The USSR and Homosexuality (Part IV) Dr TS Atarov and Others

Dr Atarov is of the opinion that parents must work to carefully keep their own sexual behaviour strictly separate from the obvious attention of their children (with no affection being displayed in public, or around the children), so that sexual (biological) and emotional urges and behaviours are not triggered too early in the development of the child. Dr Atarov in the USSR, and Dr Kinsey in the US, both appear to have made the same observations about the development of Children in as much as children possess a latent sexual ability that only manifests when triggered by environmental factors, but that this ‘triggering’ should be at a time that is both ‘morally’ and ‘socially’ acceptable, when the child has developed into a young adult, etc. Where as Dr Kinsey in the US equates the early triggering of Child sexual behaviour with sexual abuse (inflicted by offending adults upon young children), Dr Atarov simply equates it with Soviet children perhaps observing (by mistake), their parents in a passionate embrace. This suggests that the plague of child sexual abuse prevalent in the capitalist West, did not exist in the Soviet Union, and was unknown.

The USSR and Homosexuality Part III (RSFSR Article 154a)

This legislation appears to have been interpreted as a protection against male on male rape, and not an attack upon homosexuality in general.  This stance appears to be vindicated by the fact that the Soviet Government (in 1926), invited the German Magnus Hirschfeld – the famous gay emancipator and founder of the World League of Sexual Reform – to witness first-hand the tolerance toward homosexuality in Revolutionary Russia. As a result, during the 1928 Copenhagen Congress of the Institute for the Science of Sexuality, the League stated that the Soviet Union was a model of tolerance for sexual diversity.  When Hitler came to power, however, these progressive institutes were attacked and destroyed.

When Julian Clary was Revolutionary…

Of course, the rightwing press immediately launched a vindictive campaign against Julian Clary for expressing his disdain at Toryism in general, and Tory policy inparticular. This was the very same press that thought it was perfectly OK for homelessness to re-appear on the UK streets, after being virtually eradicated by the Labour initiated Welfare State since 1948.

Racism and Animal Rights

As a supporter of the Leftwing, I fully support the principle of raising the level of human consciousness, and in so doing, changing the manner we as a species interact with animals and insects, etc. At the moment the default setting for human-animal interaction is at a cruel setting, administered through hatred and anger (and even enjoyment), or a complete indifference to the plight of other species as they suffer through human action or inaction. The Animal Rights Movement is not naturally Leftwing, but is split into a Left and a Right camp. The rightists are fascist and over-sentimentalise Animal Rights, whilst allowing all kinds of abhorrent behaviour to be committed against other human beings – they are also inherently racist.

1 3 4 5