Fucking hell. A kid of 14, who has "been having sex with men" since he was 12, and "likes men in their 20s or early 30s".
Peter writes "Lee has a serious problem". Amazingly, Peter thinks that Lee's "serious problem" isn't that he's been groomed by child abusers as he was a child groomed into prostitution by an older child, and raped by adult men, but that if an adult man in his 20s or 30 abuses Lee, that adult man may fall afoul of the law.
Any man in his 20s or 30s who does have sex with Lee - ie rape, because however enthusiastic Lee is, he cannot meaningfully consent, because he is a child - should bloody fall afoul of the law.
Another bit which really gave me the chills, though, was this bit:
The relationship with John did not, however, stop Lee from experimenting with heterosexuality. “I had sex with John’s twin sister. He found out and got very angry. He stormed out. For a while we weren’t speaking. We made up afterwards.
This is when Lee was eight, and his friend John was eight. Which means John's twin sister was also eight. An eight year old girl gets sexually abused by her brother's friend, and it ends up as a little anecdote in this heartwarming story of a boy's serious sexual abuse by adult men.
Peter also writes this:
Even with a permitted one year age differential, Lee’s affair with Andrew, who was three years older, would not have been legal. Something a bit more flexible is required.
Well, I'm sure all us mumsnetters agree that the next big civil rights campaign we all jump on should be the legal right of 14 year old boys to rape 11 year old boys. Fucking hell.
I genuinely went back to this webpage a couple of times to try and ensure it wasn't some kind of stitch-up or spoof, because surely, surely, even Peter Fucking Tatchell couldn't be this obtuse, this ignorant, of the realities of child abuse?
Peter, you can post all the weaselly little disclaimers you like at the top of this bullshit child abuse apologia, but we see you.