Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids

[Happypie]

Peter Tatchell runs the Peter Tatchell Foundation that is currently seeking charitable status. He is also regularly consulted on LGBT issues.

I include a picture of a letter he wrote to the Guardian in the 90s about sex with children. It is deeply disgusting. A man who has these views about sex with kids should not be allowed to run anything.

That’s horrible ican’t. Just shocking.

@Icantmakeanomelette

It's shit isn't it? It's made worse by the fact that my brother doesn't remember, or says he doesn't. And he's pumped full of medication so it's very likely he genuinely doesn't remember. He definitely remembers some things, though.

The reason I can't have anything to do with him, though, is that he goes on constantly about how he misses our abusive F (tbf he wasn't abused by him).

And my DM constantly pressures us to help support him. I end up feeling so guilty about abandoning him. But I don't want him anywhere near my DDs.

for you too

I'm horrified beyond belief. This is a real trigger for me and is part of the deconstruction of consent.

Thanks Lizzie.

I don't speak to any of my family. They are all filth. I'm sorry you still have to put up with pressure from your DM.

I'm fortunate in that my DSis is in the same position as me, as in she suffered similarly to me, and we're able to support each other, and our DC are close, too. I also have a supportive DH and a few good friends.

I hope you have RL support?

It is real. He hasn't even denied

Certain other medical professionals including the fragrant Dr Hairplugs Jessen have said similar things.

There is a huge movement out there of men who dress up as cute furry bunnies and can't see anything wrong in grooming children for sex

icant and Lizzie48. My heart goes out to both of you with what you have been through. I’m sorry my words are clumsy as I just don’t know what else to say, but you are both so brave to share and I didn’t want to read and run. 💐
PT has always made my skin crawl, but that letter is new to me and thoroughly disgusting.

Thanks Lizzie, I am v well supported. DH, 2 lovely DS', still in touch with a couple of cousins but no immediate family, great friends. I had a lot of therapy and my life is fantastic without having to accommodate a bunch of narcissistic sex pests in it.

Weirdly, one on the only lectures I can remember from Brian Taylor (aka Humphrey Barton) at Uni was one in which he referenced how ethical standards differ in countries according to whether they can be afforded.

He talked about western people boycotting carpets made by children in a developed country, which then meant when the carpet industry stopped being lucrative the children 'turned' (AKA were forced into through abject lack of choice) to what he termed 'child prostitution' (AKA sexual abuse of children).

He was a somewhat quirky character, I don't remember anything about his interest in paedophilia at the time although it's clear he's written reams about it (though I did go to Uni in a pre-google time).

A lot of people have been saying for a while that the next step after enshrinement of the TRA agenda in law is a campaign to legalise paedophilia

Indeed

And since this wretch sees fit to refer to child rape as "consenting inter-generational sex", I fully expect to see him in the vanguard of the campaign

I'm pretty gutted. I've always admired Peter Tatchell.

Fuck's sake.

My Guardian letter was edited. It still said paedophilia is "IMPOSSIBLE to condone". This means I oppose it.

I wrote the letter in response to a bid to close down discussion about academic research on under-age sex. I was defending open debate. I cited academics.

I have worked with & supported sex abuse survivors. They would not work with me if they thought I was a paedophile apologist.

Most sex involving children (persons under 18) is freely chosen with other children of similar ages. It is consensual. & does not cause harm. Hence my EDITED Guardian letter was correct: most sex involving children (under 18s) is not unwanted, abusive or harmful.

Adult = 18 or over. Child = under 18. Some 18 or 19 year olds (adults) can and do have non-abusive relationships with 16 and 17 year olds (children)

See my campaigns AGAINST sex abuse
www.petertatchell.net/sex_education/why-arent-schools-educating-kids-against-sex-abuse

My REAL views on consent issues www.facebook.com/PeterTatchell/posts/1152859171475206

MORE details here
www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-consent-of-14

Thank you, Peter

My Guardian letter was edited. It still said paedophilia is "IMPOSSIBLE to condone". This means I oppose it.

I wrote the letter in response to a bid to close down discussion about academic research on under-age sex. I was defending open debate. I cited academics.

I have worked with & supported sex abuse survivors. They would not work with me if they thought I was a paedophile apologist.

Most sex involving children (persons under 18) is freely chosen with other children of similar ages. It is consensual. & does not cause harm. Hence my EDITED Guardian letter was correct: most sex involving children (under 18s) is not unwanted, abusive or harmful.

Adult = 18 or over. Child = under 18. Some 18 or 19 year olds (adults) can and do have non-abusive relationships with 16 and 17 year olds (children)

See my campaigns AGAINST sex abuse
www.petertatchell.net/sex_education/why-arent-schools-educating-kids-against-sex-abuse

My REAL views on consent issues www.facebook.com/PeterTatchell/posts/1152859171475206

MORE details here
www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-consent-of-14

Thank you, Peter

Inter-generational?

You really disgust me Peter, that letter clearly shows you to have sympathies with pedophiles.

Paedophiles*

@PeterTatchell

Sex abuse survivor here.

You believe 2 nine year olds can consent and be unharmed by sex?

Hello Peter. Welcome to Mumsnet.

Your comments about intergenerational sex in some cultures are deeply concerning. You said that children as young as nine having sex is not always a bad thing

I say it is always a bad thing

If you are so opposed to paedophilia did you ever report your "friends" that you know have indulged in it ?

OK so what did the full version of the letter say Peter? Am struggling to understand how you were misconstrued but if we can see the whole letter that would help

A highly disingenuous post to say the least

And interesting that instead of "Several of my friends male and female had sex with adults from the ages of 9-13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy" we're now offered a reference to 18/19 year olds having sex with 16/17 year olds

Convenient, too, since the age of consent happens to be 16

But @PeterTatchell, what about this bit of the letter?

The positive nature of some child adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-western cultures. Several of my friends male and female had sex with adults from the ages of 9-13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

That isn't about two 14 year old having consenting sex is it?

This is why women have to remain the gatekeepers to children. They are trying to demonise feminists in order to break down barriers and access spaces reserved for women and children. It's becoming very obvious.

Coming up with anecdotes from your mates Peter that they were involved in sexual acts from the age of nine and it never did them any harm is not an act of encouraging academic debate. Do you have any understanding of what is it be a child victim of sex abuse ( or indeed emotional abuse)?

Good evening Peter. Welcome to Mumsnet

Any excuses for the glowing obituary you gave to the founder of PIE? How does that tie in with all your great charity work?

I have worked with & supported sex abuse survivors. They would not work with me if they thought I was a paedophile apologist.*

This just sounds like I have black friends so I can't be racist to me sorry