HORRIFYING BIRTH DEFECTS.

[–] [Deleted] 8 points (+8|-0)

if that’s not an essay about why queer theory should be avoided at all costs, I don’t know what is.

Reading the quotes from Rudy's article, I kept thinking it was a stealth attack on queer theory. For example

“Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I'm having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?”

Load more (1 comment)

Imagine if we took what Rudy says and replaced "bestiality" with "rape" to get: “The widespread social ban on rape rests on a solid notion of what sex is, and queer theory persuasively argues we simply don't have such a thing. The interdict against rape can only be maintained if we think we always/already know what sex is. And, according to queer theory, we don’t.”

[–] Luna_Lovegood 4 points (+4|-0)

When you phrase it like that it reads more like an argument for why queer theory is wrong than for why rape is okay because everyone knows what constitutes sexual contact

[–] emptiedriver 9 points (+9|-0)

To me, reading that paper felt like the author or at least some of the editors published it with the awareness that it would show the flaws in gender ideology reasoning. She never makes the argument directly that zoophilia is right, but always provides an If-Then set up, leaving the reader to have to show either why the logic is incorrect, or to choose to reject the first premise in order to be able to reject the conclusion. That means anyone who doesn't want to embrace bestiality has to either reject queer theory or explain why it does not lead to this outcome.

I would have thought a majority would be quick to want to reject bestiality and so face that choice. Unfortunately it's seemed like a lot more people have shrugged or been amused, feeling no need to worry over the potential results of their claims. Like so many of the things I assume are satirical, what I might imagine to be some kind of "gotcha" can't even work anymore. People are just always so much further gone than I expect.

[–] GCRadFem 8 points (+8|-0)

The widespread social ban on bestiality rests on a solid notion of what sex is, and queer theory persuasively argues we simply don't have such a thing.

The interdict against bestiality can only be maintained if we think we always/already know what sex is. And, according to queer theory, we don’t.”

Honestly, I am almost at a loss for words. Where do we go from here to regain some small measure of sanity?

I hate queer theory. Now, someone wants to add bestiality to the LGB (drop the fucking T already)? Whatever has happened to academia?

[–] nobitary [OP] Brainoeba 6 points (+6|-0)

I know! Duke is one big shit-hole, apparently. That TSQ journal is also issued by DUKE-sters - you know, the one with the cover where three people hold weapons.

[–] emissch 6 points (+6|-0)

After all, Rudy seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs: “I know I love my dogs with all my heart, but I can’t figure out if that love is sexually motivated.”

She wants to fuck her dogs, and she used her academic training and position to justify the thing she wants to do (or is currently doing vomit). Simple as that.

With postmodernist and queer theory-style arguments, you can literally justify anything you want. It's fucking horrendous.

[–] Researcher1536 5 points (+5|-0) Edited

How can you "not know" something like that??? It's such a tell. She KNOWS. She just doesn't want to quite tell on herself so openly. It really is horrendous. So much of what the right tried to scare people into believing would happen is actually either happening or being bandied about as logical and morally right. It's ludicrous.

[–] emissch 5 points (+5|-0)

So much of what the right tried to scare people into believing would happen is actually either happening or being bandied about as logical and morally right.

Yep, this is what really gets me about all this. Not only has the T+++ attached itself like a parasite onto LGB, all the other paraphilias are catching a free ride to legitimacy off the backs of the LGB movement and just proving the conservatives "right." LGB needs to fundamentally reject this malware or else any progress made for lesbian and gay rights could be in serious jeopardy.

[–] Researcher1536 2 points (+2|-0)

Ohhh you're spot on with the malware analogy. It's infecting every facet of life. I shudder to think what society will look like in 5 or 10 years if this isn't nipped in the bud.

[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

Indeed, what is the difference between inserting a piece of bread into a toaster and penetrative sex? According to postmodernism, nothing at all!

Perfect

[–] Suburbatron 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

Oh, for the love of--

Fine. Laws against bestiality are inconsistent with, say, the existence of factory farms from a prevention-of-cruelty-in-general-to-animals-in-general standpoint. But I look at that inconsistency and think that factory farms should not exist, not, "You know, maybe my neighbor should be able to fuck his cat."

And regarding the whole "we can only maintain a ban on sex with animals if we know what sex is," fine, here's a list of liberties she's not allowed to take with her dog. And if she still wants to philosophize about whether something not on that list fits within her personal definition of "sex," I guess there are worse ways to make a living.

[–] Hermione 2 points (+2|-0)

I see Rudy wrote an entire essay justifying beastiality when Michael Che was able to say it in about 2 minutes at Juste Pour Rire

Michael Che’s take

Load more (2 comments)