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: 5115

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, but before trying to get that past the Moral Panic Governing Body, we need to be ready to go all the way. What comes after pedophylia? Necrophylia?

No progress is possible without recognition by society in general that we're dealing with real human beings who have not chosen their own sexuality. And we're a LONG way from the general recognition that they are even human. There's a brick wall blocking the path. A sledge hammer is required just to introduce a hair-line crack in the wall. I'm afraid I can't envisage a time when society will be able to step over the rubble of this bogotry.


Start a campaign called - "My Poor Penis Is Sad Because  Society Wont Let Me Fuck A Child."



There's a brick wall blocking the path. A sledge hammer is required just to introduce a hair-line crack in the wall. I'm afraid I can't envisage a time when society will be able to step over the rubble of this bogotry.

That's why I like Strega's hypothetical about how a parent should address their child's sexual urges for other, prepubescent kids. At least most of the "just shootem" crowd might be willing to see if a juvenile can be dealt with before harmful behavior happens. Such cases of early detection might be rare, but at least some intervention should be possible in a few cases, which we might learn from with some extra effort.


"animation kiddie porn for them"

 How do you teach the really, really dumb men that no matter how much it appears that the child is enjoying it in the film, that it is not like that in real life. That children are not there for the taking. That a normal healthy child does not go about the art of seduction unless it has been exploited and damaged.

How do we teach men where to draw the line?

There is the threat of criminal prosecution if they touch a child inappropriately (or worse).


Oh yeah - thats gunna work.

It should for many. If you want a fool-proof system, take them out back and shoot 'em in the head.

Urge and Plan.
If i plan in advance that Im going to rip people off and those people are adults, then those ripped off adult people can use the law for justice.
If I have an urge to molest a child then my name should go on a register because in 10 years time i might act on that urge and harm a child. If my name is on a register and I am seen to be now living near this molested child - then I can be investigated.
Molested children usually dont know how to use the law to get justice for themselves.

In ripoffs like that, justice seldom recoups anything close to the amount lost, which can adversely affect children as well as adults, I might add. 

I don't want to live in a society where urges need to be kept in a registry.Should we also have a registry for people who sometimes have murderous urges they don't act on just in case a murder might happen somewhere near them?


Its an interesting question that, about murderous urges.

If I went to a therapist and revealed that I had the urge to kill - would the therapist put me on a register too?

Id like to know the answer to that.

I don't think there is such a registry, and the therapist is only required, in some jurisdictions, to report an impending murder, not the mere mulling it over.

In Vermont if you report to your therapist that you have urges to harm yourself or others, there is mandatory reporting, but I don't know what the follow-through is.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service