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"?
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?
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!
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.
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)
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?”
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.
This is bananas.
Succinct and accurate.
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.