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: 5105

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It'll take more than that to "ouch" me.  Unseen, it's called PEDO. 

Unseen and kOrsan are just defending their friend.  That's good honorable behaviour and I respect it.  Archaeopteryx, you stalk and harass people in a passive-aggressive way.  That is shameful.  You're like an annoying toddler who won't shut up. 


 I dont know the origins of this dispute and I'm not sure how to assist.  It makes me feel bad for you when they carry on like that. 

Im not sure what the definition of bullying behaviour is where you are but in Australia its:

“Bullying” is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a person or group of persons. It includes behaviour that could be expected to intimidate, offend, degrade, humiliate, undermine or threaten.

“Repeated … behaviour” refers to the nature of the behaviour, not the specific form of that behaviour. “Repeated unreasonable behaviour” may thus be a pattern of diverse incidents.

Their behaviour fits that definition.

The origins go back a year ago, Angela, when I was accused of something of which I was not guilty, much as you have accused Mike. A girl accused me, much as you accused Mike, and Paynton, wanting to play Mighty Mouse hero, jumped on the bandwagon and literally (I saved the email) called me an asshole.

Once again, a girl (you're charming self) is making an accusation, and good old Paynton is jumping on the bandwagon. It's what he does --

I see it as his way of symbolically saying, "I'll save you, Mama!" Makes me wonder about his earlier homelife.

"Yip! Yip! Yip/!"

See?  You can't really hate him. 

Wrong again, Paynton - ain't nothing passive about it!

Who said anything about being scared?  I always jump in and defend my friends from bullying. 

♬ "Here he comes to save the day!" ♪

TOLD you I was psychic - or is that psychotic? I always get those two mixed up --

@Belle, I love Cumbia, but I don't know that much about it.  Can you point me towards any good CDs? 

Is that sincere, or yet another effort to ingratiate? Frankly, I would suspect you to be more inclined toward Limbo or Calypso, Mon --


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service