Republishing of the articles is welcome with a link to the original post on this blog or Italy Travel Ideas

Friday, 21 June 2013

Peter Tatchell and the Age of Sexual Consent

Comrade Tatchell

Peter Tatchell, the UK's most prominent homosexual activist, has done more than advocating the abolition of the age of consent, he has broken the age of consent law in Britain:

"As a gay 18-year-old Australian, anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and set up home with a 16-year-old gay lover in Shepherd’s Bush. The pair despised the law and so defied it."

The homosexual age of consent in England then was 21, not 16. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. The trend is clear.

When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16, an Outrage - Tatchell's organization - banner was photographed saying "16 is just a start".

Mr Tatchell (or shall we call him comrade Tatchell given his militant Marxist background) criticises the concept of age of consent, as is obvious from this quotation from his own website:

"Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter "Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent" for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways "to make paedophilia acceptable".

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (spelling BOY), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the now-disbanded Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

Stephen Green writes: "The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent, destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children."

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that that the age of sexual consent is "Re-inforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era".

He was not on his own in this crusade, far from it. Many of his comrades, socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same (emphasis mine):
Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’
Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who "related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six".

The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn't sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books. This is The Betrayal of Youth's list of contents and contributors.

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalising and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist of the "Kill the Pope" brigade Richard Dawkins but it's not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is "There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: "The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write."

Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell's protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Our "gay" friend's self-defence begins with:

"Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes."

Bad start, Pete. These are blatant falsities. It wasn't "many" Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies about the Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone; people like Tatchell and his pals/comrades in the mainstream media think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it's true.

But blaming the Church whenever you're in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own, shall we say, deviations from the norm. It's worked so far, our friend thinks, so why shouldn't it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there's more.

Look at his defence of another book:
My 1997 Guardian letter about the book, Dares to Speak, gives the wrong impression. It was edited...

Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.
Leaving aside the irony, probably lost on humourless Tatchell, about his using a "former editor of a Catholic newspaper" as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers, the book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was tactfully removed, this was Wikipedia's entry for the publication (emphasis mine):
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.
After the normalization of homosexuality, we'll have the normalization of paedophilia. Get over it.

Added on 8 December 2013. In fairness to Peter Tatchell, he has politely asked me to add that his real views on age of consent, in particular his four criteria of any change in the age of consent laws, are here:

This doesn’t alter my opinions on this whole subject. It’s up to you to decide if it alters yours.


  1. I agree, we have not hit bottom yet in what Gertrude Himmelfarb termed "the de-moralization of society" (which is the actual title of one of her books). The de-stigmatization of ephebophilia is probably next--after all, have we not been sold that sexual congress between adolescents is to be expected, "Nothing to see here, folks?"--eventually to encompass that of true pedophilia. Here in the U. S., we already have an active group of mental health professionals, mostly hailing from prestigious American universities, who are working quite openly to de-stigmatize pedophilia, the B4U-ACT group; they even have a website. I think the only reason pedophilia has not gotten more traction in the mass culture is that the Cultural Marxists have found it useful to trumpet the--as you emphasize--misnamed "pedophilia scandal" in the Catholic Church to undermine its moral authority (and, by extension, that of other conservative Christian denominations).

    And, really, once pedophilia becomes acceptable, what other taboos can possibly stand? Incest and polygamy (the latter already quite acceptable in many cultures, including those transplanted to Western countries) are positively palatable by comparison. The Gramscian long march through the institutions that have been the source of Western sexual morality is dangerously near completion.

  2. 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. Treating these young people as criminals is wrong. They need counselling, not prosecution
    Read here:

    1. Raks, you have posted verbatim exactly the same comment by James (?) to my previous article:

      This new article of mine is a reply to that former comment, and you can see from it how little value these excuses by Tatchell have in the context of the whole way he's been acting on this issue.

      What is this, a robot posting the same automatic comment all the time?

    2. Thank you for the above article. Peter Tatchell is also an associate of Richard McCance, the two certainly having shared a platform at a meeting during Nottingham Gay Pride in 2010. Richard McCance, when Vice Chairman (pun coincidental) of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality in 1978, addressed a meeting of the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square. He wrote the following glowing report in the '70s Gay newspaper Broadsheet:

      'Linking arms, marching abreast, women and men together, we succeeded in entering the hall, despite flower, fruit and veg., despite being clawed and spat at, kicked and punched by many of the hundred or so who awaited our arrival like starved dogs. Over the next hour about another hundred staggered in, like the battle-scarred reporter from the Daily Telegraph, his face bleeding, raked down by fingernails. Others arrived with torn clothing. Those who tried to enter on their own were led away bleeding from head wounds to a police van. There were only four policemen on duty at this time.

      'As the meeting began, I looked at the growing crowd (now several hundred strong) and recognized from previous demos several prominent National Front thugs and sympathizers - male and female - including Dereck Day, who was featured in the Observer article on the National Front.

      'In the hall we tried to listen attentively to the PIE speakers but the constant strains of "kill them, kill them" from the crowd, who were beating on the door, made this difficult. I was frightened and could not concentrate properly.

      'The meeting ended half an hour earlier than planned in a bid to surprise the mob outside. Those who could run fast were advised to form ranks. The elderly and several disabled had to wait for further instructions. It all felt like abandoning ship into a cruel sea.

      'Many of us were set upon individually by the crowd. A Jewish brother, his glasses stamped on, was kicked and punched. The police, now about thirty in number, reacted lethargically.

      'Survival instincts are strong. I removed my gay badge and masqueraded as a het when challenged by a potential assailant. They seemed surprised that most of us were not old men in faded brown raincoats. We were all sorts - gay, paedophile, straight, press people, academics, coming to listen to what PIE had to say.

      'As I was pummelled and kicked I appealed to a policeman for help, but I was told to "Get the hell out of here". Eventually three of us managed to stop a passing cab and escape.'

      The meeting was stewarded by former members of the Gay Liberation Front, which had folded by 1978. Naturally I don't condone the violence reported. It's significant that the Vice Chair of an organisation as high profile as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality attended a meeting of a pro-paedophilia group, hosted by the radical Leftists of the renowned Conway Hall.

      We can read a good account of the 1970s relationship between homosexual and paedophile campaigners in chapter 12 and other chapters of this book, which is not a pleasant read (it's an insider account of pro-paedophilia campaigning in Britain), but it's a must read for anybody concerned about the powerful legislative influence of sexual 'liberationists':


    3. . . . continued from previous comment:

      Peter Tatchell (who in the Guardian letter which you mentioned appears to be an apologist for sexual activity between adults and children as young as nine) was also on the Gay political scene at that time, as were others still active in campaigning for sexual 'rights' rather than for sexual responsibility. The National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) also sided with the Paedophile Information Exchange in its opposition to the 1978 Protection of Children Bill. It was Mary Whitehouse, so maligned for decades by the BBC and by many liberals, whose 1.6 million signature Petition for Public Decency spurred Parliament to bring in the Protection of Children Bill, which criminalised child pornography in Britain. Britain these days selects its heroes (Tatchell et al.) and its villains (Mary Whitehouse) very oddly.

      How about the new crop of sexual 'rights' campaigners? Are they removed from the promotion of the concept that there can be such a thing as informed sexual consent between adults and children? Chris Ashford, self-proclaimed "Queer theorist" and Reader in Law and Society at Sunderland University, writing about the 'marriage' bill in Pink News earlier this year, stated,

      "There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalisation of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind."

      What does he mean by "the continued criminalisation of consensual acts"? He doesn't specify. He could be referring to sadomasochism, but we should be aware that the "Sexuality and Law" module which he teaches at Sunderland includes the topic "Paedophilia and the Man/Boy Love movement", and he has elsewhere written that he is "open minded" as to whether paedophilia should be accorded equal rights status and has implied that only the danger of a public backlash prevents him from discussing the subject more freely (

      Barney Sanseverina (am on Facebook)

    4. Thank you for the useful information.

    5. Exactly! "The Public Backlash". Tatchell is nothing more than a Pink Nazi. He knows that parents do not want their children interfered with and will fight to the death to protect their innocence and is thus obviously and rightly afraid of being killed. The only worthwhile thing to know about Tatchell, is where he plans to be buried so that civilised people can go and defecate upon his grave.

  3. Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.


  4. Please read: to learn about a paedophile cult operating in central France. Ariela. My email:

  5. Dear Enza,
    Would you be kind enough to amend this article by citing my real views on age of consent etc:
    Please note my four criterion of any change in the age of consent laws.
    Many thanks, Peter

    1. I recognise that I come to this debate late, but I feel a burning desire to comment. I suspect that an email alert will inform interested parties.

      @ Peter Tatchell.

      Well, Peter! You are changing your tune.

      Please clarify, did you not write; "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."

      The argument cited at the above mentioned link, is really just a softened (small step) move to the abolition of the age of consent altogether. You have been arguing for lowering the age for years.

      Now you are suddenly arguing, "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"

      Lowering the AOC would only make it LEGAL for predatory paedos to pursue sex with younger children. Suggesting that it would be of benefit is a contemptuous lie.

      Now suddenly you are advocating NOT lowering, but "decriminilising." i.e. DEFACTO lowering the age of consent, albiet not for adults.

      The status quo serves just fine. Common sense is just required by Law as to the value in pursuing a conviction.

      I for one, think that the agenda you hold is extremely unpalatable to all decent people, and now you are back pedaling.

    2. So you would turn down the opportunity of having sex with a 14 year old boy then, should it become legal? Do not forget that the 97% of us who are not persuaded by your perversions will do ANYTHING to protect our young from you brand of corruption.

  6. I have clicked by mistake on the "delete" instead of the "publish" link in the email notifying me of the comment below (on holiday I'm using my smartphone with its tiny commands). So I'm copying and pasting it here. By Anonymous:

    "Disgusting paedophile tatchell keeps trying to lie and spin on
    this but his own words immortalised in print will haunt him forever."

    1. Nice one Enza - keep up the good work! There is nothing that gets a gay man drooling and licking his lips more, than the prospect of having sex with a child! All of this vileness is being propagated under the banner of "LGBT Equality". Gays need to realise that even if, by some satanic miracle their perversions become legal; there is NOTHING a parent will not do to protect and safeguard their children. Gays do not understand this because they are incapable of having children in a way that bonds them to a parent. Thank God for Putin for making a stand!

  7. Please note that Tatchell claims that his Guardian letter was "edited" but he has also claimed that he is unable to produce an original copy of the letter! Very very suspicious ....

    "Raks" and "James" are either pseudonyms of Peter Tatchell, or employees of his Foundation whose accounts he uses, perhaps without their knowledge, to troll and harass other people. He's a disturbed man.

    1. No he is not disturbed. He is an insidious, vile "thing", who would gladly put children in harms way for his own depraved gratification - "In my opinion".

  8. I have been investigating the predatory paedophile cult in Benevent l'Abbaye for a year now. Commonly known as the Godson Cult this ongoing investigation has meant that I have met and corresponded with victims on the edge of suicide and despair. In order to progress legal action I do need to hear from the victims in Ireland who made contact via the link of this blogspot in November 2013. My email:

  9. I enjoy having sex as much as the next man - with a woman, who is of consensual age; although at my age doing so with a sixteen year old would be bizarre to say the least. The so-called LGBT community (3% of the population) has been trying to con the rest of us into believing that they are simply after equality; to which I have no objection.

    However that is not their TRUE objective. Their true objective is to "homsexualise" The Human Race by (a) Influencing and indoctrinating our children in our schools, before our children have any concept of sexuality, or indeed worked out their own individual sexuality and (b) abolishing the age of consent so that children may be more easily brainwashed through sexual interaction with scheming and manipulative adults.

    The "LGBT Brigade" have had an easy ride for the last 1/2 dozen years and have gotten a lot of what they want. They are in danger of unleashing "The Whirlwind" against themselves should they continue with these perverse demands. Ordinary people will stand for only so much.

    In the main, I can't stand Putin, but his actions and those of The Russian Parliament is exactly what is necessary to protect children from what is potentially child rape.

  10. I am a gay man from Brasil who is now live in Britain, for many years I am also live in San Francisco. For me being gay is not by my decision, I am born this way and I don't think that to love another man is wrong. Most gays is just want to be treat like equals and have respect. But I think is wrong to have sex with very young people like your writing is saying. 14 is too young. If Britain abolish this limit I am afraid that some gays and straight people from America mostly may come to Britain to take advantage of this. I have many nieces and nephews, but not in Britain and I would not like to see them put in danger of this.

    Peace to you

  11. Hi Enza.

    Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to galvanise public support through institutional bodies such as the C of E and the RC Church and various other relevant organisations to lobby The UK/EU Parliaments to make a CRIMINAL OFFENCE of: (a) Advocating and (b) Promoting sexual interaction between Adults and Minors and sexual interaction amongst Minors.

    The Strategy of the likes of Tatchell is very clear. i.e - start softly, by suggesting that sex between minors is decriminalised. Once this debate has entered the public consciousness, it then becomes easier to move to the second stage; that is opening a debate about sex between Adults and Minors. Then before you know it, the latter is being debated in Parliament!!!

    We need to make a stand NOW to prevent this; and the best way forward is for all the relevant bodies and individuals to petition our politicians on the lines I have outlined above.

  12. Peter Tatchell's interview with an abused 14 year old boy, Thud magazine, 1997:

    'Lee is 14. He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee's partner is a paedophile and Lee is a victim of child abuse. That's not, however, the way Lee sees it: "I want to have a boyfriend. It's my choice. No one's abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?".

    I am sitting in the kitchen of a friend's house talking with 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.

    We are discussing the new Sex Offenders Act. Lee is concerned. Under this legislation, which comes into effect next month, men over 19 who have consensual sex with guys under 18 are classified as dangerous sex criminals, on a par with the abusers of young children. After serving their sentence, they will be required to register their address with the police for a minimum of five years, and may have their identity revealed to the public.

    This is a live issue for Lee because he prefers relationships with older guys. "I don't get on with people my own age", says Lee. "They're too immature. I like men in their 20s or early 30s. They are more experienced and serious. With them, you can get into a closer relationship than with a teenager".

    The age of consent laws don't make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship. "Some men run a mile when they discover how old I am", he moans. "They're worried about getting done by the law".

    Even without the Sex Offenders Act, any man who has sex with Lee could face a maximum sentence of 10 years for kissing, touching, sucking or wanking, and life imprisonment for anal sex. The top penalty for the offence of "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 14 year old girl is, in contrast, two years!

    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. So, by having anal sex with another 14 year old boy, Lee would be guilty of a major offence which can, at least in theory, be punished by jail for life.

    "The law is stupid", according to Lee. "If I know what I'm doing and I'm not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to have sex with who I want".

    Lee is just one of a growing number of lesbians and gays who are coming out at an ever earlier age...twelve, thirteen and fourteen is not uncommon nowadays. Research published by Project Sigma in 1993 shows that 9 percent of gay men had their first homosexual experience by the age ten, 19% by the age of 12, and 35% by the age of 14.

    Continued in next post:

  13. (Continued)

    Yet most gay campaign groups seem only interested in the human rights of the over-16s. "There's nothing much for young gays like me", says Lee. "Nobody cares about our rights".

    Lee first realised he was gay at the age of eight. Well, he didn't call himself gay. He just had sex with boys or, to begin with, one particular boy. "My first gay sex was with a friend from school called John. I was eight and half. He was the same age. We used to go swimming together. It all started at the local swimming pool. One day we were in the cubicles getting changed and somehow we started kissing. Then we had oral sex".

    How did you know what to do? "Oh, I saw it on TV", quips Lee. You did? "They were talking about men having oral sex, so that's where I got the idea from".

    Weren't you nervous about being caught? "No. It just happened. I didn't think it might be wrong or that we could get into trouble".

    How did you feel about your first gay experience? Lee beams with evident fond memories and confides: "I liked it a lot. It was great. But I did think sex with a boy was sort of strange. Until that time with John, I didn't have much idea about sex. It was mostly from the papers and television. I thought that men only had sex with women. For a while it left me feeling a bit weird and confused". He pauses for a moment, then adds emphatically: "I soon a got over it".

    Lee continued having regular sex with John for two years. "We were boyfriends", he boasts proudly. "I don't have any regrets at all".

    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".

    Did you enjoy straight sex? "Yeah", says Lee, "but sex with John was better".

    So when did Lee start thinking of himself as being gay? "It was a few months later, after I turned nine. I was watching a TV debate about gays. It made me realise that I was gay, and that it wasn't wrong. Since then, I've never had a problem about my sexuality".

    Lee's next big love affair happened when he was ten. "It was with a black kid who lived on my road, Michael. He was the same age. My friends introduced him. One day, we were in his bedroom playing on his computer and we started messing around. It ended up with sex. Other times, we had a game called 'kick the cancan', which involved kicking a can around. The can would often end up in the bushes, and we'd run there to look for it. Sometimes Michael and me would have sex there".

    Around this time, Lee first came out to his mom. "She was good about it. Her first reaction was that I was a bit too young to be gay. She told me to leave it a couple of years.

    Then, if I still wanted to be gay, she said she'd accept it. I left it a few weeks, before telling her again. She realised I was serious, and respected my feelings and wishes. Ever since, she's been really understanding".

    Continued in next post:

  14. (Continued)

    At the age of 11, Lee had a relationship with a 14 year old named Andrew. "Because of family difficulties, I ended up in a children's home. They sent me to an education centre. That's where I met Andrew. We used to hang around together and became really close friends. After a while he told me that he was on the rent scene. I asked him if he wanted a boyfriend and he said yeah. So we started going out with each other. That was when I first had anal sex and learned about condoms. Andrew pulled out a packet and went on about stopping HIV and AIDS. I shagged him and he shagged me. It bought tears to my eyes. It was painful, but I liked it as well. I enjoyed it more than sex with a girl. I got more of a sexual sensation".

    For about 18 months, Lee joined Andrew doing sex for money, picking up men in the local gardens and bus station. "It was mostly me just wanking them off. I stopped about a year and half ago. When I was doing it, I felt sick. I didn't enjoy it. I was only doing it for the money to buy drugs - mostly speed, acid and cannabis. I also had a few bad experiences with punters. Once Andrew and I were tied up and raped".

    In the children's home, Lee got taunted and bullied for being gay. "They called me queer and it ended up in fights. The staff didn't do anything to protect me, so I started running away".

    Lee is clearly very angry that no one took action to stop the bullying: "When I was being beaten up, the authorities did nothing. Now I'm gay and want to have sex, they're suddenly very concerned about my welfare".

    When you ran away from the children's home, where did you go? "I used to stay with this paedophile that I met in the gardens. He was okay. There was no pressure for me to have sex, but I did. I had sex with him because I wanted to feel loved and respected".

    What do you think of that man now? "Well, he didn't beat me up or hurt me like was happening in the children's home".

    And what do you think about paedophiles in general? "It depends on what kind of paedophiles", says Lee. "Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn't pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it's fine. If you don't, it's not".

    How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: "The really young ones can't. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing".

    Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex. "They shouldn't have sex then", according to Lee. "And other people shouldn't take advantage of them. No one should be having sex with a child who is very young or who has emotional and mental problems. You could have a relationship with them, but not sex - not until they are old enough to understand the responsibilities involved".

    Continued in next post:

  15. (Continued)

    Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited. It's a concern that Lee acknowledges: "Yeah, that can happen. It's wrong. But that doesn't mean that every kid who has sex with a man is being abused".

    At what age do you think people should to be allowed, by law, to have sex? "Sixteen is too high", says Lee. "Most kids I know had sex long before then. It's stupid for the law to brand us as criminals".

    Do you worry about being arrested for under-age sex? "Sometimes. I mostly worry for the older guys that I'm having sex with. They could get life imprisonment and be denounced as a paedophile. They might end up on the sex offenders register. It could ruin their life".

    What do you think the age of consent should be? "About 14". Why? "That's the age a lot of young people start having sex. If they are not forcing or hurting other kids they shouldn't have the threat of a policeman knocking on their door. The current of age of 16 (or 18 for gays) means that those who are younger don't get proper sex education. My sex education at school was useless. The law makes it difficult for teachers to give out stuff about contraception, safer sex and AIDS. If the age was lower, the facts about sex could be taught sooner. It's stupid giving kids this information after they've started sex. That's too late. They need to know the facts about sex from around the age of 10".

    I point out to Lee that an age of consent of 14 would not have been much help to him, since he was having sex from the age of eight. Even with consent at 14, most of his past sexual relationships would have remained illegal. "Young people under 14 should be allowed to have sex with someone up to a year or so older", he suggests. "That way they've got freedom, and are protected against exploitation by older men".

    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.

    The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.

    When I put this idea to Lee, he nods with approval: "Some young people mature earlier than others. They should be able to have a relationship with someone a bit older. Society should accept that kids have sexual feelings".

    This is the nub of the problem. Our current legal system refuses to acknowledge that young people have a sexuality. The law says a person under 16 is incapable of giving their consent to a sexual act. Any sex with such a person is automatically deemed "indecent assault". Lee thinks that is "ridiculous": "I'm only 14 but I know what I'm doing. I understand what consent involves. So does the person I'm having sex with. No one is indecently assaulting me. That's a stupid suggestion. The law should stop treating young people like idiots."

    Continued in next post:

  16. (Continued)

    Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry? "I know about safer sex", protests Lee. "I didn't get that information from school. It came from TV and boyfriends. Some of them had HIV and died. I'm okay because we did safer sex. People say that older guys will take advantage of teenagers like me, but my partners made sure we took precautions - even the paedophiles. If people want to protect kids against AIDS, they should support better sex education lessons, starting in primary school. Education is the best prevention. But it isn't happening in most schools. Why doesn't someone make a fuss about that?".

    Lee thinks it's time the law-makers listened to young people: "They are always trying to tell us how to live our lives. Why don't they treat us with respect? We've got opinions. We deserve to be heard. When a kid gets sexually abused, the social workers listen to what he says and back up his complaint. But when a kid wants to have a gay relationship, his wishes get ignored. That's what is happening to me. I'm under a care order which states that my feelings have to be taken into account. But society won't accept my feelings. It says I'm forbidden to have sex with a man until I'm 18. A perfect relationship is what I want. It would make me very happy. So why is the law trying to stop me?"'


  17. My observations: This boy in the interview does not have the emotional maturity to connect the dots between the utter failure of every aspect of his life, and being sexually abused as a child. Promiscuous from the age of 8, exposed to adult TV and gay propaganda at an even younger age, participating in child-on-child sex abuse, getting sent to a children's home, running away from said home to live with a paedophile, working as a prostitute from the age of 11 to pay for hard drugs, and getting raped in the process. It's even more incredible that Tatchell reckons this corrupted child is a great example of child sex being harmless.

    The things Lee says are proof that (a) exposure to sex is a form of child abuse and (b) homosexual propaganda creates gays. If he'd never have heard/seen gay oral sex promoted on TV, it wouldn't have occurred to him to do it, at least until much later, if at all. If he hadn't seen the gay propaganda, he might never have considered himself gay and he would have passed through the phase. Especially since he deep down considered it a bit weird before being exposed to bullshit. His homosexuality and promiscuity, and probably drug use are a result of child abuse.

    One of the most common symptoms of an abused child is that they have sex with other children. The fact that this viewing the gay oral references ultimately caused him to have sex with at least three children while still primary school age is proof that exposing children to sex (such as adult TV) is a form of abuse. It's especially worrying about the little girl he had sex with - from later comments in the interview comparing it to anal sex it's clear he penetrated her.

    I'd like to ask Pervert Pete why he only wants to represent the minority views of a mentally warped abused child? There are many other viewpoints from young people that are rarely discussed. For example, in secondary schools there is an enormous stigma around being a virgin. The pressure to get involved in the whole sex and dating scene is huge. Most girls have been found to have their first sexual experience while drunk - this proves they are either (a) being taken advantage of or (b) need to bolster themselves with alcohol to develop the courage to do something they are not sure about doing. In my opinion this environment of virgin shaming and porn culture is a form of sexual abuse, as it forces young people, especially girls to get involved before they are ready and before they understand love.

    But I suppose Peter would consider all of these underage girls prudes, who “society” has taught to fear sex.

    1. "The things Lee says are proof that (a) exposure to sex is a form of child abuse and (b) homosexual propaganda creates gays. If he'd never have heard/seen gay oral sex promoted on TV, it wouldn't have occurred to him to do it, at least until much later, if at all. If he hadn't seen the gay propaganda, he might never have considered himself gay and he would have passed through the phase. Especially since he deep down considered it a bit weird before being exposed to bullshit. His homosexuality and promiscuity, and probably drug use are a result of child abuse. " acting out what you see on tv isn't what abuse means...

  18. Anal sex is unhealthy because it tears the sphincter muscle. But the sucking of a penis is healthy, both gals and guys will enjoy it. Many heterosexuals love sucking one another’s penis, it encourages friendship and trust. Penis sucking by both sexes should be encouraged early in life, it is immensely enjoyable. High school teachers must be allowed to give their male students a BJ, erotic pleasure is not evil.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.