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.
It's just that Popes love their shoulds and shouldn'ts so much.
Hmm, there's a lot more shouldn'ty than shouldy references on google. Shouldn'ty is a common typo. (The Y key is right next to the T key.)
I'm so sick of this topic. Let me sum it up for everyone. Everyone agrees it's bad, but some people are incapable of looking at it from an objective viewpoint, and others don't see the value in the righteous indignation that this topic generates in others. I'm gonna ignore crap like this from now on, because nothing productive comes from these arguments.
Well, I'll take the gun away from your head that has had you glued to this topic.
Let me sum it up for everyone.
But I feel like I'm understanding the problem better, now. I don't like that it upsets some people who don't deserve the hardship. I could use a break from the discussion, too, but the problem for kids will remain out there, needing more insight before it can be treated more successfully.
"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".
10 year old girls don't seduce men and if they do its because they've been socialized by an adult to do it. If an adult took advantage of that abused girl then thats exploitation.
Wow. How does, approaching an uncle with questions become "she finally succeeds in seducing him?" Sounds like a bad porno plot. I doubt many girls desire intercourse with their uncles and I can't see how a girl "seduces" an adult male.
"(Oh yeah, it wasn't a creepy old, stranger dog, either. I would have been wanting to exercise a lot more caution, if we didn't know the dog.)"
I'm sorry Popey but this and the story about your daughter made me laugh a lot..... How awkward.
LOL, no problem, it is funny story. Except for my poor, god-fearing neighbor. :)
"ALL children, and especially girls with their fathers (and by extension other father figures), use seduction to get their way."
Huh? How so?
I fully agree with that statement, but if you disagree, argue it with the poster, Unseen.
Hrmm....looks like some deleted posts around these parts.
I just want to add that trying to get a parent to bend to your will (to buy a candy bar, stay up late, or go visit a friend's house) as a child should not be confused with trying to get your parent to fuck you. I think the use of the word "seduction" is a little loose in this case.