In one of the interminable threads that devolved into endless discussions of pedophilia a couple of months ago, I raised an academic question about whether those who were commenting could come up with a reason why pedophilia was "wrong" without relying on a Judeo-Christian cultural context.   The history, I argued, was that in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, pedophilia in some forms was culturally acceptable; only those pesky Christians managed to radically change the culture.

For me it was just an academic speculation, but apparently I was much closer than I had ever considered possible.

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.


Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.


I'm just curious what people think?   Even in the midst of the groping, fondling, and raping of kids, and hiding/covering up of the crimes which occurred among clergy of my faith, it was exceptionally rare that anyone actually tried to condone it as being harmless. 

Views: 5108

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma From Pedophilia

A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.

The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association.

The group says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder.

"Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse," reads the organization's website. (source)


I think thats absolutely fabulous Unseen. I love Psychiatry when it does this. I see this as so fair and right and just.

Because yes there are Pedophiles who are harmless and in need of a place to be understood and then there are the MikeLongs of the world.

We need to help the Pedophiles.


OK let's make this really clear. You are NAMING me as a pedophyle because I, EXACTLY like Unseen, want to "Remove Stigma From Pedophilia" and I drew a hypotherical situation in order to highlight binary thinking and moral panic (in which you are an enthusiastic participant)?

You have demonstrated your hateful bigotry toward men. I have therefore assiduously ignored most of your posts. But THIS, Angela, is TRULY despicable. I will be taking your accusation to my solicitor.

You bitch!


I did ask you explain the folowing claims you made:

"So, say this 10-year-old girl approaches a dearly-loved uncle with questions she would never take to her parents. They continue talking over a period of time and she finally succeeds in seducing him. They engage in mutual masterbation. She has NO regrets.

"ALL children, and especially girls with their fathers (and by extension other father figures), use seduction to get their way."

and you response to me was:

"I fully agree with that statement, but if you disagree, argue it with the poster, Unseen."

I think thats way more offensive than anything Ive said. and Im not a bigot toward men.



Neither of these were "claims" in any respect. The first was part of a HYPOTHETICAL situation I painted to (successfully) isolate binary thinking. I would suggest that you look up the word "hypothetical", but even if you DID own a dictionary, I doubt that you would understand the definition.

The second WAS NOT POSTED BY ME, you moron!! - I only quoted it.

Now leave me the fuck alone. My solicitor will get back to you in due course.


haha funny @StupidBitch

"Neither of these were "claims" in any respect."

Thats not how it looked to me and I asked you to clarify. Im sorry if Im mistaken

"Now leave me the fuck alone."


" My solicitor will get back to you in due course."


Seconded.  Call your solicitor on me too. 

Why? You don't have anything worth going after!

Everyone knows Mike, you outed yourself. 

Can you say, "tag-along wannabe"?

@MikeLong - You need to stop making things worse by responding to perceived/possible abuse with actual abuse. I'm not a moderator, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're taken out to the woodshed and if this post of yours goes away in a puff of magic smoke.

Quite so. After a good night's sleep I remembered the words of my father in situations where one is defamed: - "Consider the Source". I feel sorry for Angela and Simon. They have such a load on their shoulders being so morally superior to everyone.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service