Todd Nickerson bei Salon: 1, 2. Replik von Alicen Grey. Comment: ‚This dreadful article by Alicen Grey just refers to the usual sex-negative prejudice against male heterosexuality. It’s like saying people, both male and female, shave their pubes in order to get in touch with a predominant culture that sexually idolizes the bodies of children. They do this because they want to get attractive (again): Amanda Palmer, the wife of Neil Gaiman, once made such a stupid suggestion, regarding (female) body hair. Yet such suggestions are exactly the ones that sexualize the bodies of children. They do nothing for the acceptance of different body types except forcing their own will on the sexuality of others, what they like, who they find attractive, by inventing “normality” and so on. As some sort of collective mind-hub, always speaking not as individuals with own thoughts, but as a form of human representation regarding certain (supposed to be social) groups. And in the end, Nickerson doesn’t talk about sexuality at all: in a typical collectivist state of mind, he’s mixing up sexuality with the emotion of love. He gives no description of sexual desire, his own sexuality, probably because he does’t want to offend anyone and therefore carefully chose his words. Like all great manipulators. Yet, as a handicapped person, I’m very offended by those Salon articles. My handicap is not comparable to sexual desire: I’m born this way, it’s not a question of what I want, what or whom I lust for. On the contrary, my sexual desire is something others (like Alicen Grey in her article for example) pathologize, make a handicap. My handicap (the one I’m born with, not the one people like Grey or Sarkeesian are forcing upon me) is also not necessarily something I want to get rid of, but something I just live with. Yet pedophilia, in this terms, is something that needs to be suppressed in order to not become an outburst of violence. Maybe Nickerson mistakes fantasy with reality, in a typical realistic notion, but otherwise he cannot live his sexuality in the way he talks about reality. Because Nickerson is not saying he „loves“ just images of children, but suggests he „loves“ real children most, children living in this, our own world. It’s like saying: “I love Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa”. Yes you can, you can love the painted image, or have a sexual relationship with it. In your own mind. But you can’t love “Mona Lisa” as (perhaps) a historical figure, other than violating a (supposed to be) dead body. Nickerson too, favours reality. The same reality he needs to protect his desires from. The core problem is the narrow notion of life and living surrounding all of these ideas, the central focus on reality. And Grey is referring the same patriarchal purposes she supposedly wants to attack: she uses (capable) bodies (and identities) as some sort of weapons. She suggests heteronormativity in pedophiles, a rather biologistic notion of sex, rather than gender, and so on. It’s like saying Marilyn Monroe was a poster child for pedophiles, and some comments surrounding her article also suggest exactly that: no, what many heterosexual males lust for is youth and (supposed) innocence. That’s what “Barely Legal” means – the Hustler magazine, or Internet search engine results. Also regarding the fact why a search for female first names often leads to pornographic material: not because women are being held sexually captivated, but many fantasies regarding female bodies are based on platonic thoughts of innocence in person. They don’t know and more often than not don’t want to know who the objects of their sexual desire “really” are. And both, youth and the sexual fantasy of innocence, are not identical with the idea of children. They suggest rather an aesthetic that favours the new, against the old. And this aesthetic is observable across the world: new and shiny things are usually more attractive than old or worn stuff, despite some personal worth. Yet there’s no talk about that, because otherwise they would need to “objectify” human beings as objects of sexual desire, and that’s exactly what their ideology doesn’t want when talking about “love”, rather than sex. Yet sexuality always comes through objective views on other beings, humans, animals, plants and lifeless artificial things. Subjects first and foremost can only see objects in their surroundings, like just others in the environment, and not other subjects – they are no mentalists and can just respect the other being – everything else is just hypocrisy: and there’s also an exaggeration of the term „pedophile“ at present. A „pedoophile“ is per definition NOT someone who is attracted by adolescence, but to pre-pubescent children. Therefore it’s totally misleading and belittling to even talk about “pedophilia” that way, in a different context or even out of the context pedophiles lust for children.‘
Seiten
-
Aktuelle Beiträge
Archiv
- Januar 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Juni 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- Januar 2022
- Dezember 2021
- November 2021
- Oktober 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- Juli 2021
- Juni 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- März 2021
- Februar 2021
- Januar 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- Juli 2020
- Juni 2020
- Mai 2020
- April 2020
- März 2020
- Februar 2020
- Januar 2020
- Dezember 2019
- November 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Januar 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Januar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- Dezember 2016
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Januar 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Januar 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Januar 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Januar 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Januar 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- August 2011
Kategorien
- "Kritik"
- Allgemein
- Alltäglichkeiten
- Almrausch-Urteile
- Almrauschen
- Alternative Lebensweisen
- Amerika
- Arbeitswelt und Realismen
- Ästhetische Belange
- Österreich
- BärInnendienste
- Biologismus
- Chauvis
- Denkanstöße
- Der Mayer ging zur Presse…
- Deutschland
- Die Welt wird auf der Erde verteidigt
- Freiheiten
- In eigener Sache
- Kapitalistische Verschärfungen
- Materialismus
- Polen
- Post vom Mayer
- Retrospektiven
- Wie die deutschsprachige Wikipedia arbeitet
- Wirtschaft und Kulturelles
- Wort zum Alltag
- "Demokratie" 2.0
- Alltagsfaschismus
- Almrausch im Urlaub
- Almrausch in der Mittagspause
- Antibürgerliches
- Aphorismus der Woche
- Begleitung
- Bildschirmaufnahmen
- Billiger Antifaschismus
- Das Fremde
- Erotophobes
- Ersteindrücke
- Europa
- Film
- Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Menschenverachtung
- Gewalt
- Humor
- Ideologiekritik
- Japanophiles
- Literarisches
- Marketing
- Matthäus-Evangelium
- Medienressentiments
- Metro
- MonMoons
- Moralgesellschaft
- n diafd d
- Offene Briefe an SB.com
- Opfer- statt TäterInnenrollen
- Polternder Philosoph
- Rant
- Rassismen
- Realsatire
- Religion als Entschuldigung
- Repräsentative Wirren
- Rus
- Sex
- Sony
- Sprachliche Verrenkungen
- Standard-Kommentare
- Technik
- Verbreiterung als Einebnung
- Verwunderungen
- Wissenschaft und Forschung