1) Reading Massad's invocation of some shadowy Gay International reminded me of McCarthy's invocation of the massive infiltration of Communists in 1950's America. The are many commonalities between the two in the way they foment pansy panic for their purposes.
2) The question is whether pre-modern sexual discourses, rather than being made obsolete by some conspiracy of the nefarious Gay International, just fall by the wayside as people change. There are going to be people who do not want to embrace pre-modern sexual discourses no matter what the miscreants of the Gay International decree. Such discourses do not work for them. Massad's problem is an attachment to the way things were (remember Archie and Edith Bunker singing "Those Were the Days) that is not shared by everyone. He, therefore, posits this Gay International cabal whose sole purpose is to wipe out earlier sexual discourses. In fact, all that is occurring is that a new disourse is being added to the ones from which a person can choose.
> The Financial Times reviewer -- either because he is
smarter than Whitaker, Proyect, and Henwood or because,
unlike them, he has no chip on his shoulder -- understands
that.
The reviewer also skirts Massad's queer panic.
> The Iranian government is repressive of all sexual activity
outside of heterosexual marriage . . .
Exactly, and against such repression leftists should advocate for people being allowed to embrace the sexual identities of their choice and enagage in free and unfettered expression of their sexual selves.
> . . . and they also provide, whether they mean to or not, one
plank in a propaganda campaign against a country that Washington
is currently targeting.
What allows that plank to come into existence is "the Iranian government [being] repressive of all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage" in the first place. Stop being repressive of sexual expression and then the criticism will cease.
Brian