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

by chrisuk 320 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Magnum

  OK - I just read the article. Though my feelings may change or be changed, my initial feeling is that the reactions against Dawkins on this site and by some others are overblown. I agree with somebody who posted above out the "black and white thinking".

  For one thing, the writer of the article wrote:

  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."

  Remember, it's the article writer who said Dawkins attempted to defend "mild pedophilia". I didn't understand him to be defending it. I just understood him to say that he doesn't judge people of one era by the standards of a different era and that he thinks that what happened to him and his classmates didn't cause them any lasting harm.

  I think the writer's wrong to generalize and say that he 'does not believe it causes any lasting harm.' What he actually said, as shown by his actual words as quoted in the article was not general; it was specific to the case of him and his classmates. He said that he feels that what happened to him and his classmates didn't cause them any lasting harm. What's wrong with his admitting that? I was glad to hear of somebody who experienced something like that admit that he didn't have any lasting harm from it. I remember reading of a circuit overseer in either the Watchtower or Awake who said he killed some people in a war (Korean?), but that he didn't really dwell on it and wasn't traumatized by it. I was glad to hear somebody admit something like that because sometimes I feel that some play up the drama.

  I definitely believe that some can be really be traumatized by things such as being molested or war experiences; I"ve known some who genuinely seemed to be, but nevertheless, I'm glad that some who are not will admit it.
• 

  cofty

  VindictiveGirl and chrisuk - Public apologies are still owed for your scurrilous accusations.

  this...

  and this...

  and this...

  and this...
• 

  KateWild

  Interesting thread. Personally I don't like Dawkins wrting style, but he no where is trying to say that paedophilia is natural, normal or evolutionary. This is another example of media sensationalism, he got over a childhood experience this should really be a positive.

  Anyone who moves on with their lives after such an experience should be a positive role model. Shame he is so condesending to the uneducated churchgoer eh?

  Kate xx
• 

  cantleave

  Wow this thread deteriorated rather rapidly.
• 

  prologos

  what are we to make of the different treatment by the law of the same sexual activity carried out by two 15 year olds and in another instance, a 24 year old with a 17 year old ?

  was the harm on the 17 year old greater than on the 15 year old passive 'victim' ?

  does the harm suddenly disappear at the threshold age of consent at 18?

  yet the 24 year old might face years in prison, perhaps really a ife sentence if he is targeted by vigilanties in custody.

  with all the shades of meaning to these terms, the one thing good is to curb, stop child abuse, and that

  all the publicity (just look at 'the telegraph' these days) will deter many.
• 

  bohm

  Magnum: Bingo!

  The quote of Dawkins which I posted on page 2:

  “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

  The strange thing about this discussion is Dawkins very explicitly say that he DO comdemn these acts just like everyone else. In this thread, this falsely got translated into the exact opposite, the crazy accusation that Dawkins is pro-pedophelia, and any attempt to ask for the sources where Dawkins apparently says these things has been met with moral outrage and the implication that if you ask for sources or provide sources, you are properly a weird krypto-pedophile yourself.

  I understand many people don't like dawkins and I would happily join the moral outrage, however it MUST remain a legitimate question to ask for the sources where Dawkins say he is pro-pedophelia, think pedophelia is ok or however the accusation is phrased and these sources MUST be what dawkins has actually said; not what it "seems" Dawkins is saying or the two words "mild pedophelia" in a completely different context.

  Also, I propose "Coftys Rule": The first person to claim another person is deluded, irrational because of / or behaving in accord with a mindset which can be traced back to former experience with the watchtower and his oppinions and arguments may therefore be dismissed loose the discussion.
• 

  Viviane

  It is also very likely that there are men on this site or women, who have been protected by the WT Society, discovered molesting children, and have been "forgiven" never prosecuted for their crimes and sit here among us on this board.

  Interestingly, Christians, by necessecity, must tactily approve of at least one instance of pederasty. Mary was almost certainly well under what would be considered age of consent when God made her pregnant.
• 

  Fernando

  Could someone concisely explain:

  • what is "mild pedophilia"?

  • if an argument is being advanced that it should be more acceptable?

  • if yes, is this a valid argument?

  • if no, what is the purpose of the word "mild"?
• 

  Focus

  Few things in life are truly black and white.

  But some absolutely are!

  I think Dawkins is addressing only those cases where it is not "black and white", i.e., where whatever happens is very mild (and thus probably not physical at all - a smile, friendly words), and leaves the child with nothing remotely unpleasant and is probably not even aware of what may have been in the mind of the older party.

  If Dawkins isn't, he is mistaken, as simple as that.

  And the danger is that the condition, untreated, could lead to other acts where harm is actually done.

  Should "thought crime" be criminalized? How? I'm against this, on principle.

  The human mind, or rather brain, is indeed a very curious organ. I don't have answers for everything. I don't know where to draw the line but if I had to arbitrarily draw it somewhere it would probably be somewhat intolerant, given the risks.

  Some of the issues are definitional. The whole is not the sum of its parts, else "pedophilia" would mean merely "pedo"+"philia" i.e., the loving of children, which is a most natural "affliction" for an adult. We are programmed to love and nurture children, including those of others. If we weren't that way the human tribe would have self-extinguished millennia ago.

  __

  Focus

  ("Loves kids!" Class)
• 

  blondie

  So I take it he speaks from personal experience, he was sexually abused........sounds like something a pedophile would say about his/her actions and the effect on others coming from a position of having never experienced it himself or been assessed by a qualified person that it had not lasting effect on Mr. Dawkins.