Sex-tacular debate
Last Wednesday's meeting at the Oxford Reform Club saw a ferocious clash of both opinion and personality between Peter Tatchell and Peter Hitchens, debating the motion that "Underage Sex is not necessarily abusive".
Tatchell opened the debate, setting out his understanding of what was the acceptable face of underage sex; consentual sex between understanding parties of any age, in a loving relationship. The mainstay of his case centered on the state's role in educating children and its responsibility towards creating an environment of security and open awareness in sexual matters. Teenagers have sex; this does not mean that everybody is mature enough to do so once they reach puberty, but still the fact cannot be ignored, rather the state should provide sex education at the earliest possible age. By sweeping underage sex under the carpet, we do more harm than good; youngsters should be taught how to avoid getting into situations of abuse, not left alone to experiment and be led astray.
Peter Hitchens' rejection of Tatchell's argument as 'unmitigated tripe' set the tone for a reply that seemed to suggest that the Mail on Sunday columnist was the sole defender of Victorian morality against a society in sharp decline. He railed against council estates on the outside of Oxford, where children brought up by children have become savages, told us of his experiences with the Chicago police rounding up youths who had broke their curfew times, only to find that the streets were a safer place to be than their own homes. But behind his hyperbolic expression, Hitchens' point was clear - children must be allowed to grow up as children. Whereas Tatchell had stressed love within sex, Hitchens isolated them, coming very close to inferring that homosexual sex was merely for pleasure, and that Tatchell might have ulterior motives for campaigning for a universal age of consent of fourteen. Under-age sex can never be just the concern of a couple - parents have a responsibility to discipline their children, whereas under age sex can have consequences that might be disastrous. Chlamydia in young women can cause infertility, whilst teenage pregnancies deprive the children born a chance to grow up in a stable family community. And once the age of consent has been lowered to 14, will it keep on ratcheting down? The law protects only within the letter of the law - by lowering the age of consent, surely some of this protection would be removed.
The temperature of the debate became more heated once opened up to the floor; both sides were unable to remain unscathed, though Peter Hitchens seemed to alienate himself from the audience, calling them 'immature', accusing them of giggling, which many took offence to. One member called Hitchens a bigot, but Tatchell was caught on the spot when another produced his letter to The Guardian from 1997 in which he wrote that some of his friends, when young, had had sex with nine year olds, and then started shouting that he was a paedophile. Tatchell proceeded with a lengthy defence, but though he denied that nine year olds should have sex, his case seemed somewhat tainted afterwards. That the audience felt strongly about the issue was undeniable, and arguments with Tatchell and Hitchens reached shouting levels at times.
Votes taken at the begining and at the end of the debate demonstrated the uncertain nature of the topic- both times the motion was carried, but a rise in abstentions proved that, in a sense, both speakers had been effective.
Between them they had explored the issue fully and demonstrated its complications. Both seemed to agree that the topic could no longer remain a taboo; measures needed to be taken to prevent all forms of underage abuse. But it is unlikely that their own solutions to this problem will be heard with any sincerity. The difficulty concerning the question of under age sex and abuse is that it can be little but emotive and divisive, when some sort of middle ground needs to be taken. While Tatchell and Hitchens continue to stick to their guns and rouse the far left and right, no government, or party, will even think of addresing an issue that will cost them votes.
17th May 2001