July 13, 2021 – Jewish “Queer Theorist” from Yale University, Joseph Fischel recently published an article in Boston Review calling for homosexuals to perform sex acts in front of children. Using the mantle of “anti-racist” and “social justice” advocacy, he begins to outline an argument for getting rid of consent with what appears to be a clear agenda of legalizing pedophilia:
Those who recall the culture wars of the 1980s and ’90s may find themselves unsure of how to interpret many of today’s criticisms of naughty Pride paraders, which no longer truck in the language of morality and Christian decency. Rather, this new raft of critiques comes mainly from ostensibly woke, politically left, often gay folks who claim that overt displays of (kinky) sexuality at Pride violate the consent of other attendees and endanger children. These sorts of allegations hit a nerve with queer scholars and activists not because they are outrageous but rather because they are not entirely unpersuasive.
Nevertheless, I assert that these anti-sex, anti-kink complaints are not only wrong but also racist and bad for children. In what follows, I tour through a series of legal arguments about the risks and rewards of public sex before considering how these arguments dovetail with historical concerns about the overpolicing and hypersexualizing of Black communities.
In the wake of #MeToo, it requires some care to explain why it is not always assaultive to see another’s exposed genitals without having explicitly consented. For what distinguishes Louis C.K.’s jerking off at women in his hotel room from exposed buttocks at Pride?
Morally paramount among the many, many distinguishing factors is intent, to which I will return soon. Framing it as a debate about consent, on the other hand—or rather nonconsent—is a dangerous misdirection. To see sexual activity or nudity without one’s prior agreement is not equivalent to having one’s own body nonconsensually exposed or assaulted—in the same sense that if I witness a bar fight, I have not myself been hit. But because we have now all been trained to think about consent when we think about sex or anything proximate to it, the equivalence is as understandable as it is wrong.
In our political moment, disgust has collapsed into harm. I regularly see things that profoundly offend, even disgust me: Proud Boys, Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, Confederate flag bumper stickers, Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson. Trans activist and writer Julia Serrano wryly tweeted that ‘people in public wearing wedding rings’ nonconsensually involve her in their intimate relationships. But if we cannot nor should not ban Gaetz from being outdoors because he repulses so many of us, the case for prohibiting tushies and kink from Pride is far weaker: if both Gaetz and tushies disgust people, only one perpetuates racist and sexist inequalities. It’s not the tushies.
‘Family-friendly’ critics, both queer and hetero, who decry displays of kink and nudity in Pride parades draw on a notion of sexual autonomy, what law professor Stephen Schulhofer denotes as a right to sexual self-determination and what Hil O’Connell and I describe elsewhere as the capability to codetermine one’s sexual relations. The kinkphobic Pride spectator claims his sexual autonomy is violated by seeing sex or sexuality he would not otherwise elect to see. But as legal philosopher Joel Feinberg points out, visual offenses rarely possess the noxious inescapability of aural or olfactory offenses. While taking a ride on Feinberg’s hypothetical Nasty Bus, it is easier to look away from a passenger wearing a blasphemous T-shirt than it is to ignore a passenger defecating next to you. For Feinberg, public nudity simply does not rise to the level of what he categorizes as ‘profound’ offense.
If we tend to find putrid smells and grating sounds more severely affronting than eyesores, all these sensory offenses take backseat, in liberal legal thought at least, to intrusions and perturbations of corporeal integrity—that is, to harm inflicted on the body. For Feinberg as for many other legal thinkers, a violation of a person’s body versus an affront to a person’s senses is the difference between harm and offense. Sexual autonomy, instructs Schulhofer, ‘is not only mental and intellectual, not only the capacity for meaningful, unconstrained choice. It is also physical, the separateness of the corporeal person.’ For your sexual autonomy to be violated, your body—not just your senses (visual, aural, olfactory)—has to be nonconsensually intruded upon.
Law professor Kendall Thomas makes an identical point in regard to anti-sodomy statutes. The core wrong with (now unconstitutional) anti-sodomy statutes, argues Thomas, is not that they violate privacy—for queers, “the claim of privacy always also structurally implies a claim to secrecy,” i.e., the closet—but that such laws authorize and legitimate brutal police and civilian violence against the bodies of gay and lesbian citizens. Now reconsider the social policing of Pride’s constituents: How exactly do the kink-has-no-place-at-Pride censors intend to remove kinky people from their sight? Do the censors wish to reinvite police to Pride, so they might taser us into family friendliness? The LGBT battle against sodomy laws was never summarily about preventing the police from entering our bedrooms; it was about protecting a diversity of erotic life from violence, criminalization, and heteronormative compulsion. As law professor Brenda Cossman illuminates in her reconstruction of gay activism ignited by police crackdowns of Toronto’s gay bathhouses in the early 1980s, ‘private’ and ‘public’ have no purified empirical referents; but as political constructs, they help police what lusts, loves, and lives are criminal or free, shamed or venerated.
Schulhofer and Thomas help explain both why seeing sex(uality) is not the same as having sex done to you, and how that faulty equivalence, brokered on nonconsent, unleashes the precise violence on the exhibitionist that the viewer claims to suffer. – Joseph Fischel, Boston Review
The article is a long winded and rambling piece that is attempting to appear to be just advocating for “gay rights” and that children need to be exposed to public sex acts because it will make them “tolerant,” “not racist,” and in the hopes it arouses them.
This is a man who authored a 2019 book entitled “Screw Consent!” in which he “problematizes consent” and argues that consent “diminishes and perverts our ideas about desire, pleasure, and injury.” Fischel claimed that “consent is insufficient, inapposite, and riddled with scope contradictions for regulating and imagining sex.”
He admits to formulating his argument based on “sex on the social margins (bestial, necrophilic, cannibalistic, and other atypical practices).”
One highly disturbing quote from his article is the following:
When parents or people ventriloquizing parents oppose public indecency at Pride on the grounds that it may upset children, the opposite is more likely the case: their children might like it, and that upsets the parents, not the children. What is the presumptive harm if a child happens upon a guy sporting a chest harness, or sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts? Would such children necessarily feel violated, or might adults be feeling violated on their behalf? Might the child be as likely to respond with curiosity?
In the following disgusting video, he argues that “instead of renovating consent to make it ‘sexy, affirmative, or enthusiastic’ we should ‘get rid of it’ for social justice”.
The video is shocking and disturbing.
In his Twitter bio he claims to be “gay for pay” as well as a “law nerd” and “social and sexual theorist.” This is how they are going to attempt not only the full legalization of pedophilia, but also the criminalization of those parents who try to protect and prevent their children from having sex with adults.
In an article for Slate, Fischel once again appears to be at the forefront of defending sexual predators:
— Slate (@Slate) November 1, 2017
Fischel doesn’t want people worried about Pedophilia and tries to pretend it isn’t connected to the gay agenda.
Hottest Slate take yet: "stop calling Kevin Spacey a pedophile for sexually assaulting a 14yo, that only counts for 13-and-under." pic.twitter.com/8S7agn5sji
— Jeff B. tried to do his best, but he could not (@EsotericCD) November 1, 2017
This is horrific, and it gets even worse. Take a look at a passage from his “Screw Consent” book:
This is the sort of sexual deviants teaching at Yale.
On this Issue, the Unz Review writes:
Last September, National Justice wrote a piece warning that the Jewish community was preparing a push to normalize pedophilia. According to numerous gay and Jewish intellectuals, exposing young children to sex and engaging them in it is the pinnacle of anti-fascist activism and the ultimate blow to the ‘authoritarian’ personality that Jews believe led to the populist movements that gave rise to figures like Hitler and Mussolini.
According to research conducted by Western Journal, multiple members of the San Francisco Gay Chorus behind the recent controversial video ‘We’re coming for your children’ are convicted child molesters.
The mainstream media has responded to outrage over pedophiles singing songs about coming for people’s children by referring to critics as bigots and claiming to be victims of threats.
There does not appear to be a credible opponent to the ‘queer’ power structure, which is backed by Wall Street and heavily infiltrated the government, media and academia. Both parties now celebrate homosexual and deviant behavior, even though racial minority blocs in the Democratic Party and the GOP’s rural white Christian base do not generally approve. Recently, the transsexual activist Caitlyn Jenner, who has launched a doomed bid to become Governor of California, was a headliner at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). – Unz Review
It should be noted that while Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued to lower the age of consent to 12, this new crop of Jewish intellectuals are arguing to get rid of consent all together, or in the words of Fischel, “Screw Consent.”