Peter Tatchell’s Glowing Review of Paedophile’s Book

[PretzelKnot]

He also contributed to the book but claims it wasn’t him. He says he didn’t write this review. He also says the attached letter to The Guardian about the positive nature of child-adult sexual relations was edited and that’s not what he meant.

Man has a lot of bad luck.

Well, you certainly can't say he hides his intentions. He's out and proud.

My Q has always been, why 14? Why not 13, or 12, or indeed 9?

And what's with the "2-3 year max" age gap if one member is underage?

A 14 and 17 year old would really be ok? Really?

And what's to stop the slippery slope/thin end of wedge to apply?

14 today...12 or 13 in a few years.

And we've seen the UN/UNESCO/WHO attempted guidance on sexualisation education (this stuff is not sex education, it's education to sexualise, because that's what it means to legalise sex at those ages).

No way is an older groomer or predator not gonna find an age of consent of 13 or 14 hugely tempting.

Throw in the UN/UNESCO/WHO direction of travel, the queering of society, DQSH, and there is only one destination for this train.

This is what Tatchell says in a 2008 article entitled “Porn Can Be Good For You”.

“Sex mags and vids can be great sex education for young people. Unlike the coy, euphemistic nonsense that passes for sex education in schools, quality porn shows young people about sex – the techniques and skills involved, and how to satisfy yourself and your partner. This gives users of porn much better knowledge and expertise in the art of sex. The result? Often better quality sex lives and partners who are more sexually and emotionally fulfilled.”

https://www.petertatchell.net/pornography/porncanbegoodforyou/

The opening to that article.

“While pornography can be dehumanising and exploitative, it can also be educative, liberating, empowering, fulfilling and immensely socially beneficial. It all depends on how it is made, who makes it, what it depicts and why it is being used.

The puritanical right-wing feminist claim that porn is always anti-women is simplistic, untrue, insensitive, uncaring and, dare l say it, sometimes misogynistic and homophobic. Using sexually-explicit imagery can be egalitarian, health-promoting, emotionally fulfilling and life-saving.”

Interestingly he feels that men over a certain age are too old to be influencing these matters. The article was 15 years ago. Tatchell is now in his 70s.

“There are some grey areas that I feel uncomfortable about, such porn videos produced by consenting participants which nevertheless show images of extreme sexual violence and degradation. But the censorship of these images involves inherent problems: how do you define degradation and who decides? While some porn is degrading, not all of it is. Do we believe that the state, and often elderly conservative judges, are the appropriate and reasonable arbiters of such matters?”

Or perhaps it’s only elderly men who disagree with him that he objects to having a say.

Today I rad about the gang rape of a young woman in Sicily. I have no doubt the young men who subjected her to an absolutely horrific attack are soaked in porn.

Perhaps Peter could have a chat with the victim if she thinks quality porn shows young people about sex – the techniques and skills involved, and how to satisfy yourself and your partner. This gives users of porn much better knowledge and expertise in the art of sex.

I'm pretty sure she'd have a different perspective. Tatchell has no interest in women. What he's interested in is his own sexual gratification

Here is more of that bad luck about Tatchell saying how porn is a great teaching aid for children and teens and

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4429999-Posie-Parker-on-GB-News

From the OP.

https://www.youtube.com/live/riPmbKdVhAY?feature=share

Peter Tatchell says he talks to children about porn and they tell him they aren't harmed by it around 1 hour 47 mins in.

He has stated previously that porn is a good learning tool for children. He said early 22 or late 21 that he was approached about a 15 yr old girl who told him how watching porn was good for her, because it taught her how to have sex. I think he said she told him that it taught them how to 'make him happy and he can make her happy'.

'Using sexually-explicit imagery can be egalitarian, health-promoting, emotionally fulfilling and life-saving.”'

Life saving?

One of the big arguments I had with my liberal Democrat ex-friend in California prior to pulling the plug, was the "thin end of the wedge".

I absolutely see the move to trans liberation policies and medicalisation of youth, and queer activism narratives, as intertwined. So that a move to lower the age of consent to 13-14 would ramp up queer agendas and exposing the very young and school kids to this propaganda. And more and more, things would overlap.

I don't necessarily subscribe (yet) to grooming as the main driver, more the post modern drive to destroy all normative barriers, the nuclear family (followed by police and prisons) being the daddy (or should I say mummy) of ideas to crush.

What better way than to sexualise children during teens by lowering the age, and toddlers/infants by queer propaganda in schools, DQSH etc.

Destruction is the only aim.

Tatchell is brave, no doubt about it.

Tbh it's a very instructive situation we are in, where someone who has repeatedly and consistently advocated for 'inter generational' sex is still repeatedly and consistently invited to comment on associated subjects by the media.

Schools, colleges and universities continue to invite him to speak about his human rights campaigns. How convenient. Gushing about what an amazingly brave man.

That's his "trojan horse" route. Hs once courageous stand for gay rights have given him an access to schools that nobody else arguing for the age of consent to be lowered would ever get.
As this thread shows, he is absolutely determined to convince society that children should be able to "consent" to sex with adults. But the media refuse to report this so he gets a lifetime pass to work directly with schools and children. 😡

Placemarking

He missed off “for male consumers” from that sentence, Arabella. Here’s his rationale.

“If, instead of going out on the town and shagging left-right-and-centre, a person stays at home and jerks off over a porn video, isn’t that safer?
In other words, good quality sexual imagery can make masturbation an attractive alternative to casual sex, which can reduce a person’s number sexual partners and help cut the spread of STIs.
^^
Regular sex is vital for men’s health. Medical research in Australia has shown that men who cum five or more times a week from the age of puberty have a much lower incidence of prostate cancer. Therefore, if you haven’t got a regular partner. masturbation is good for you. If porno magazines and films assist frequent masturbation, then porn is helping save lives.”

That is some well ambitious leap of logic. It practically needs its own fallacy named after it. The Fateful Phallus Fallacy?

Is there a much lower rate of prostate cancer in celibate men? I mean you'd expect to see a link.

Can I just add, as someone whose job involves the study of non -western societies, that I've had it with people wheeling out 'the x tribe in y' to claim that social practices at variance with mainstream norms are possible or OK.

I know that's not the main point here, but it's lazy, opportunistic, meaningless and disrespectful towards the 'tribe' involved. Ugh.

Yes, especially all of the "in the African village" trope wheeled out as though there is a single village filled with parental wisdom for us all to mine. Also though the practices of the sambia tribe he was referring to... deserved to die out quite frankly. I mean normally the erosion of many traditional cultural practices are genuinely a loss but in this case I wouldn't shed many tears.

Blimey, Tatchell really is a reprehensible specimen. I remember reading his apologia for paedophiles over 20 years ago, in Private Eye and immediately began to despise him. It really beggars belief that, with all of his own published letters and vile writings on his own and other websites, that anybody - let alone schools and Police - would touch him with somebody else's bargepole.

Really, it's "good" that all this is getting attention, not before time and hopefully, he'll be seen as the disgusting tick that he is and cast out of public life entirely.

I do think there are a lot of men, gay men included, whose first sexual experinece was one of sexual abuse as a child. This then distorts their view of sexual relations for evermore. I personally know of a few men who this would apply too. Early sexual experiences are very formative and shape future response too.

One wonders whethere Tatchell hinself suffered sexual abuse as a child -and has spent his adult life trying to come to terms with it.

His justfication of it is a way of processing it? This, of course, doesn't validate his comments.

Milo Y-forgotten-his-name was cancelled for making remarks about positive experiences of underage sex (sexual abuse, by my yardstick) with adult men but later came to understand that he didn’t have an appropriate gauge for what is and what isn’t acceptable due to that very same grooming/abuse (IIRC correctly. Milo is an unreliable narrator though, due to being a professional troll).

I’ve seen similar in my adult female friends, they have been groomed into believing that as young teens they were a willing participate in sexual activity with adult men (sometimes they even believe they weee instigator and that it’s all their ‘fault’).

It’s a bit of a difficult one because wrapping it up in their memories as a consensual thing can make it easier to cope with, and no one wants to retraumatise a survivor by telling them they actually, they were sexually abused.
However if you don’t point this out, they can be left without an appropriate gauge to view the rest of the world through, which is a safeguarding problem.

Aimee Challoner is a prime example of an adult who doesn’t have an appropriate gauge for understanding safeguarding policy (eg for the Girl Guides or for Reddit standards). Challoner’s ‘normal’ involved an adult baby fetishist father who raped a 10 year old girl while AC was living the family home. That’s gonna fuck you up.

It’s still possible to care deeply for the abused child of the past and also judge an adult on their own actions - at some point you work out that your childhood was fucked up (like when your dad gets a 22 year prison term!) and then seek counselling to recalibrate your normal. You don’t push your way into politucal
parties or schools and try an recalibrate the world to your fucked up standards.

Milo Yiannopoulos 2017 article

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart-holds-press-conference

I agree!

Men grooming and using young boys ( and girls, of course) is as old as the hills....and of course there have been, and still are, queer theorists who have attempted to normalise this

He's a truly disgusting creature. He hides in plain sight. Hell he doesn't even hide!

Some really interesting points. That's why we must never let our guard down with safeguarding. Adults determined to reduce the age of consent and share their porn soaked views on sex & relationships have no business working with schools or children.

You have to wonder about the purpose of something.
When Tatchell in that interview speaks of a friend who as a child had sex with a much older man and didn't regret it, why is that a talking point that needs to be discussed?
We don't allow kids to make decisions about alcohol or smoking, because kids in general don't make good decisions about adult topics. Topics that even adults don't get right a lot of the time. But now there's this movement that's trying to erase boundaries around kids. From trying to make sure kids have easy access to drag queens and vice versa, kids being encouraged to keep secrets from their parents, and the medicalization of young proto gay kids it seems pretty clear that some adults are very keen on getting their hands on kids in a sexual way.
They keep chipping at the edges. "It's possible for kids to have sex with adults and for that not to be abusive" Tatchell says, trying to make an argument from the most extreme unusual cases, an argument that looks to be aimed at abolishing the age of consent laws in all cases.
When two young kids of about the same age experiment together that's one thing. When an older adult takes advantage of a child that's abuse full stop. Even if the kid does not understand why it's abuse. If a kid enjoys getting drunk before the drinking age is age no longer a problem? If they enjoy smoking is it ok as long as they enjoy it? If they like driving around fast shouldn't they be allowed to because they like it?
It always seem to be a particular type who advocates for this too. The ones on twitter always look like adults would run from them as well as kids. If you're walking down the street and see one walking towards you I think most people would crossover to the other side just to be safe. Like a rotten log got lifted and all the creepy crawlies are scurrying around, only now they want access to women and girls' changing rooms. I can't imagine why.....