BBC Radio 4′s Women’s Hour recently gave a platform to Peter Tatchell (of ‘Protest the Pope’ and Guardian fame) and Jules Hillier (Deputy Chief Exec. of Brook) to push for the lowering of the age of consent to 14. Tatchell subsequently elaborated his view for the website Pink News, arguing that his real concern is actually the protection of children from abuse. Why, of course. See what he did there? He explains:
One way to protect young people against unwanted advances and exploitation is by promoting sex-affirmative attitudes that challenge the idea that sex is sordid and should be kept hidden. Sexually unashamed young people are likely to be less inhibited about reporting abusers.
Another way to protect young people against abuse – perhaps the best way of all – is by schools teaching assertiveness training to empower them with the skills and confidence to say no to unwanted sex and to report abusers.
This seems consistent with Tatchell’s 2002 article What Should Schools Teach Children? in which he states:
If education is about dispelling ignorance and imparting knowledge, then sex education has an obligation to give all the facts and tell the whole truth about every kind of sex and relationship. This includes sexual practices that some people may find distasteful, such as anal intercourse and sadomasochism, and harmful behaviour like unprotected sex and child abuse. Nothing must be off limits.
And his letter published in the Guardian in 1997, defending the publication of an academic book on ‘Boy-love’:
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.
At the time of writing, the top-rated comments on Tatchell’s Pink News article come from Joe, who writes:
Peter.
Wrong fight. Now is NOT the time to even contemplate things like this.
Regardless of our opinions, pro or anti, this is the time to get things like gay marriage.
And Robert S Kensington:
Now is not the time for this Peter. Let’s get equall married (sic) through first and foremost, far more important than the age of consent.
But, of course, there is no agenda. None whatsoever.
January 23, 2013 at 8:48 am
What I find inexplicable is how women are so often the willing conduits of anti-child ideology (scratches head).
January 23, 2013 at 11:33 am
Two words for Mr Tatchell: “Operation Yew-tree”
January 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm
You have misread the article in question.
Here are some key quotes from the article which you have ignored.
“One option would be to keep the age of consent at 16, but decriminalise sex involving youths aged 14-16, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years difference in their ages.
“This would, for example, end the criminalisation of two 15 year olds, while continuing to prohibit sex between 15 year olds and 50 year olds.
“Even then, I would favour a reduction to 14 only if it was backed up with assertiveness training and earlier, better quality sex and relationship education in schools, to help young people make wise, responsible sexual decisions, including the choice to not have sex.”
Source: http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/Should-the-age-of-consent-be-reduced-to-14.htm
Peter Tatchell has never advocated adults having sex with children. He does not support this. He says adults should NOT have sex with children. He has never advocated the abolition of ages of consent. He has said that if young people of similar ages have sex below the age of 16 they should not be prosecuted, providing they both consent and there is no coercion, manipulation or exploitation.
Read here: http://petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/index.htm
January 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Ah yes… and we can be quite sure that a man who thinks that sex between adults and nine-year-olds can be a ‘’conscious choice’’ giving them ‘’great joy’’ neither unwanted, abusive nor harmful has no agenda in his crusade to assertively sexualize children as early as possible than a desire to reduce as far as he can the number of these joyous and consensual experiences. Because, as we all know, the ruthless prosecution of sixteen-year-olds for the statutory rape of fifteen-year-olds is a serious and growing problem in the United Kingdom to which Parliament must turn as soon as possible. While creepy homosexual men have no desire whatsoever to get their hands on a plentiful supply of boys in their early teens. Heaven forbid! (Oh sorry it already did forbid I almost forgot…).