Ethics Sex and sexuality

Steve Chalke, Peter Tatchell, Julie Bindel and the Creeping Normalisation of Paedophilia

Steve Chalke, Peter Tatchell, Julie Bindel and the Creeping Normalisation of Paedophilia

I am often asked what I think is the next step down the road towards sexual anarchy and the attempted destruction of humanity through the misuse and desacralisation of sex.  My own view is that polygamy is well on its way, incest is not too far behind, and what society once regarded as the absolute sin, paedophilia will eventually arrive.

Today I was reminded of this through two men I have crossed swords with in the past – Steve Chalke and Peter Tatchell.   Lets begin with Chalke who tweeted out today –

Screenshot 2018-12-17 at 14.09.45

To which I responded:

Screenshot 2018-12-17 at 14.09.55

In the course of the conversation (not with Steve who does not engage in dialogue, preferring instead to pontificate)..someone showed where all this is going/coming from with this tweet:

Screenshot 2018-12-17 at 14.11.18

What is important to note here is that our ‘Dr’ is telling us that nothing requires justification, (thus legitimising rape, murder and incest); and that morality is just cultural – meaning that if the culture changes then morality will change.  (note:  Since this was published the good Dr has claimed that he did not say what he said.  And has both removed his tweets and blocked me.  For the sake of accuracy let me confirm that the above is a screenshot of his tweet, his whole tweet and nothing but his tweet.  You can judge it for yourself and if my comments on what he says are accurate).

Julie Bindel’s Challenge

This is true in terms of paedophilia.   Which brings us on to this brilliant article from Julie Bindel, the feminist (along with Germaine Greer), most hated by trans activists.  In it Bindel cites the history of Peter Tatchell, the best known gay rights activist in the UK.    Once again I find myself in agreement with the Feminist. The article is well worth reading as a whole but the stand out paragraph for me was this:

“Tatchell was displeased about a review by the journalist Ros Coward of ‘Dares to Speak, collected articles from Paidika, Journal of Paedophilia’. The book, she argued, was clearly part of a wider campaign to abolish all ages of consent and re-brand child sex abuse as more palatable in the eyes of wider society, by framing it as ‘enjoyable’ for the victims.”

Tatchell had written in defence of the book  Dares to Speak’ defending paedophilia.     If you want more detail this article in Spotlight sheds further light.   Here is the letter that Tatchell wrote:

Screenshot 2018-12-17 at 14.23.44

You will note his attempt at justification by appealing to a different cultural norm. But as Bindel points out this ‘happy savage myth’ hides practices which are grotesque and immoral in any cultural situation.

“The Sambia boys are, in fact, emotionally, physically and sexually tortured into manhood. The so-called rituals they endure include being forcibly separated from their mothers aged 7-9; being made to ram sticks into their nostrils until they bleed out ‘pollution from their mothers’, and being made to fellate older men and drink their semen. Child abuse in Papua New Guinea is generally widespread, with a number of scandals having emerged over the years as survivors speak out – as opposed to male anthropologists speaking out for them.”

The Nature/Nurture Argument

You will see how this all ties in.  Chalke seeks to use the ‘it occurs in nature so it must be ok’ argument in order to justify his new found position.  Tatchell uses the “other cultures do it, so it must be ok argument”.  Both are positions which logically lead to approval of paedophilia – once you accept paedophilia as a sexuality.  Which of course it is.  There are those for whom ‘sexual preference’ does mean children.

Screenshot 2018-12-17 at 15.05.14I had a deeply disturbing personal experience of this argument about 20 years ago.  I was debating the issue of same-sex adoption up in Aberdeen, when afterwards I got into a discussion with a group of men who described themselves as Tatchell followers.   In the course of that discussion I asked them about the age of consent for homosexuality (which then was 18 – it was not lowered to 16 until 2001).  They told me that not only did they approve of Tatchell’s call to have it lowered to 14 but that they did not think that there should be an age of consent at all.  They also told me that if they were babysitting my children (who at that time were aged 8 and 6) they would ‘teach them to experiment sexually’ and that I was abusing and suppressing my children by not allowing them to experiment sexually.  After all sex was just an appetite.  I was absolutely horrified by this – as to be fair was my gay opponent in the debate who thought this was completely out-of-order and immediately dissociated himself from this extremism.

I wrote to what was then The Glasgow Herald, not mentioning the paedophile aspect of the conversation (partly for the sake of my own children and partly to be fair to those I knew who were gay and did not advocate this position), but instead mentioning Tatchell’s desire to see the age of consent lowered to 14.  They refused to publish it on the grounds that it was homophobic!  But it was the truth.  Tatchell was quite open.  But even 20 years ago newspapers, like the rest of the media, were homophobic-phobic (afraid of being called homophobic).

Which brings us back to Bindel’s article.  I don’t think that Tatchell supports paedophilia, in the sense that he does not support child rape.  But his sexual philosophy is such that it clearly and logically leads to a position where it argues that some children can give consent to sexual practices and that in some cases ‘it does them no harm’.  As Tatchell argued ‘intergenerational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by young and old alike”.    In a society where people are arguing that children can decide about their gender and can ‘consent’ to practices whereby they mutilate their bodies in order to express ‘who they really are’, why should it be considered strange or wrong for children to decide to express themselves sexually?   I realise that that is a horrible and sick perversion.  But that is the logical position and that is where we are going.  Tatchell is too smart to write that kind of letter again – in this current culture – but if the culture continues to change and go the direction he has been influential in pushing- there will come a time in the not too distant future when paedophilia is argued for openly.   Just watch out for the ‘daring/radical/controversial’ plays/films/literature which ‘explore dimensions of intergenerational sexuality’.

The Christian Alternative

The Christian way to counter this is to offer the radical teaching of Jesus Christ about sex and sexuality.  That we are not defined by our sexuality, but rather by our humanity (including above all our relationship to God).  That sex is sacred and is to be reserved within the context of marriage between a man and a woman.  And that each of us is to treat our bodies as holy – not as having voracious appetites which must be indulged (yet never satisfied), but rather with dignity, self-discipline and love.    The choice is ours.  The choice is yours.  Either you accept the view that sex is as an appetite to be indulged or  you regard sex as a holy gift from God – given for procreation, companionship and the good of society.   The former ends up with us treating humans as dirt, to be used and abused as our appetites dictate.  The latter means that we treat all humans as special creations, made in the image of God.  The wages of the former are STD’s, abortion, unwanted children, pornography, exploitation, mysogny,  the need for the MeToo movement, broken families, broken lives and a broken society.  All the effects of that dreadful combination of power and lust.   The fruits of the latter are a better society for the weak and vulnerable, better communities and more wholistic and wholesome families.  Choose this day which one you want.

At the end of the day none of us are perfect.  And all of us live lives which need redemption – in all areas including this one of sex.   As we head towards Christmas perhaps we need to remember that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Thanks be to God….

For those who missed my encounter with Tatchell since then – a respectful and revealing exchange on Revelation TV here is part 1 .

And part 2


  1. No doubt we will soon be revisiting all these old chestnuts:

    Jesus didn’t say anything specific about it.
    Those verses in the Old Testament don’t apply any more.
    Or, those verses only apply to pagan rituals and non-consensual acts, not to a consensual relationship.
    There’s nothing wrong with a consensual relationship.
    There’s nothing wrong with pagan ritual.
    They accepted it in ancient civilizations.
    Not every such relationship uses penetrative sexual activity so stop fixating on it.
    It’s not about procreation anyway.
    Love is love.
    Everyone has a human right to express their love.
    Everyone has a right to sexual expression.
    How does it hurt you?
    It’s not compulsory, you know. If you don’t like it you don’t have to. Otherwise shut up.
    At least nobody’s going to get pregnant.
    People only oppose it because they are prejudiced and uneducated.
    The only reason you oppose this is because it disgusts you. Get over it.
    If you’re against it, it’s probably because you’re suppressing something.
    You’re a bigot.
    Return to the beginning. Loop.

    Surprised that Dr Existenz has the yin and yang for his avatar, so binary and heteronormative!

    1. An atheist I was talking to tried to claim that there is no mention of an Age of Consent in the Bible and that the Bible supports sex between men and girls!!!

      1. Really? Who says? I agree but on what basis do YOU say that? My view is that children cannot determine either that they are a different gender or that they are ready to have sex.

      2. I don’t think children can consent to sex in a meaningful, fully understanding fashion. But what is consent sold to children as already? Just an agreement, a simple yes to a particular activity – you want to, you do it.

      3. I believe paedophilia cannot be consensual because I don’t believe that children have the capacity to consent to sex.

        I think 16 is too young and the legal limit should be raised to 18.

        (I think actually the 16 limit is a hang over from a period when sexual exploitation and abuse were more acceptable and if we were starting afresh with this legislation then it would have been 18.)

  2. Dr Existenz is not saying “nothing requires justification”. If you read the tweet exchange he has with you, which remains public and which you have chosen to omit as vital context, readers can see clearly he says it is normal that most things have to be justified.

    PS it is a matter of historical record that morality changes. Read a history book for proof of that.I wonder how brave you’ll be in person.

    1. Judas – I’m afraid that Dr Existenz is so confident of his own justification that he has removed all this tweets and mine – and blocked me – so his exchange is no longer public. He states quite clearly what he says in his tweet which I quote in full. As for reading a history book. I have read a few! I have a degree in history from the University of Edinburgh and at the last count I have over 100 history books on my shelves. And yes – morality as practiced and understood by humanity does indeed ‘change’. – but if you actually read history books you will find that the basic questions of human morality remain the same. If morality is just cultural then of course murder, rape, racism and homophobia can be justified in cultures which approve of it…

    2. His tweet says, “Technically, nothing requires justification.” So, in the spirit of the season, my reply to your assertion is, “Oh yes he does.” However, I’m not sure what the ‘technically’ bit signifies.

  3. Read in the Times today that primary school children are being taught that that boys can have menstrual periods too! Where? Brighton

    1. I think it would be more accurate to say that Brighton schools are teaching about trans people and explaining that trans men and boys can have periods.

      Trans people have been a part of society my whole life. This is not anything new.

      1. No that is naive and dangerous. They are teaching that gender is a social construct, that you can chose your own gender, and that men can have periods. Its collective insanity. And disturbing that you try to excuse it. And yes people with psychological disorders have been a part of society all our lifes = that does not mean we endorse their disorder as normal. Anorexic people have been a part of society all our lives – should we endorse their view that they are fat and need to starve themselves!

      2. Trans people don’t choose their own gender – that’s kind of the point!

        I don’t agree with your assessment.

      3. I have never said that gender is a choice or merely a social construct. I have never heard a trans person claim that they have chosen their gender.

      4. I’m certain you are wrong.

        Im not trans, but I am certain that trans people are not claiming that gender is a choice. If it were a choice then most of them would simply choose not to be trans.

      5. I have copied a quote below from Stonewall who, I hope you can agree, will be reasonably representative of trans people’s views.

        I feel that it is impossible to accept this, or something like it, as the definition of a trans person and yet claim that trans people are saying that gender is a choice.


        How do you know you’re trans?

        Many people know they’re trans from a young age. Some trans people might not have the language or understanding of what it means to be trans until later in life. But it is always something innate and absolutely core to your sense of self. It’s not something that’s a fad, a ‘lifestyle choice’ or something that comes and goes.

        It is an essential part of who you are that can’t be changed. If you aren’t recognised as being the gender you know you are, it’s extremely damaging.

      6. No I don’t agree that Stonewall are representative of trans peoples views – and I don’t trust them at all. You have this rather strange habit of accepting the authority of groups like Stonewall whilst rejecting the authority of the Bible….As for it being ‘an essential part of you that can’t be changed’ – I would suggest your biology is that. The strange thing about trans ideolgy (which you seem to have swallowed wholesale) is that when body and mind conflict, they think that the body should be mutilated rather than the mind helped….I wonder if you would do the same for anorexics?

      7. I quoted Stonewall to prove to you that trans people are not claiming to be able to change their gender. I’m sorry, but I don’t find it credible that you know trans people better than Stonewall. In fact the section I quoted was probably written by a trans person.

        I don’t reject the authority of scripture. I am disagreeing with you about what trans people are saying about themselves.

        I agree that you can’t change your biology (except appearance etc).

        Btw not all trans people have surgery to alter their appearance (and a great many non trans people do, some for more frivolous reasons).

  4. An atheist told me that there is No Age of Consent in the Bible which is why in Christendom men were allowed to marry girls younger than 12, and why the Christian Churches have collapsed in Ireland, the USA and elsewhere because of mass rape of children by Christians. I said that was no excuse but is there a verse in the Bible I can quote against him?

    1. The age of consent was 12 in England in 1275, raised to 13 in the UK in 1875, and then raised to 16 in 1885.
      The age of consent in the USA was 10 or 12 (and 7 in Delaware) in 1880.
      There is an age of consent in Islam but not Christianity I was told but I haven’t read the whole of the Koran to know.

      1. There is more than one place that I could post this reply, but this is as good as any. The content is also relevant to the comment posted below by ‘John’ and the reply from our esteemed host.

        Though I have a slim knowledge of social anthropology, I would, for a start, reckon that for girls in Biblical-era societies, the menarche would be the indication that the girl would be ready for a sexual relationship, and this physiological event would be taken to mark the social transition from girl to young woman. At the moment the average age of menarche is around 13, varying significantly according to geographical region, race, and nutritional state. What it would have been 2-3000 years ago is anybody’s guess, but taking this biological marker seems to me to be reasonable. Whether or not the biological indication of approaching sexual maturity coincides with the emotional and mental maturity to consent to a sexual relationship is a question that I will acknowledge but not develop, other than to observe that opinions have varied over time.

        Looking at the Biblical evidence, we can see that Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman (Matt 19:5 – Gk ‘gyne’ can be translated ‘woman’ or ‘wife’ according to context). But at what age would a female have become a ‘woman’? We can at least find linguistic evidence if we look at Mk 5:41-42, where a female specifically described as 12 years old is referred to by the Gk ‘korasion’ (girl) not ‘gyne’ (woman). Therefore a ‘woman’ of marriageable age must have been over 12 years old. (This matches well with the biological marker of menarche put forward in my preceding paragraph, and with the English age of consent in 1275 quoted by ‘Steve’.) Since sexual intimacy outside of marriage would be immoral, and marriage has to be with a female over 12 years of age, sexual intimacy with a female of 12 years or under must be immoral. Even though there is no specific verse quoting an age of consent, I think that this linguistic evidence is convincing.

  5. In terms of the Sambia argument – well we don’t choose to defend FGM because it’s considered okay within certain cultures.
    I think this attitude about age of consent though is already pretty widespread (i.e that it should really be 14 or so).

  6. There’s one missing from your first paragraph – bestiality. I think I’d better refrain from posting a link to Pink News, but I found an article dated 12 Mar 2018 entitled: “Guy who had sex with dolphin insists he’s not gay, only wants to [expletive deleted] female animals”

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

  7. I’ve heard the argument that Chalke tweeted many times before. It is usually meant as a counter to the claim that homosexuality is “unnatural”. I’m certain that Steve Chalke is not in favour of paedophilia and I’m pretty sure that you know that too.

      1. I also wonder what you make of the fact that countries (and states) where sex/marriage with under 16s is more acceptable tend to be countries (and states) where sex/marriage between people of the same sex is least unacceptable? In other words, in the world, there seems to be an anti correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia.

        I would argue that legalisation of same sex sex and marriage and rejection of sex with minors and child marriages is following a societal movement away from a utilitarian view of sex and marriage (“man’s needs”, procreation and households needing both male – bread winner – and female – home maker – roles) and towards one which is focused on loving relationships (probably what you refer to as companionship)

        Sorry, there’s a lot of brackets there, but I wonder if you see this movement too?

      2. No – you seem to live in a different world from me! You think that we are progressing towards Nirvana and SSM is leading the way! I see a regression towards a Greco/Roman/Pagan world in which there is rampant sexual immorality and the poor, weak and young suffer the most. If you really want to open the can of worms that is the link between homosexuality and paedophilia you should find out how many paedophile crimes are same sex….it may be a revelation to you…(which I hasten to add is not to equate homosexuals with paedophiles…)…

      3. It would be helpful if you could stop disagreeing with things that I have never said!

        I’m not saying ssm leads to Nirvana, but I’m not saying that there’s a sexual free for all either. Obvious examples are that sexual abuse of women and children is far less acceptable today than it was when I was a child.

        I’m commenting on paedophilia and homosexuality because you wrote an article about it.

      4. I wrote an article on the slippery slope. And no sexual abuse of women and children was not more acceptable when you were a child, nor was it more prevalent.

      5. The change in societal attitudes to the abuse of women and children is as clear as day to me. I’ll try to explain why I see that.

        When I was a kid women could be expected to be groped in the office. Nowadays most offices would fire anyone who did that.

        When I was a kid rape of your wife was not a crime.

        When I was a kid, blind eyes were being shown in government, the media and sadly the church towards sexual exploitation of children. We now have had multiple scandals uncovered and have been told in almost every case that “those were different times”.

        If you look at TV or film from several decades back and compare it to now, it’s also obvious. The womanising behaviour of Connerys Bond would seem distasteful today rather than heroic.

      6. Yes – it is clear to you in terms of your own very limited experience. But the reality on a wider level is not so clear. Who says that ‘groping’ and sexual abuse is less? That sexual exploitation of children is less? Who justified it in the past? When I look at TV now compared with the past – it is highly sexualised and far more pornographic. You seem to be looking through somewhat rose tinted lenses!

      7. There are 25 countries which have legalised same sex marriage

        There are 119 countries in which child marriage is legal and 6 countries in which under 16 marriage is above 20%

        None of these 6 countries allow same sex marriage and in 5 of the 6 homosexuality is criminalised.

        The treatment of women in the workplace has drastically improved over the last thirty or so years.

        In the 1990s marital rape was criminalised and there have been changes to the law in the last couple of years to further criminalise spousal abuse.

        Does your narrative have an explanation for these facts? They don’t, to my mind fit a slippery slope argument or a correlation between gay rights and child abuse.

  8. I think I should also point out that it is illegal for trans children to have surgery to alter their sex in the U.K.

    It isn’t illegal for similar operations to be carried out on intersex children.

  9. Thank you for this informative article David. Your tenacity and good manners are inspiring to me. I was pleased to see the Fife council scrap the school tests for five year olds recently. We need to start there to protect kids, at the basic level. Children are carted out in advertising and commercialised, that is a harder one to turn round but kids deserve protection until at least 16.

  10. (Not the same Steve as above)
    I keep wondering about these people going quiet on the age of consent, and whether, if it were dropped, the number of Roman Catholic priests who would be decriminalised might conceivably have anything to do with it…..

  11. In the beginning God made. He saw it was good . Let us make mankind in our image to rule over the creation and work and take care of the land. Male and female he made them. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they become one flesh. Be fruitful and multiply. Children, honour your parents. Parents train your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
    Surely God did not….make everything! Surely there is no God! Surely everything is ultimately a meaningless accident! Surely man is the highest authority and intelligence!
    Surely there is no God to answer to for plundering, polluting and destroying the earth! Surely we can find another accidental earth and just move there! Surely man is just an animal! Surely gender is just a social construct! Surely the good place for sexual relations is not only between a husband and wife! Surely a life in the womb is not created by God! Surely children’s ‘rights’ supersede parental authority and protection! Surely parents are bad to teach their children about a God who doesn’t exist!
    The unravelling, corruption and destruction of God’s good created order – in the quest for freedom and happiness we head like lambs to the slaughter – unaware of the enemy’s tactics to deceive, to steal, kill and destroy.

  12. David, you have completely misunderstood what the Rev Canon Chalke is arguing for. It is because the Church rejects people who do not identify as heterosexual, that there is a downward spiral. Rather than condemning people to a lifetime of rejection and depression, drug abuse and suicidal thoughts, we should call them into the Church and into relationship with God. And before you question whether I know what I am talking about – I can assure you I do. It is when we celebrate people for who they are, that we give them the opportunity to have stable and loving relationships. To draw any parallels with incest or paedophilia is abhorrent, sickening and particularly stupid. It is exactly that kind of abuse that Steve Chalke is standing against. Same sex marriage is a step away from abusive relationships. It is about acknowledging the best way to have a romantic relationship – a commitment to each other, centred around the love of Christ,

    1. Jim – I completely understand what Chalke is talking about….and you will forgive me saying this but there are several things which I struggle with in your post.

      1) The church does welcome all people – but not ‘as they are’. All, whatever their sexuality, are called to repentance and faith in Christ. They are called to the ultimate change – the new birth – without which they cannot see the kingdom of God.

      2) You tell us that ‘we are to celebrate people for who they are’…but you don’t mean all people because in the next sentence you immediately exclude some. What if someone says ‘this is who I am – someone who is in love with my brother, or someone who ‘loves’ children’….would you accept them for ‘who they are’?

      3) How can you have a relationship ‘centred round the love of Christ’ if you ignore what Christ says? Does that not just make ‘the love of Christ’ a meaningless phrase?

  13. I just saw this. I am speechless that you would write such an article headline – though it is not out of character. David, have you no shame or integrity? Disgusted.

    1. I have lots of shame and integrity. At least I don’t hide behind an anonymous keyboard. I hope you actually read the article and that you would feel free to comment on any of the substance within it. Tell me what was wrong with any of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: