Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  DJS

  VG,

  I hope you understand that those of us you and a few others disagree with also want to protect the young. Vehemently. But fairly. BTW, some female chimps will eat the infants of their rivals.
• 

  villagegirl

  I am aware that there is violence among animals. Chimps are dangerous

  as adults. I am a mother, grandmother, and come from a well educated

  family, my father was agnostic, and a professor of engineering. He changed to

  theist, with no church, in his later years, I have six years in university, I am not

  a child or a simpleton. I am also aware that moral codes are observable by

  atheists. I am not a fundamentalist and I have no objection to people choosing

  their own belief systems and world views. The social science in this particular topic,

  field, is extensive, and Dawkins is inexcusable to not be aware of the studies, as a scientist.
• 

  GLTirebiter

  The "touching" Dawkins described (in the OP's link) is an act of grooming, gradually crossing moral boundaries to test the intended victim's resistance and, if weakness is found, to break down that resistance. It is not innocent, it is not harmless, it is in no way excusable.

  Fortunately, some people understand that it is appropriate to deal with molesters firmly (though in a way that "I don't think...did any lasting harm".)

  Asked by the dispatcher if any weapons were involved, the father said “my foot and my fist.”

  “I didn’t proceed to ask him any questions sir,” the father said. “He is nice and knocked out on the floor for you. I drug him out to the living room.”

  The father was not charged in Frolander’s beating, police spokesman Jimmie Flynt said.

  “Dad was acting like a dad. I don’t see anything we should charge the dad with,” Chitwood said. “You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times.”
• 

  bohm

  Problemaddict: again, dawkins is certainly not filtering everything through his own experience. He is talking about specific incidences and conversations with other boyes. To quote:

  … I cannot know for certain that my companions’ experiences with the same teacher were are brief as mine, and theirs may have been recurrent where mine was not. That’s why I said only “I don’t think he did any of us lasting damage”. We discussed it among ourselves on many occasions, especially after his suicide, and there was indeed general agreement that his gassing himself was far more upsetting than his sexual depredations had been. If I am wrong about any particular individual; if any of my companions really was traumatised by the abuse long after it happened; if, perhaps it happened many times and amounted to more than the single disagreeable but brief fondling that I endured, I apologise
• 

  cofty

  Some people's inability to read and understand what has actually been written makes sensible conversation on emotive subjects impossible.

  Suffice to say Dawkins never excused child abuse of any sort as aceptable and neither has anybody else in this thread.
• 

  Ruby456

  hmm - some would argue that the sexual fondling Dakwins experienced as a youngester has caused lasting damage - only he can't see it

  edit: he can be very arrogant and childish, seems to lack empathy and chooses simplistic worldviews despite doing loads of research. He appears to have become a bully too. most bullies would deny any inadequacies that could be attributed to something that put them in a vulnerable position in childhood.

  on the other hand I admire his passion and sense of calling. Then too in his personal life he is prolly a very different person.
• 

  KateWild

  Some people's inability to read and understand what has actually been written makes sensible conversation on emotive subjects impossible.-cofty

  haha!!!! very funny mister.......demanding apologies is not sensible.....but I am still asking you for one. A sincere one please. Dawkin's presents as an arrogant, predjudice individual in some of his books. Of course the media will use him as a scape goat and sensationalise his comments.

  Ruby, some interesting points worth thinking about.

  Kate xx
• 

  ZeusRocks

  I don't comment very often but I still come on and read posts every now and then and I have to say, I can't believe some of the people acting like pork chops about this article.

  What Coft just wrote is correct

  Some people's inability to read and understand what has actually been written makes sensible conversation on emotive subjects impossible.

  Suffice to say Dawkins never excused child abuse of any sort as aceptable and neither has anybody else in this thread.

  This line from the article is a load of horseshit that perpetuates a myth that all forms of sexual abuse is equal and all victims are damaged by it.
  "But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday."

  At aged 12 I was molested 3 times by a guy in his late 50's early 60's. He kissed me, layed on top of me rubbing up and down, hands down my shorts and had me sitting on his lap. I wasn't threatened or physically harmed in any way. I had no damage from it whatsoever. I just thought he was pretty gross.
  After living the previous 4 years with a violent drunk of a stepfather, being felt up by some sleazy old guy was nothing. I was only a 'victim' in the sense he was older and I was at that age very submissive because of my drunk of a stepfather. But it did me no harm whatsoever. I was just grossed out because he was old, ugly and stank of cigarettes.

  I was also fondled by a female nurse in hospital when I was 8, which also was gross because I was gay and knew it since I was 3, so having a female touch me down there was not a pleasant thing to my mind.

  What happened to me was a mild form of sexual abuse, which cannot and never could be compared to what a child goes through that is forcefully raped.

  I am not condoning what happened to me or anyone who touches innappropriately or harms children, but the reality is, not all forms of sexual abuse are equal.

  Maybe I was just more resilient than someone else in the same situation, but to me it was no big deal.

  So to me, all this Richard Dawkins bashing because of what he said is quite pathetic, as he never once condoned sexual abuse in any form.
• 

  Magnum

  First - the title of the article (and thus the title of the thread) misrepresents Dawkins. The title is: Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”. What the title indicates is untrue. What Dawkins actually said was:“I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm (bold and italics mine). ” That’s far different from what the title says he said. The title indciates that he generalized and said that “mild pedophilia” didn’t cause any lasting harm (to anyone). If I said that the disease didn’t affect me, and someone says that I said that the disease has no effect on humans, then that person would be either lacking in comprehension or deliberately misrepresenting me.

  Second - I agree, ZeusRocks. This thread has actually sort of depressed me - seeing the extreme jump to microscopically analyze in an in-depth manner the words of somebody who was being interviewed and evidently speaking off the cuff. It seems that some want to treat his words as though they were extracted from a scientific paper he wrote and every word was calculated, exact, and deliberate. Even if his words had been calculated, exact, and deliberate, they still don't condone pedophilia or indicate that Dawkins is making light of it.

  And to the person who questions how the hell Dawkins could know what the effect was on the other students - well, he says that he discussed it with them on many occasions. I agree that he can't really know definitely or prove that it didn't have any effect on him or them, but, are we to analyze and question everything so deeply? Can't we just take his word for it? Maybe in some way it did affect him and he's not aware of it, but I think that he feels that it did not affect him, so let him be. His point was not to condone pedophilia in any way.

  I think some of us should prioritize and spend our time and efforts on more important things instead of seemingly trying to look for and create issues; there are plenty of real, proven issues to deal with. I believe that Dawkins and everybody on this thread hate pedophilia, so go out take action to stop it, or go adopt an animal that’s about to put down at the animal shelter. Quit trying to make more out of what Dawkins said than is there.

  I wish this forum would stick more to issues involving JWs – like doctrinal issues, researching their history, analyzing current trends and goings-on, etc.
• 

  cofty

  Thank you for your comments ZeusRocks. You have brought some rationality to what can hardly be called a conversation.

  Somebody will be along in a minute to tell you how you "ought" to feel about what happened to you.