What did Peter Tatchell Really Say - Lily Maynard

Its been archived, just in case; archive dot ph/lqVNS

Wow, Lily left no room for doubt that Tatchell is an apologist (campaigner) for paedophilia. It's rather disturbing to see it all on one page.

It’s also worth being clear that not only is sex not a basic human right.

But wanting to have sex isn’t sufficient justification for it.

The state and society can - and should - make all sorts of rules about where, when, even how people have sex.

It’s OK to tell people they can’t have sex (even just with themselves) in the fruit and veg aisle. Or to set an age of consent. Or to decide that it’s not ok to have some kinds of sex (with animals, with dead things, etc).

In my experience any argument starting from the premise that sex is a universal
human right tends to be extremely problematic.

Underlying all of this is the dangerous myth that sex is a human right.

No one has a right to sex. Whatever their age. Whether they’re married. Whatever the circumstances.

Sex is a privilege another human may afford you if they choose to. But absolutely no one has a basic right to it.

Tatchell is determined to pretend that it is.

I'd like to know what Tatchell believes is the criteria he would use to make sure that children consented to have sex with adults.

Because it sure as shit can't be them saying yes.

So I'd also like to hear his definition of grooming.

Honestly, does he really believe that, in a month of Sundays, his wildest dreams, and from here to eternity, that people actually buy that a 70-year-old man who has campaigned all his adult life to reducing the age of consent, has done it out of a sense of altruism towards kids.

Interestingly, the chapter he wrote for BOY echoes exactly what he was saying the other day in the trans ideology debate. He was very clear that he thinks you can't make 'generalisations'.

If he genuinely believes you can't generalise that children aren't mature enough to consent to sex, then no wonder he believes you can't generalise that men are more dangerous than women.

It's entirely in his interest to want to justify things on a 'case by case basis' if that is what makes it ok in his mind for men to have sex with minors.

Gosh, that’s a VERY long read, and shows he has a long-standing and consistent… interest? fixation? determination?… in lowering the age of consent.

When I was young, under the age of 8, my parents had a friend whom I NOW suspect was a paedophile. He showed great interest in me, told me we’d get married when I grew up, kissed me on the lips when none of my family did that, and I bloody LOVED him, I’d’ve done ANYTHING he wanted me to.

Anyway, years later I heard he’d married a very young Thai girl (that’s where we all lived at the time), and when I told my parents how he’d been with me they were appalled, they’d had no inkling, no misgivings at all, despite them knowing how much I adored him.

The point of my story is that yes, I’d have probably CONSENTED to sex, but as an under-8-year old, who could not possibly consent to something I didn’t understand.

Thank you Wanda for this.
It makes an appalling read and begs the question - why is any school in the country having anything to do with his organisation that goes into schools to talk to children about sex?