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.

I just don’t understand how he can think this article is ok.
How can he not see it?
What kind of man in his mid 20s would want to have a sexual relationship with a fourteen year old boy? That is fucked up.
The article makes no comment on the actions of this child’s ‘boyfriend’ at all.

For anyone to think this child’s account of sexual behaviour from 8 yrs makes it sound like a good thing, that should be legalised and normalised defies belief. What sort of childhood did this kid have? So he’s “sophisticated” is he? Corrupted and abused more like. Awful, just awful.

I'm unimpressed by the weasel worded explanation Tatchell proffers for some of his more infamous phrasing. For me, this is a variation of that implausible defence years ago when David Willets argued about the meaning of 'want', purporting he'd intended 'lacks' rather than 'has requested' :

It is true that my Guardian letter said paedophilia “may be impossible to condone” but I used “may” in the sense that I concurred with the view that it is impossible to condone. To give a different example of the use of the word may in concurrence with a viewpoint: The Earth may be round but in everyday life it appears to be flat. The “may” in that sentence concurs with the view that the Earth is round. It does not dispute or contradict the Earth’s roundness. That is the sense in which I said paedophilia “may be impossible to condone”. My use of the word may was not intended as a qualification or an ambivalence but as a concurrence with that view that sex with children is impossible to condone. To avoid doubt, I should have used “is” impossible to condone. That is what I meant. My apologies for that inadvertent error, which has created confusion and doubt.

The David Willets' linguistic conjuring: www.theguardian.com/politics/1996/nov/17/conservatives.uk

And don't forget, he told the lad to phone childline

If his explanation for the wording were correct and followed through, the piece would still say

While it is impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Which makes the first clause sound even more like a lament at an unfair situation than the original. I always thought he was a clever man. He's clearly dim and devious.

What I found disturbing about the interview is images popped into my head- as images do when one reads anything descriptive.

They were not images I want in my head but if I were the sort of person who wants those images here is an interview validating this activity as something a child wanted and enjoyed. It is extremely irresponsible writing.