Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The breathtaking hypocrisy of Peter Tatchell

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.

Peter Tatchell, letter to The Guardian, 27 June 1997.

Would you trust this man with your 9 year old son? I thought not
A hidden agenda? Surely not!

3 comments:

seaon said...

I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given
a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is
saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and
partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.

Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I
hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.

Peter Tatchell writes:

The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.

Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the
Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their
crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.

My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my
friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but
who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint
but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the
mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for
their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we
should respect that (while also recognising that many people are
harmed by early sexual experiences).

My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.

St Malachy said...

This comment is allowed on the basis of audi alteram partem only.

Clearly Tatchell has his Outrage pals combing the internet to defend his position.

The fact is the man said, in print, what he said. It's now up to reasonable people to decide whether Tatchell is backtracking or whether his disgusting position still holds - that is that pederasty (not peadophilia) is not harmful to children.

shadowlands said...

'My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.'

No it didn't very clearly say paedophilia is impossible to condone, it said it MAY be impossible to condone. And then went on to say

'it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.'

Why didn't society get reminded of this much needed acknowledgment in the run up to the Pope's visit, I wonder? Might have thinned out the protest numbers?

Absurd.