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

[Big Don]

Tuesday, Sep 10, 2013 12:47 PM PST
[h=1] Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” [/h]Salon.com EXCERPT:
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.
“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,” he said.
END EXCERPT
A different headline: Atheist Hero Defends EVIL & Child Abuse

 

[Big Don]

Another headline: Tolerance is wonderful! Tolerate Child abuse!

 

[Sukerkin]

I think you may have missed and misrepresented the point, Don.

 

[Big Don]

I think you may have missed and misrepresented the point, Don.

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.
No, Suke, I got the point, and it disgusts me.

 

[Takai]

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.
No, Suke, I got the point, and it disgusts me.

Within the current set of laws that would definitely qualify as molestation. Past or present I would consider this unacceptable behavior.

 

[arnisador]

He also said, in essence, that to Call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., EVIL b/c they owned slaves would be applying a modern standard that would unfairly represent them.

I don't agree with him on the specific issue but it was more tolerated in the past than now, so I understand his general point. You can't throw out everyone who died before 1950 as pure scum b/c they burned witches etc. Child discipline was clearly abusive by today's standards until relatively recently--he mentions caning (at schools, in England) too--but to call all those people EVIL would mean essentially everyone was bad. You have to take it relative to the age.

 

[ballen0351]

He also said, in essence, that to Call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., EVIL b/c they owned slaves would be applying a modern standard that would unfairly represent them.

I don't agree with him on the specific issue but it was more tolerated in the past than now, so I understand his general point. You can't throw out everyone who died before 1950 as pure scum b/c they burned witches etc. Child discipline was clearly abusive by today's standards until relatively recently--he mentions caning (at schools, in England) too--but to call all those people EVIL would mean essentially everyone was bad. You have to take it relative to the age.

I'm pretty sure putting your hand down a kids pants was always evil. I get the point on some issues but child abuse has always been child abuse.

 

[arnisador]

I'm pretty sure putting your hand down a kids pants was always evil. I get the point on some issues but child abuse has always been child abuse.

For a long time you could marry a 5 year old--in some places you still can. At the time he was talking about, I agree with you. But he was also making a larger point.

And child abuse has not always been the same--child labor was legal in this country a hundred years ago. You couldn't be arrested for sexually assaulting your own wife. Things change, and we can't conclude that all those people were evil--bad in some ways, obviously, but not simply evil.

 

[ballen0351]

For a long time you could marry a 5 year old--in some places you still can. At the time he was talking about, I agree with you. But he was also making a larger point.

And child abuse has not always been the same--child labor was legal in this country a hundred years ago. You couldn't be arrested for sexually assaulting your own wife. Things change, and we can't conclude that all those people were evil--bad in some ways, obviously, but not simply evil.

We are not talking about 100s of years ago. Were talking about when he was a kid so I don't know how old Dawkinsis but at most 60 years ago give or take a few years. He was just flat wrong you shouldn't be defending child sexual abuse

 

[shesulsa]

For a long time you could marry a 5 year old--in some places you still can. At the time he was talking about, I agree with you. But he was also making a larger point.

And child abuse has not always been the same--child labor was legal in this country a hundred years ago. You couldn't be arrested for sexually assaulting your own wife. Things change, and we can't conclude that all those people were evil--bad in some ways, obviously, but not simply evil.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

Laws and time do not evil make.

 

[Makalakumu]

As humans approach the acceptance of a universal and rational form of ethics, they are going to be forced to look at the past and see things as wrong. Rather than being seen as intolerant, this will be seen as progressive. Dawkins exists in the old paradigm of moral relativism, sadly.

 

[K-man]

Dawkins is 72 so the abuse was probably committed about the mid 1940s. This is the time of the paedophile priests as well and they are still being pursued even though many of them are now elderly. In terms of sexual abuse, what is wrong now was wrong then. There is no place in our society for paedophiles, no matter when they committed their offence. :asian:

 

[crushing]

Another headline: Tolerance is wonderful! Tolerate Child abuse!

That wouldn't make any sense as a headline because nowhere does he suggest that anyone should tolerate child abuse. A headline of Victim Forgives would make more sense. He said there was no "lasting harm," but maybe there was actually some harm that caused him to be so forgiving of his school master? A sort of Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[Sukerkin]

I have not been to read the source Time magazine article yet, so I must beware of being too definite in what I say.

But ... if I was not secure in my own command of English and its spoken idiom, I might think that it was I that was wrong in interpreting the referenced passage being faced with such a wall of (mostly American) posters saying its intent was something else ... for now, I shall stick to my guns and plead with posters not to seize the tail and call it the dog.

In the excerpted passage, to me, the thrust (ooh er missus!) of what is said is that acts need to be judged in the framework of their time when applying morality, particularly to such a vile thing as child molestation by trusted authority figures, which induces a very black and white emotional response that, for us in our Age, is rightly condemnatory.

As Crushing has just covered above, I too had a thought that Prof. Dawkins words could be much better understood as encompassing forgiveness at a personal level rather than a waving away of such incidents of little consequence.

Maybe the full article will be more clear ...

 

[ballen0351]

I understand what your saying and i understand his point but I disagree that it was accepted back then. I also disagree with him that it does not do any harm to kids but I bet NAMBLA is jumping for joy

 

[crushing]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/9/11/child-abuse-a-misunderstanding

I would watch games of squash from the gallery, waiting for the game to end so I could slip down and practise by myself. One day – I must have been about eleven – there was a master in the gallery with me. He pulled me onto his knee and put his hand inside my shorts. He did no more than have a little feel, but it was extremely disagreeable (the cremasteric reflex is not painful, but in a skin-crawling, creepy way it is almost worse than painful) as well as embarrassing. As soon as I could wriggle off his lap, I ran to tell my friends, many of whom had had the same experience with him. I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage, but some years later he killed himself.

​

This paragraph, together with a subsequent statement to the Times that I would not judge that teacher by the standards of today, has been heavily criticised. These criticisms represent a misunderstanding, which I would like to clear up.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

As Crushing has just covered above, I too had a thought that Prof. Dawkins words could be much better understood as encompassing forgiveness at a personal level rather than a waving away of such incidents of little consequence.

...

I just don't see it that way based on the quotes in the link. To me, he very clearly said the "mild pedophilia" was not a problem. Is mild pedophilia like less illegal concerning marijuana sale?

 

[oftheherd1]

I understand what your saying and i understand his point but I disagree that it was accepted back then. I also disagree with him that it does not do any harm to kids but I bet NAMBLA is jumping for joy

That is no doubt true. And where do you draw the line when you begin to change laws about what is acceptable? Everyone thinks same sex marriage is OK. So be it. So why not marriage to children as mentioned above, with no age limit? And same sex marriage as well? So grandpa who is lonely after his missus passed, now goes out and marries a 9 year old to keep him satisfied. Sounds disgusting to me, but where do you stop, and based on whose morals?