Tatchell again

That poor lad. Definitely grooming and abuse.

I now know to disregard anything I read from Tatchell. Thanks for sharing OP.

I couldn’t read that all the way through, it’s too sickening. There you see the words of a child who has been groomed and sexually abused, and Tatchell is going yeah of course, that all sounds sensible. I wonder how he met this child? I don’t even want to think about the physical damage an adult male penis could do to an 8 yo’s body. Please don’t think about that, brain.

I cannot believe that Tatchell is using this boy as an example of why the age on consent should be lowered! This boy was taken into care at 11 and became a rent boy! Lee is both a victim and perpetrator of abuse. The fact that he was highly sexualised is a child is a sign of abuse. It’s a very sad and tragic story. The only good point he makes in that article is that it is considered worse in the eyes of the law to abuse young boys than young girls , which is likely due to a combination of misogyny and homophobia, but rather than arguing to protect girls better, he is arguing to protect boys less. Truly shocking.

I really think children need protecting from themselves sometimes-in this age of cameras on phones & images being shared on social media, 16 is a good age for consent to be given. Many are not mature enough at 16.

12! We really can't forget that for girls, this means potential pregnancy - 12 year olds are still not physically mature, let alone mentally - it's even more dangerous for them to get pregnant than an adult.

Now I'd say 12 is far too young. I think 14 is an absolute minimum

I agree with the window period for age of consent which is what Tatchell lists as his position. Though he is very stupid to have his position listed next to an interview with a boy who was likely abused earlier on in life.

Ages 12-16 should be allowed to have consensual sex with people within 2 years of their age (with minimum age of 12). This is effectively what happens now with police choosing who to prosecute.

The window period should be formalised into law as it is in some other European countries.

That poor boy . He'll be about 36 now. I wonder how he's doing.

Cultural changes since the article include

1). Removal of differentiation in UK law between heterosexual and homosexual sex

2). Recognition that there can be abuse where there is a big power imbalance. So in the 80's and 90's nobody worried about Diana being a teenager when she met and married Charles; the US President was just having a completely normal adult relationship with his intern; and the papers were full of 'wild child girls' having sex with older men.

I think that until very recently it was generally accepted that a power imbalance was a normal part of a heterosexual relationship. (And everyone pretended that homosexual relationships didn't exist.)

If we accepted Tatchell’s arguments, what exactly did the Rochdale etc. grooming gangs do wrong?

Although the note implying that 15 year olds are being prosecuted for having consensual sex with each other is more recent.

I also assume his website has been updated since the early 2000’s when the law changed so it’s all a bit odd.

Oh thanks for clearing that up, I thought for a minute girls were seen as less important! 😐

OP would you consider reporting your thread and asking MNHQ to make it clear in the title that the article is an old one, please? I think it would help the discussion if it were clearer that the laws mentioned in the article are not those that apply today. Thanks!

You know, I thought that (mostly) men who made common cause with paedophiles and campaigned for loweing age of consent in the 70's-90's had deferred to the mountains of evidence and research that demonstrate that this type of 'sexual activity' harms children.

But watching how many of the same people are totally blind to safeguarding when it comes to the TRA agenda (from kids know best to unchecked access of males to underage kids, as soon as they self-ID as women), I do wonder, whether they just held back when their demands appeared politically unwise. And now that they see an opening to increase access to children without being stigmatized, they go for it.

I mean, they are apparently all on the pomo train, and pomo holds that stuff like rape and adult sex with children are only bad, because we construct it as bad and stigmatize the 'experiencing person' as the victim. So why would they not be for it?

Why are girls a shorter punishment?

He was writing in 1997 - homosexual and heterosexual sex used to be differently.

One of the parts that I found odd -
He said long sentence for touching etc, could be life for anal sex
Then said
If you abuse a girl its only 2yrs!
Why are girls a shorter punishment?

Quite disturbing that he hears this tale of a boy having sex with other boys from the age of 8, and with men from the age of 11, prostitution, drugs, etc. and instead of being concerned about what a fucked-up childhood that boy had, all he can think of is lowering the age of consent to make some of this legal.

The original article was written before the age of consent was equalised so some of the laws he refers to have changed.

Tatchell says:
Having a relationship with someone his own age would, paradoxically, put Lee in greater legal danger than sex with an older person. The law says that a homosexual act with a male under 16 is a serious crime, even if the person committing the act is himself below the age of 16.

That doesn't seem to be what the CPS think.
It should be noted that where both parties to sexual activity are under 16, then they may both have committed a criminal offence. However, the overriding purpose of the legislation is to protect children and it was not Parliament's intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it was wholly inappropriate. Consensual sexual activity between, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old and a teenage partner would not normally require criminal proceedings in the absence of aggravating features.

The law is there to protect young people (male and female) from older sexual predators. The law recognises that young people may have consensual sex with other young people of a similar age.

That poor boy.

Ugh. His tone throughout and description of how “sophisticated” Lee is reads so much like the way teenage girls from Rotherham, Telford etc were described. As if having sex at 8 with other boys (wonder how old they were for Tatchell to class them as boys rather than men) is totally normal and to be celebrated. Again, ugh.

Apparently an 8 year old learning about oral sex ‘on television’ and then acting on this information didn’t concern him at all.

Isnt that a very accurate description of the current law? In which case he has his wishes and can stop talking about abuse of boys.

The article is from the 90's. But, anyway, the article's implicit and explicit arguments pretty much contradict Peter's preceding 'clarification'. Pretty much looks like Peter added this backtracking 'clarification' after some sizeable shitstorm.

I have both an 8y old and a 14y old boy. Please tell me its not normal for the 8y old to be having sex with other boys? Or for the 14y old to be having sex with people in their twenties.

He really thinks its normal doesnt he?

From merrymouse's link:

Consensual sexual activity between, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old and a teenage partner would not normally require criminal proceedings in the absence of aggravating features.

So is Tatchell unaware of the law? Or does he have another agenda?