It seems that the slightest hint of stepping outside the bounds of the political orthodoxy has officially become anathema:

David Cameron was urged to sack one of his frontbench team who said the age of consent for homosexuals should not have been lowered to 16 because it put teenage boys at “serious physical risk” and in danger of catching HIV.

Julian Lewis, the shadow minister for Defence and Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Hampshire seat of New Forest East, wrote to a constituent last week saying he had been “very strongly against” lowering the age of consent for gays from 18 to 16 because of the “seriously increased risk of HIV”. He appeared to compare it with the decision to prevent service personnel aged under 18 from fighting on frontlines. Last night, Dr Lewis reiterated his view, telling The Independent that anyone aged 16 to 18 who had unprotected gay sex was “at risk, and potentially at risk of their lives”.

His outspoken views have reopened debate about the party’s stance on gay and lesbian rights. Two weeks ago, the shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, suggested that owners of bed-and-breakfast hotels should have the right to turn away gay couples.

Outspoken views? For daring be concerned about young people? This is hardly controversial stuff, because we all know that not every teen is going to go out there with a sensible head on their shoulders when there’s a surfeit of casual sex up for grabs. We do all know that, don’t we?

It’s hardly like Dr Lewis suggested that homosexuals need to be deprogrammed or isolated from society. Has society become so utterly beholden to a hegemonic form of thinking that we can no longer even utter a contrarian thought?

(And really, where does the Independent sit on the matter of exclusively homosexual bed-and-breakfast hotels that discriminate against straight couples? Are they kicking in the doors of these establishments, demanding equal rights for straights?)

1
SadButMadLad April 23, 2010 at 12:50

Is he also against the age of consent for straight teenagers to be 16 as well? Should that be raised to 18?

It is well known that is not just gay sex but hetrosexual sex can pass on HIV. But in the scheme of things HIV is small fry compared to clamedia and other STIs and all teenagers are equally affected.

2
Alan April 23, 2010 at 13:05

“It’s hardly like Dr Lewis suggested that homosexuals need to be deprogrammed or isolated from society. Has society become so utterly beholden to a hegemonic form of thinking that we can no longer even utter a contrarian thought?”

Sadly yes. Their franchise must be protected afterall.

It’s a bit like the UKIP Burkha ban though. Had they said ‘no face coverings in public for anyone’ who would have batted an eyelid?

If Dr Lewis had put it thusly: Safe sex is something which girls take more seriously than boy which puts young gay men at a disproportionate risk of sexually transmitted diseases, no one would have batted an eyelid. This is the evidence based policy making (assuming my guess about the underlying issue is true) the technocrats and politicians love and yet because it goes against the consensus it is verboten.

In addition to this the questions Parliament votes on are usually cynically written to influence the outcome.

3
Disenfarnchised of Buckingham April 23, 2010 at 13:42

Buckingham Bercow voted for buggering schoolboys.

Good on Lewis for standing up against it.

As for the age of heterosexual consent, my understanding, and as a father of 4, my experience is that 16 year old girls are mentally more mature than boys.

4
David April 23, 2010 at 15:23

Why should there be different ages of consent depending on whether you like to have sex with boys or girls? Sex without protection is unsafe regardless of whether you like it straight or gay. If a 16-year-old boy is too immature to have protected sex with another boy then he’s too immature to have protected sex with a girl.

I don’t care if you think the age of consent should be 16, 18 or 21, but it should be consistent. Gay people are not more irresponsible than straight people- the number of teenage mums illustrates that quite nicely- and trying to claim that they are IS homophobic.

5
Specky April 23, 2010 at 16:13

The emancipation of gays if that’s the word for it was in whole achieved by the gay community themselves was it not by a serious campaign over many years to liberate themselves and project the fact that they are on the whole decent folks.
When governments intervene in personal matters all sorts of madness and contradictions start to abound.
Just like the parralell of gay guesthouses exclusively for gays.
Fine ,why not.
In my humble opinion the guest house owners had the right to refuse the gay couple,not my personal opinion but they have the right to be narrow minded if they choose.
Government legislation on personal matters is pretty well unenforcable anyhow.

6
Paul April 23, 2010 at 16:45

The subtext of what he is saying is that he doesn’t want 16 year old boys falling prey to the stereotypical elderly queen who has a taste for young meat. Many suspect that this is the true reason for the desire by homosexuals to lower the age of consent. HIV is simply an emotional construct that hides the actual to appeal to the heart strings of parents, saying do you want your young son to be dating a 50 year old queer, HIV positive or not.

Afterall statutory rape cases only ever reach prosecution when there is a large age difference between the couple, no one one bats an eye-lid at two consenting 15 year olds.

7
Fabian the Fabulous April 23, 2010 at 20:22

In the eyes of the righteous, homosexuality is a form of sainthood.
And to question the orthodoxy is loathsome heresy

8
David April 24, 2010 at 11:45

“The subtext of what he is saying is that he doesn’t want 16 year old boys falling prey to the stereotypical elderly queen who has a taste for young meat. Many suspect that this is the true reason for the desire by homosexuals to lower the age of consent.”

‘Scuse me?

If he’s saying something like that then he’s even worse than I gave him credit. I know Catholic bishops equate homosexuality with paedophilia, but they’re cretins. I don’t expect an MP to share such abhorrent views.

Young girls are preyed on by older men sometimes. Young girls are not always as careful with contraception as they might be- enough of them get pregnant. The same risks and problems apply to heterosexual sexual relationships as well as to homosexual ones.

So why isn’t the muppet MP demanding that the age of consent is raised to 18 for all young people? It clearly isn’t due to welfare, otherwise he’d be just as concerned about young straight people, so it must be homophobia.

And I, for one, don’t think a declared homophobe should be allowed to sit in Parliament troughing away at seventy grand a year plus the same again in expenses.

9
Paul April 24, 2010 at 15:35

It’s not homophobia as such, its an underlying bias that most people don’t realise they have. It affects us all on various different subjects. Its a result of growing up in a society that has long held a deep distrust of homosexuals due to years of it being both illegal and seen as something devient and unnatural.

Growing up surrounded by thoughts like that you can’t help but develop these biases. So you’ll find that this is a common attitude in our society, whereas old men chasing young girls is seen as quite natural and that’s the reason why there are calls for restrictions on homosexuals rather than heterosexuals.

I disagree with Dr Lewis’ views but I agree with the article that he should be allowed to expression his opinion when asked this question. Only through debate can we reach a sensible position on these things, not by decrying people for having a position that is seen as unacceptable and is likely the result of social biases. This country needs to get out of identity politics and then we’d realise that we aren’t that different.

10
Alan April 24, 2010 at 22:13

David said: “So why isn’t the muppet MP demanding that the age of consent is raised to 18 for all young people? It clearly isn’t due to welfare, otherwise he’d be just as concerned about young straight people, so it must be homophobia.”

There seem to be people putting things into that MP’s mouth…

*If* HIV/Aids is more prevalent in young homosexual men than young heterosexual men then the difference in age of consent is due to welfare issues. Is it more prevalent? Are gay men more reckless? I have no idea and no idea how the state can know such a thing with any degree of certainty.(As it only takes one instance of not using a condom to spread the disease)

It’s like asking teenagers if they have tried drugs, drink, sex, hacking, etc. 143% will say they have.

As I said initially the questions put to Parliament are written to influence the voting (it certainly was with 42 days detention) – ask MPs if the age of consent should be equalised and you might get a lot voting yes. Ask them if the age of consent for homosexuals should be lowered and you might get a lot of them voting no. Don’t ask them if the age of consent should be raised for heterosexual and you can paint all those who voted no to question 2 as homophobes.

If the difference is partly due to a general sense that 16 year old girls tend to be more responsible than 16 year old boys (so again it is a welfare issue) the answer to that is simple – different ages of consent for boys and girls regardless of sexuality. Though that’s probably not allowed under uman rights laws.