Queer Theory is the academic tradition (both terms used loosely) that underpins identity politics and gender identity extremism. It is grounded in the pursuit of smashing social and personal boundaries.
This is Gayle Rubin
Author of Thinking Sex, the founding document of Queer Theory.
In a very lofty academic sense, she has a point. Surely, somewhere there is a 17 year old and an 18 year old in love who aren’t abusing one another in they way we mean when we talk about adult-child relationships.
But that is the danger of taking a technical approach, and pretending there are degrees of abuse. It is a way to jimmy open the conversation and causing you admit that no not all sexual encourters are oppressive. Then you’ll need to account for every other situation and configuration of adult-child relations and examine them individually to ensure they are indeed abusive. “Yes, but what of the 16 year old who is mature for his age with the 21 year old virgin substitute teacher and the child started it?”
It is a game designed to get us to examine, in brutal tabloid detail, the prospect of sexual relationships with children. The process primes us to consider something we should not consider.
It is a game designed to get agreement that there are some forms of adult-child sexual contact that are not necessarily inherently oppressive.
To do so would be to relinquish our responsibilities as adults.
As adults we know that sexual contact has positive and negative consequence. We base our consent on our ability to evaluate those consequences. Children may be mature, they may ‘start it’, they may even consent and find pleasure in what they think of as an equal sexual relationship. But we know, the adults know that it is not equal, which makes it not consensual and therefore does make adult-child sexual contact always inherently oppressive.
We must not reject our duty as the grown ups in the room to say ‘no’ to child abuse. Even hip, woke child abuse.