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. 

Tags: Dawkins, Richard, pedophilia

Views: 4753

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Luck would have it, or perhaps just the opposite...

(Ha, I missed that phrase, until just now.)


And in some of those famous/infamous female perp, male victim cases, don't some of them actually get married, later?

It's the same lack of consent and the psychological harm facing girls and boys, regardless of who molested/raped them. I don't think we should de-prioritize the female perps.

Who cares if they get married later---that doesn't make it ok.

Who cares if they get married later---that doesn't make it ok.

I don't think the male, purported victim in those cases would agree.

Hi Strega

I have a strong and unnatural desire to have sex with Johnny Depp - It wont ever happen but I wont die from it.

I have to settle with alternatives.

Louis Theroux has a new doco on brothels. Theres a 19 year old prostitute who looks about 12 and the pedophiles choose her.



Laughs, do you prefer him in pirate regalia?  That is the official uniform for the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'religion', after all.  Actually he has a house around here (Vermont), so I'm told, and has appeared at the local diner once or twice - never say 'never'...  Unless, of course you, want non-consensual sex.

Why do you call it 'unnatural'?  From what I understand from my hetero friends, he is fairly desirable.


Well I dont really want to have unnatural sex with him - I dont have the desire to stick objects into any of his orafices.

I think I liked him best in Secret Window

Yeah, Johnny's cool no matter which way you look at it. 

I'll tell ya, my Hallowe'en costume made for a fun evening that year !  No pedophilia or unnatural sex involved.



And I'm not willing to draw a line under any particular age.

Six years old? Eight?

However I remain sad at the treatment of pedophyles,

I generally agree, which is why I tend to leave morality out of the equation here.


But I think that the point Im trying to make is that, people dont die from not having their sexual desires met.

and also, I will admit that there is a difference between pedophiles (those who love children in an unatural way) and psychopathic child killers/abusers.

I heard one psychopath say that he knew he was a monster and that he had compulsions to do deliberate harm to children. Before he turned himself in he said that he just had to go out and kill one more child.



Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service