'If anything, we seduced her'
If Liz Hoskings (a feminist author), cares to read the first part of my autobiography,
Geordies was mental, she might find that not everyone has had such an apparently sheltered life that she had (Letters, November 26).
I started having sexual intercourse at the age of twelve, as did a number of my schoolmates. The two girls who did me the pleasure were indeed two years older and therefore more experienced than the virginal little me. Not by the wildest stretch of anyone’s imagination could it be called abuse, and I was highly delighted. I have to say I considered this extremely healthy - whether it was ‘informed’ or not, I’m really not sure.
What does Liz think I needed informing of? The two girls took for granted that, being a normal, developing teenager, I was up for it. I was and, since I hadn’t a clue where to start had it been down to me, I was more than pleased that they seduced me - if you can call having your pants pulled down and a semi-naked girl bounce up and down on your penis ‘seduction’.
Now, of course, the law would jail the girls for rape. And this is the trouble: you can talk up a case of ‘abuse’ by altering the meaning of facts and terminology, making this whole thing complex and difficult when really it’s a perfectly natural process. The law today would say I had been a ‘victim’. Actually, I wasn’t, and no-one had done anything remotely wrong.
Two years later, four of my friends and I had sex with a real sexy woman in her early thirties. Did she ‘abuse’ us? Are you crazy? We had planned the encounter for weeks and, if anything, we seduced her. Doubtless, she knew all sorts of clever stuff that we didn’t, but what had that to do with anything? Half of the school would have chopped off their big toe to have come with us, and there is no doubt that we consented like there was no tomorrow.
Were we ‘ill-informed’? Again I have to ask, ill-informed of what? What does Liz think we needed to know before getting laid? Basic facts, she suggests, because young people can be ignorant. But we knew well enough what the sex thing was about; finding enough women and girls to engage with was the problem. It was practical stuff, not theory, that we were searching for.
All of that was 40 years ago. Does Liz mean to suggest that young teenagers are less aware now than we were 40 years ago? I would have thought that all the evidence suggests that young people are sexually active earlier and more generally than a generation or longer ago; that they are more aware.
What worries me about Liz’s piece is that she clearly thinks she knows better than the youngsters and that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves what they’re going to do, when and with whom. She will make that
judgment for them - as will the law by sealing off more and more areas of freedom, from climbing trees and playing in parks to sexual encounters.
The real problem is that we live in an age where the state demands to control every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave; to decide for us what risks to take, what
judgments to make, what mores we live by, what is acceptable.
They get away with this by inventing a whole army, a whole society, of ‘victims’ - old, young, race, religion, whatever - none of whom can be allowed to live their own lives and make their own decisions.
All are preyed upon by predators and evil-doers who would seduce us, groom us, persuade us, so that even when we willingly consent we don’t really.