Tatchell again

[Coyoacan]

Has anyone seen this: www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/im-14-im-gay-i-want-a-boyfriend/?fbclid=IwAR0qfQRrnXWbNuUukcyjOvisut1K6wuUfB_VEzG49gpzw3Pv3m-doHsCwus

Just in case we had any remaining doubts about this man.

Tatchell continually contradicts himself. In one breath he’s saying he only wants the age of consent lowered so that 14-16 year olds can have sex with each other without being criminalised, yet that is clearly not what he’s advocating here. He’s using the experinces of a sexually abused 14 year old boy to try and normalise sex between 14 year olds and ‘men in their 20s and 30s’.

This child was growing up in care with a clearly disfunctional background, yet Tatchell doesn’t want to address the issues of why this boy ‘prefers relationships with older guys’. The whole thing makes me feel sick, especially his description of ‘Lee’ :

Wearing a white T-shirt and combat trousers, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. He comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and mature beyond his years. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.

I remember reading this article at the time (maybe in the Pink Paper?) and Tatchell trying to defend his views.

Ffs. When a kid starts having sex with 8, anal with 11, prostitutes themselves before hitting 14, surely the major issue is not decriminalizing having sex with this kid. Unbelievable. The 90‘s were different, but they were not that different.

"I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16.
But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.

Perhaps the ideal solution would be that the age of consent remains at 16 but that sexual behaviour involving young people under 16 should not be criminalised, providing there is informed consent, no one is harmed and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages. "
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.

But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register.

The CPS aren’t prosecuting people simply for having underage sex.

“If the sexual act or activity was in fact genuinely consensual and the youth and the child under 13 concerned are fairly close in age and development, a prosecution is unlikely to be appropriate.”

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-11-youths

Tatchell’s back tracking doesn’t make sense.

From the intro:

I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16. But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested

But then the example given:

Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12.
has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties

'Lee' would not be criminalised. Lee would be treated as a rape victim for obvious reasons.

Tatchell wants the age of consent lowered to 14, but what is really concerning is his reference (in other articles too) to 'healthy' sexual relations as young as 8yo.

Holy shit.

That poor poor boy. I've got a 14 year old and no fucking way are they ready to be having sex with adults. No way. I wouldn't bat too much of an eyelid if they were safely experimenting with a same aged kid but adults? Nope.

Also... the adults that want to have sex with 14 year old son are the last adults I'd ever want anywhere near my teenager tbh. Creepy fucks with an inability to be aroused by or form relationships with other adults so they want young teenagers. Ugh.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

That poor boy.

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.

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

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.

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?

Why are girls a shorter punishment?

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

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?

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!

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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.