Why Are PSB Championing Peter Tatchell?

[kennym]

Ok i'm all for true equality. I don't care whether someone is gay or straight. Bisexual? Couldn't care one way or the other. Let people be what they are.

I genuinely admire Peter Tatchell in the way he's campaigned it appears for years and years. He's campaigned absolutely quite rightly for all regardless of sexuality to have equality in law.

However, Peter Tatchell thinks the age of consent should be 14. So he's happy to accept a change in law that would make it perfectly legal for say a 49 year old man to be with a 14 year old girl or boy. To me that's revolting. Disgusting.

I'm 36. The thought of being with a 14 year old girl or boy is horrific. They are children. In the main under developed Children.

I understand the many reasons why in particular Chris is championing Peter Tatchell. However, he in my honest opinion does far far more to set the equality cause back with his call for the age of consent to be 14.

Why 14?

Thoughts?

[redsock]

14 is way too young I think, gawd ! I think I was 18 or 19 before I was sexually active.

Fumiko, isn't the age of consent 14 in Japan ? What's the general consensus there ?

[Undertaker]

I don't see a problem with dropping the age of consent to 14. People of that age are going to have sex anyway. Some laws should change, though. For example ;- An 18 year old could go to prison for having sex with someone a month before their 16th birthday. Yet it is legal for a 60 year old to have sex with someone who is 16.

The age when you have sex isn't the real problem and this could be changed. The law that should be tighter is the age gap. A 50 year old getting it on with a teenager is just wrong. An 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old isn't anywhere near as wrong as a 40 year old and 14 year old.

[kennym]

I don't see a problem with dropping the age of consent to 14. People of that age are going to have sex anyway. Some laws should change, though. For example ;- An 18 year old could go to prison for having sex with someone a month before their 16th birthday. Yet it is legal for a 60 year old to have sex with someone who is 16.

The age when you have sex isn't the real problem and this could be changed. The law that should be tighter is the age gap. A 50 year old getting it on with a teenager is just wrong. An 18 year old sleeping with a 14 year old isn't anywhere near as wrong as a 40 year old and 14 year old.

I think you raise a lot of valid points. And you highlight how it is difficult to get the right law at the correct age.

However, i think the British law is deliberate in trying to prevent the example i gave of say a much older man at 49 going with a 14 year old boy or girl. And i think that it is that that should be the ultimate priority.

There are real and genuine problems of paedophilia all over the world and i think to go down the Peter Tatchell route of dropping the age of consent to 14 would be incredibly dangerous.

A 14 year old is still a child. Both emotionally and physically in most cases.

I actually think it is quite a revolting idea to campaign for it. Because ultimately Peter Tatchell is saying he has no difficulty of a much much older man having sex with what is in effect a child.

And that's why i'm disappointed PSB appear to be championing him (In Literally and on Twitter). Yes he's done and is doing great things in other areas but he is campaigning for something in my opinion quite disturbing.

We all know that there are many many older sick adults who would exploit any legislation that made it legal for them to go after 14 year old boys and girls.

[Blogo]

Good Lawwrd, 14?


No, I think thats disgusting, the 14 year old is still a wee dote! They aren't even sexually active yet!

[Drico One]

While I understand your concerns, it has to be said that the age of consent is entirely arbitrary. You can pick whatever age you like, but there is no definitive one size fits all solution. I'm sure there's a pun in there somewhere. And maybe again... Ooer.

In that sense, the age of consent - whatever it might be - is really just an imperfect legal construct designed to draw a line in the sand - somewhere. While I wouldn't be rushing to reduce it to 14 - or to whenever somebody sprouts a few southerly whiskers - it's no more arbitrary than 15 or 16, though the older suggested ages of consent probably make people feel better about themselves.

Personally, I wouldn't be too bothered about what the age is. The law can only go so far to protect kids. I doubt that most 49-year-olds would start sleeping with 14-year-olds if the age of consent were lowered. It would still be an off-putting proposition for most people, and there would inevitably be some form of social sanction for those that did (whether that be mere social disapproval or outright revulsion).

There will always be unscrupulous predators out to capitalise on naivety and innocence - whether the law permits or forbids. But then, the poor are always with us too, as are Simon Cowell and glennjridge.

Tatchell is a courageous and thought-provoking individual. Looks like he has encouraged debate once more.

Drico.

PS There's really no saving any 14-year-old who consents to sex with some wrinkly 49-year-old...and I doubt there would be too many teens queuing up for the privilege.

[PlayBeyond]

Good Lawwrd, 14?


No, I think thats disgusting, the 14 year old is still a wee dote! They aren't even sexually active yet!

I agree Paddy!

[kennym]

I doubt that most 49-year-olds would start sleeping with 14-year-olds if the age of consent were lowered.

Well for paedophiles it will make it legal. Then when they go after a 13 year old they can say "Well it was under 12 months from being legal".

Well all know that there is an appetite from revolting individuals for sex with children. I repeat children.

Why is Peter Tatchell campaigning for this?

[Dipso]

The age of consent is already 14 in many countries, including several in the EU:

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

[Drico One]

Well for paedophiles it will make it legal. Then when they go after a 13 year old they can say "Well it was under 12 months from being legal".

No, consensual sex within the law with somebody over the age of consent would not be paedophilia. If that age is 14, and it is consensual, then it is legal.

Sex with a 13-year-old would be illegal - if 14 is the age of consent. Whether they say "they were 12 months from being legal" or not is irrelevant. In Germany, they've got a system where the minimum age of consent is 14. Sex with anybody under that age is illegal. Two 13-year-olds having sex is not. Sex with somebody aged under 16 is permitted only if the partner is under 21. Over that age, the court decides whether the minor was sexually mature enough to make a decision to consent.

Well all know that there is an appetite from revolting individuals for sex with children. I repeat children.

Why is Peter Tatchell campaigning for this?

The problem here is how you define "child". By many legal definitions, a child is anybody under 18. By your logic, the age of consent would have to be 18 if you accept that definition. If you don't then it's fair game for anybody, Tatchell included, to suggest that the age of consent should match their definition of "child" or one that has yet to be agreed.

Drico.

[Patrick Bateman]

[Firthy2002]

Just because the law says you can, doesn't mean you're ready to do it.

There are probably some 14 year olds who could handle the emotional side of a sexual relationship. There are probably 16+ year olds who can't.

Lowering the age of consent won't change this fact.

[Deschanel]

I must agree, I find it appalling. 14 is a child to me. And I think they need full protection, and support from the grownups around them.

But I would have appreciated some context -and a link- to Tatchell's remarks. Because he could have been referring to what the US patchwork of laws calls "Romeo & Juliet" statutes- there have been cases where a 16 year-old was given a long, punishing prison sentence for having sex with someone one month shy of her 16th birthday. (His being black in the South didn't help his case, no doubt).

So, I have no idea what Tatchell actually said- he could have been referring to cases like this. But hell no, not 14, that's way too young. And people that age need protection. I don't know much about Tatchell, but If he really means it I strongly disagree, and am annoyed that flamboyant radical sorts like himself are unhelpfully muddying the issue of gay rights in a way that conforms to peoples' worst suspicions. What the hell.

("Never go with a hippie to a second location"- a funny line from Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock I'm reminded of suddenly..)

[raggatwin]

Fourteen IMO is too young and he does gay people a disservice in that alot of homophobic types will say that the only reason he wants this is so that homosexual men can get their hand s on young boys.

Without wanting to sound like a relativist, children were used as sex objects as young as five until the late eighteenth century. though this ideas is justifiably abhorrent to us today.

[Danny C]

Any age of consent we choose is going to be arbitrary and a compromise.

16 seems to work just fine for the UK, and I've always seen it as a perfectly reasonable age that is neither too young nor old (I hear it's 18 in some US states, that's ludicrous).