Peter Tatchell’s Glowing Review of Paedophile’s Book

Today I rad about the gang rape of a young woman in Sicily. I have no doubt the young men who subjected her to an absolutely horrific attack are soaked in porn.

Perhaps Peter could have a chat with the victim if she thinks quality porn shows young people about sex – the techniques and skills involved, and how to satisfy yourself and your partner. This gives users of porn much better knowledge and expertise in the art of sex.

I'm pretty sure she'd have a different perspective. Tatchell has no interest in women. What he's interested in is his own sexual gratification

The opening to that article.

“While pornography can be dehumanising and exploitative, it can also be educative, liberating, empowering, fulfilling and immensely socially beneficial. It all depends on how it is made, who makes it, what it depicts and why it is being used.

The puritanical right-wing feminist claim that porn is always anti-women is simplistic, untrue, insensitive, uncaring and, dare l say it, sometimes misogynistic and homophobic. Using sexually-explicit imagery can be egalitarian, health-promoting, emotionally fulfilling and life-saving.”

Interestingly he feels that men over a certain age are too old to be influencing these matters. The article was 15 years ago. Tatchell is now in his 70s.

“There are some grey areas that I feel uncomfortable about, such porn videos produced by consenting participants which nevertheless show images of extreme sexual violence and degradation. But the censorship of these images involves inherent problems: how do you define degradation and who decides? While some porn is degrading, not all of it is. Do we believe that the state, and often elderly conservative judges, are the appropriate and reasonable arbiters of such matters?”

Or perhaps it’s only elderly men who disagree with him that he objects to having a say.

This is what Tatchell says in a 2008 article entitled “Porn Can Be Good For You”.

“Sex mags and vids can be great sex education for young people. Unlike the coy, euphemistic nonsense that passes for sex education in schools, quality porn shows young people about sex – the techniques and skills involved, and how to satisfy yourself and your partner. This gives users of porn much better knowledge and expertise in the art of sex. The result? Often better quality sex lives and partners who are more sexually and emotionally fulfilled.”

https://www.petertatchell.net/pornography/porncanbegoodforyou/

Well, you certainly can't say he hides his intentions. He's out and proud.

My Q has always been, why 14? Why not 13, or 12, or indeed 9?

And what's with the "2-3 year max" age gap if one member is underage?

A 14 and 17 year old would really be ok? Really?

And what's to stop the slippery slope/thin end of wedge to apply?

14 today...12 or 13 in a few years.

And we've seen the UN/UNESCO/WHO attempted guidance on sexualisation education (this stuff is not sex education, it's education to sexualise, because that's what it means to legalise sex at those ages).

No way is an older groomer or predator not gonna find an age of consent of 13 or 14 hugely tempting.

Throw in the UN/UNESCO/WHO direction of travel, the queering of society, DQSH, and there is only one destination for this train.

Hmm, threats of suicide as a reason to do whatever the person making the threats wants. Where have I heard that before..?

And what a remarkable thing to be advocating for, lowering the age of consent, considering the ramifications of Foucault and his group of intellectuals getting the age of consent lowered in France?

Gosh, it really seems bad luck that Tatchell is a keen advocate of gender identity theory which we know Foucault was hugely instrumental in forming and the harm to the children of this age of consent change were silenced by powerful men in France. Because obvs Tatchell never heard of these harms. Maybe Tatchell never knew of Foucault’s alleged sexual interests. Yet, Tatchell remains unwavering in support of many things Foucault wrote about or successfully campaigned for.

Here’s a link to his website articles on lowering the age of consent to 14.

https://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age-of-consent/

To misquote John Mclane

“How can the same shit happen to the same guy repeatedly”

🤔🙄

I know MrsO! It is bad luck that he keeps having his view published on this and it seems to maintain a consistent activism. No matter how he doth protest.

That is bad luck Helleofabore - for him to repeatedly speak in favour of children having sexual agency to have sex with adults (I'm defining an 18 year old as an adult). I note he suggests this as a mantra for sex education

"It’s my body. It’s my right to decide".

I wonder how he weaves that in to the sex education his foundation provide for school? And I wonder whether teachers and parents are aware of his long and unlucky history of promoting the "rights" of even very young children to have sexual relationships with adults?

Thirteen! My DC is 13 and nowhere near mature enough to understand the consequences of any of that. How on earth have the media ignored all this?

Tatchell has had such bad luck.

I mean, he wrote this letter too about Sarah Cook’s underage marriage back in 1996! Gosh, he has had bad luck.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-why-destroy-young-love-1326015.html

”Sir: Your thoughtful, compassionate editorial ("Sad tale of a modern- day Juliet", 25 January) on the hounding of the 13-year-old child bride, Sarah Cook, was a much-needed corrective to the hysterical, heartless reaction of the Turkish and British authorities. Although her marriage may be unlawful, there is no evidence that Sarah was coerced into, or harmed by, the relationship with Musa Komaegae. Indeed, she appears to have been very happy - until the heavy-handed intervention of officialdom.”

”Why the authorities should want to (or be allowed to) break up the love between these two teenagers is beyond my comprehension. Isn't there enough emotional unhappiness in the world without adding needlessly to it? Moreover, in an era when youth promiscuity is widely condemned, one would expect society to welcome Sarah's and Musa's love and fidelity, rather than seek to destroy it.”

“The authorities claim that they have Sarah's welfare at heart. However, it's hard to envisage that her welfare is best served by forcing her to undergo the humiliation of a so-called "virginity test" and by charging- the man she loves with rape, despite the evidently consensual nature of their relationship.”

“Astonishingly, even though Sarah has talked of suicide if she is kept apart from Musa, officials seem prepared to risk the possibility of such a tragedy. Yes, there is real harm being done to this young girl, but it's not being done by her boyfriend.”

Yours faithfully,
Peter Tatchell
London, SE1

This is in response to :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/mother-of-bride-13-faces-turkish-police-1325484.html

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12284074.turkish-waiter-remarries/

The mirror did a follow up in 2000

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+the+child+bride+grew+up...%3B+SHE+WAS+A+NAIVE+TOURIST+OF+13+AND+HE...-a068111728

It is a horrific story. Yet Tatchell’s bad luck to have yet another letter published that pleaded that this 13 year old was never coerced and it was true love and how terrible it was that there was this investigation. Notice Tatchell has reduced the man’s age which was known to be 18, to ‘they are both teenagers’….

I wonder if he even remembers this.

Such bad luck!!

and he seemed to go onto a life of selfless activism

This by now should surely be a red flag.
Happens so often.

It would make my day if the go-to contributors from the gay POV wouldn't be Tatchell, but instead Malcolm Clark or Dennis Noel Kavanagh.

However I suspect we'd need a bit more Stonewall self-immolation before that day.

Maybe in the meantime, an interviewer could ask a transplaining Tatchell "First Peter, can I get your opinions on this piece you wrote justifying underage sex..."

I don't know why the media - tv companies in particular - keep giving him a platform. All this stuff is publicly available and has been well aired on Twitter. I it just laziness? They need someone who's gay, and Tatchell is articulate and outspoken, so they're not going to look too closely into what he's said in the past.

And long overdue that shows such as GMB stop inviting him to speak as an authority on child safety matters in Schools. It enrages me every time and I do write in expressing so.

It's always disappointing that Tatchell is never asked why he repeatedly calls for the age of consent to be lowered? Especially when he spends so much time commenting on sex education for children.

It's long overdue that journalists started probing why he's so insistent on this.

Is this one of the reasons the press are reluctant to investigate

Like all those kids in Rotherham and elsewhere were treated as though they had the right to consent to how they were treated?

I don't think sexually active children are treated as criminals. It would be a safeguarding issue. It's the people they are having sex with who may be criminalised. That's who Tatchell is really advocating for.

Of course, he may not realise that! Definitely.....definitely....?

I've worked in various charitable organisations.

There are many people in there whose motives were not charitable.

That's all I am prepared to say on the matter.

Damn right I deny my kids the ‘right’ to drink booze, get tattoos and ‘consent’ to sexual activity with adults!

Denying them the right

Kids are "denied the right" to drive, own a gun, or to buy knives. Should we invert those situations as well?

His twitter / X thread - he wants to reduce the age of consent: 😡

"..Parliament rightly seeks to safeguard against abuse. It sets the age of consent at 16. But by denying the under-16s the right to consent to sex, it reinforces the idea that they have no right to make their own sexual choices. Isn’t this also what child sex abusers believe? That teens have no right to decide?.."

He really is in plain sight isn't he?

100%

Yet how long before this thread is deleted. It always happens. It's in front of our eyes yet we are silenced and he continues to get airtime.

Tatchell wants to reduce child abuse in schools by moving the boundary between what is sexual abuse of a child and what is legal sex with a minor?

Reminds me of the time the Tories reduced child poverty by changing the definition of poverty!