The Green Party has some serious questions to answer

[littlebabyjesus]

Well surely if the definition includes 'unusual' a kink can only be defined in terms of the society it exists in and socially acceptable turn ons don't count.

Socially acceptable to whom, though? Who is making the rules here? At the very least, you have created a very fuzzy and moveable boundary between kink and non-kink. imo not a useful way to look at this at all.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It means you're half-way to nekkid.

You could also be half way to fully clothed. Is the glass half full or half empty?

 

[8ball]

But that's my point. You can't say that someone who fantasises about having sex, perhaps even rough or violent sex, with a young underage girl gets a pass but someone who enjoys wearing a nappy and literally sitting around in their own shit is to be treated as suspicious and potentially dangerous to others. And I take the point, I think there probably is some element of formative sexual experience type thing there that plays a role but when you have tabloid newspapers aggressively sexualising young girls on a daily basis in order to sell more copies then there is also something pretty dark going on there around the commodification of young girls bodies and that has implications for everybody who grows up and goes through those formative sexual experiences because that's the world we exist in.

That's a pretty dark interpretation. My point was that the dodginess isn't always deducible by the symbols themselves, but what is going on in the background.

As for the bit I bolded - I'm pretty sure I clearly didn't say that.

 

[8ball]

You could also be half way to fully clothed. Is the glass half full or half empty?

Always half-empty.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Always half-empty.

There you go then - underwear can't be sexy to you cos it means they're getting dressed!

Unless you find clothed people sexier than naked people. Which if you do is totally fine go live your best life or whatever

 

[8ball]

Unless you find clothed people sexier than naked people. Which if you do is totally fine go live your best life or whatever

I think when it comes to half-clothed, this is pretty much the norm.

 

[andysays]

Depends how you define kink. Dictionary definition is an 'unusual' sexual preference so liking big tits/big cocks or sexy underwear doesn't really count.

It also depends how strong your preference is.

I am definitely 'stimulated' by my partner wearing certain kinds of underwear, but it's her that I'm attracted to, not the underwear, and I'm also attracted to her when she isn't wearing the underwear.

As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.

 

[8ball]

As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are ... unable to be aroused without the underwear.

That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.

 

[andysays]

That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.

Yes, I remember that

I'm at work and on my phone ATM, but I might even dig out a definition when I get home later.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's a common definition, but it has been strongly contested on here before.

Either way, not really relevant here if we're talking about kinky sexual preferences. No need at all to add any kind of qualification that it must be necessary for arousal to count.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It also depends how strong your preference is.

I am definitely 'stimulated' by my partner wearing certain kinds of underwear, but it's her that I'm attracted to, not the underwear, and I'm also attracted to her when she isn't wearing the underwear.

As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.

That sounds very unlike the way it gets used in conversation! But I suppose these words are poorly defined.

 

[8ball]

Either way, not really relevant here if we're talking about kinky sexual preferences. No need at all to add any kind of qualification that it must be necessary for arousal to count.

I've no idea what we're talking about. The thread title has something to do with the Green party...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've no idea what we're talking about. The thread title has something to do with the Green party...

If we've diverted it away from speculation about what a particular damaged young person may or may not have known or done years ago, that's all to the good, imo. Let it be about something else.

 

[andysays]

As I understand the idea of a fetish, it means you are basically focussed on the underwear (or whatever) rather than the person, and are unable to be aroused without the underwear.

It appears I was wrong. Although there seems to be a difference between the two systems of classification, there's a difference between what's regarded as a fetish and fetishistic disorder, and only in the latter is it the case that sexual arousal or activity is entirely dependent on the fetishised object or behaviour.

The ICD-10 defines fetishism as a reliance on non-living objects for sexual arousal and satisfaction. It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse. The ICD's research guidelines require that the preference persists for at least six months, and is markedly distressing or acted on.

Under the DSM-5, fetishism is sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts, excluding clothes used for cross-dressing (as that falls under transvestic disorder) and sex toys that are designed for genital stimulation. In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life. In the DSM-IV, sexual interest in body parts was distinguished from fetishism under the name partialism (diagnosed as Paraphilia NOS), but it was merged with fetishistic disorder for the DSM-5.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't really want to pursue that much except to say that, once you have started quoting from the DSM, whichever version you use, you have already entered into deeply contested territory. One thing the DSM largely hides is the extent of disagreement even among supposed experts (even just within the US, which is where the DSM is formulated) over many of these issues and the right way to pathologise them, or indeed whether or not they should be pathologised at all. I have a problem with the very first bit of that: 'sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts'. Who is it that says it is in any way 'correct', or whatever the opposite of 'fetishistic is (normal?) for one's sexual arousal to come from genital body parts (and what are the 'genital body parts' anyway? Presumably lips are included). We can be aroused in all kinds of ways by all kinds of things, and the processes by which our sexuality is shaped are complex, contingent, and infinitely varying. It's a horrible way to look at things, tbh.

 

[andysays]

Don't really want to pursue that much except to say that, once you have started quoting from the DSM, whichever version you use, you have already entered into deeply contested territory. One thing the DSM largely hides is the extent of disagreement even among supposed experts (even just within the US, which is where the DSM is formulated) over many of these issues and the right way to pathologise them, or indeed whether or not they should be pathologised at all. I have a problem with the very first bit of that: 'sexual arousal from nonliving objects or specific nongenital body parts'. Who is it that says it is in any way 'correct', or whatever the opposite of 'fetishistic is (normal?) for one's sexual arousal to come from genital body parts (and what are the 'genital body parts' anyway? Presumably lips are included). We can be aroused in all kinds of ways by all kinds of things, and the processes by which our sexuality is shaped are complex, contingent, and infinitely varying. It's a horrible way to look at things, tbh.

I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.

I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.

It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse

In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life.

If we're talking about people's suitability for standing for political office, it's only when there's this level of fetishistic disorder that it's potentially problematic, IMO.

 

[emanymton]

I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.

I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.

It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse

In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life.

If we're talking about people's suitability for standing for political office, it's only when there's this level of fetishist disorder that it's potentially problematic, IMO.

Isn't it the very meaning fetish that it is an object which has human powers or qualities atteibuted to it?

 

[andysays]

Isn't it the very meaning fetish that it is an object which has human powers or qualities attributed to it?

Originally it meant something which has super natural powers

A fetish is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a human-made object that has power over others

I'm using the term here as shorthand for sexual fetish, but arguably the supernatural aspect of the original meaning is still significant here too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not really interested in what you think of the DSM, I'm interested in the question of whether a fetish or a kink or whatever we call it should be an obstacle to someone standing for political office, amongst other things.

I posted those definitions in an attempt to make what I think is a significant distinction. These are the important bits, IMO.

It is only considered a disorder when fetishistic activities are the foremost source of sexual satisfaction, and become so compelling or unacceptable as to cause distress or interfere with normal sexual intercourse

In order to be diagnosed as fetishistic disorder, the arousal must persist for at least six months and cause significant psychosocial distress or impairment in important areas of their life.

If we're talking about people's suitability for standing for political office, it's only when there's this level of fetishist disorder that it's potentially problematic, IMO.

So any old kinky fetish is fine except if it is something that the person him or herself finds distressing to such an extent that they have gone to a shrink to seek treatment for it? If they're fine bumbling along with it, then they're fine for public office, but if they seek help because they're not fine bumbling along with it, they're potentially unfit for public office.

Well there's a lesson there, no doubt: if you hold a public office, you'd better not seek help for anything that might be diagnosed as a fetishistic disorder. You'll be in trouble if anyone finds out.

And if you bring up quotes from the DSM, expect people to engage with that. It has provided an important plank upon which everything else you're saying rests.

 

[andysays]

So any old kinky fetish is fine except if it is something that the person him or herself finds distressing to such an extent that they have gone to a shrink to seek treatment for it? If they're fine bumbling along with it, then they're fine for public office, but if they seek help because they're not fine bumbling along with it, they're potentially unfit for public office.

Well there's a lesson there, no doubt: if you hold a public office, you'd better not seek help for anything that might be diagnosed as a fetishistic disorder. You'll be in trouble if anyone finds out.

And if you bring up quotes from the DSM, expect people to engage with that. It has provided an important plank upon which everything else you're saying rests.

Where have I said that the question of whether someone has sought help for it is a defining factor? Do you only have a disorder once a doctor has diagnosed you as having it?

For some one who claims you 'don't really want to pursue that much' you seem to be pursuing this quite vigorously, and reading plenty into my posts which really isn't there...

 

[SpackleFrog]

That's a pretty dark interpretation. My point was that the dodginess isn't always deducible by the symbols themselves, but what is going on in the background.

As for the bit I bolded - I'm pretty sure I clearly didn't say that.

No, sorry, didn't mean that you said that and I sort of agree with what you're saying because it is entirely normalised and probably very often entirely harmless but at the same time, the schoolgirl trope does potentially encompass people who have these kind of fantasies etc. I'm not sure on reflection on what I'm trying to say here - perhaps that in a society which inherently sexualises children and draws a link between children and some form of legitimate sexuality it doesn't make sense to pick and choose what is unacceptable in terms of peoples sexuality, provided of course it involves no actual sexual activity with someone who doesn't consent or is too young to consent.

I dunno, ignore me, gone off on one there maybe.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

She's joined the Libdems now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's not much of a "transphobia problem" in the Green Party. The executive committee has 3 trans members, and Challoner was soft-pedalled around by the membership due to her volatility, and her penchant for accusing people of transphobia if they dared challenge her.

The "LGBT+ Lib Dems" Twitter acct is mostly run by a single person who also sees any questioning of them as "transphobic".

I'm not ignorant of the faults of the GP. I've questioned their continued lack of class analysis, and their tendency to succumb to "Trendy Vicar Syndrome", and I'm not blind to the fact that some older Greens are fairly right-wing. I think they need to do some very deep policy soul-searching, and soon.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.

 

[butchersapron]

In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.

Have you joined labour yet btw?

 

[Wilf]

She's joined the Libdems now.

I'm reminded of Stewart Lee's line on James Corden: 'Britain's loss if very much America's loss'.

 

[Wilf]

In regards to Challenor, I think we should welcome the progress represented in the fact that trans people can be just as given to vacuous opportunist party-hopping as anyone else.

I don't want to visit the sins of the father on her, though she's certainly guilty of keeping him as her agent when she knew he was being charged. Given that he was a child rapist, if there was ever a time to keep it zipped and tone down the 'me, me, me' stuff, it's now. As far as I can tell, her only evidence that the greens have gone from being trans inclusive to transphobic in the space of a few weeks is Lucas meeting the Women's Place. Or, of course, that they suspended Aimee herself.

I think her political tactics are awful, for example the terfblocker stuff, much discussed on here. But in branding the greens as transphobic she's as narcissistic and destructive as boris johnson. Hopefully, I don't need to say I'm not generalising from that to trans activism more widely. She does though embody the worst of id politics, where the personal not only overtakes the political, it actually replaces it.

 

[emanymton]

I don't want to visit the sins of the father on her, though she's certainly guilty of keeping him as her agent when she knew he was being charged. Given that he was a child rapist, if there was ever a time to keep it zipped and tone down the 'me, me, me' stuff, it's now. As far as I can tell, her only evidence that the greens have gone from being trans inclusive to transphobic in the space of a few weeks is Lucas meeting the Women's Place. Or, of course, that they suspended Aimee herself.

I think her political tactics are awful, for example the terfblocker stuff, much discussed on here. But in branding the greens as transphobic she's as narcissistic and destructive as boris johnson. Hopefully, I don't need to say I'm not generalising from that to trans activism more widely. She does though embody the worst of id politics, where the personal not only overtakes the political, it actually replaces it.

So in conclusion the lib dems are welcome to her

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Have you joined labour yet btw?

Nope.

My GPEW membership lapsed and I'm only doing a small amount of non-party activism at the mo. Other stuff going on etc. I'm more likely to rejoin GPEW than join Labour, but I do have political and cultural problems with them.

Come a GE, I'm inclined to do some legwork in 1 Lab/Tory marginal, 1 Green hopeful and maybe 1 Plaid hopeful seat but we'll see.

Thanks for your interest Hope you're doing well generally and productive in whatever activism you may be up to.

 

[DaveCinzano]

From the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: