Richard Dawkins defends "mild pedophelia"?!?!?!?

[Aepervius]

The problem is that people (especially int he US) confuse pedophilia with ephebophilia or even generally being attracted to say, a 16 years old.

Pedophilia is being attracted to young children before they develop sexually secondary characteristics like pubic hair growths, breasts, facial hairs etc... Anybody attracted to a 16 or even a 14 year old is not a pedophile, as your average teenager will shows such secondary sexual characteristics, which by-definition pedophile will not be attracted to.

So in all those confusing maze, the laws at least in the US decided that a 16 spreading naked photo is child pornography, and an 18year old having sex with a 16 years old is pedophilia.

The insanity of it all is amazing. It is enough for people to mention 1 word "pedophilia" and rationality mostly disappear in a puff of smoke. Hysteria Follows.

before condemning dawkins I would like to see at the context by what he means by mild pedophilia and what age he was. All I see is hysteria.

 

[Rolfe]

Jings. It's perfectly legal to get married here aged 16, without parental consent. The age of legal majority is 16. I won't say it's very common, but people do get married and start a family at 16.

Was he talking about stuff like Charles Dobson taking naked photographs of fairly young children?

Rolfe.

 

[Aepervius]

Jings. It's perfectly legal to get married here aged 16, without parental consent. The age of legal majority is 16. I won't say it's very common, but people do get married and start a family at 16.

Was he talking about stuff like Charles Dobson taking naked photographs of fairly young children?

Rolfe.

Reading on thewire link he seems to state that being touched as a young kid is not always the soul-crushing-life-is-forever-impacted act, it depends on the molestation degree and some mild stuff might not even impact the kid at all, and he present an anecdote of a girl being molested at 7 but having deeper "mental scars" to being told her dead 7 year old friend would go to hell.

Forgetting the anecdote, the statement boils down to "some act of mild pedophilia may not even impact the child development or psychology". Which might be true , but as we are unable to say in advance it would still not be an attenuating circumstance or a reason to allow it. But then again neither is the exaggerated reactions people seem to ahve to the statement.

 

[Craig B]

Jings. It's perfectly legal to get married here aged 16, without parental consent. The age of legal majority is 16. I won't say it's very common, but people do get married and start a family at 16.

Ages of consent in Europe.

13 Spain
14 Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia
15 Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden
16 Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Northern Cyprus, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom
17 Cyprus, Ireland
18 Malta, Turkey

Wiki.

 

[Arcade22]

Pedophilia is usually defined as a (sometimes exclusive or primary) sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent human beings. Pedophilia is not synonymous with sexually abusing and/or molesting "children" (however its defined) nor is it synonymous with being attracted towards and/or having sex with pubescent or post-pubescent youths whether said sex or relationship is illegal or not.

Don't let that keep you from accusing people of being pedophiles for thinking well developed and pretty teenagers are hot or because they dared to have consensual sex with a minor which happened to be younger than some completely arbitrary age limit. Because who really gives a damn about applying definitions consistently?

 

[bluesjnr]

It must be a cyclical thing. This subject regularly comes around, to no real good I'd have to say.

 

[Cuddles]

A good question though. Do we have mild murder, mild rape, mild abuse, mild mugging?

Of course we do. First, second, third degree murder, manslaughter, sexual harassment, sexual assault, robbery, armed robbery, etc., etc. There are different degrees for pretty much any crime you care to name. Sometimes we give different names to them, sometimes we don't. And obviously not all crimes that fall into the same category are exactly the same, so modifiers such as "mild" or "severe" are frequently used. I really can't imagine why anyone would think pedophilia would be any different.

 

[Checkmite]

Guys, this is an old story, and I seem to remember from the first time around that he wasn't talking about 18-year-olds having relationships with 16-year-olds or any such thing; he was talking about the priests/teachers in charge of whatever religious schools he was attending, putting their hands down young boys' pants.

I do know that Dawkins does not forgive those priests of all; he has, at other times, specifically advocated that teaching children about the "existence" of Hell and that everyone goes there who doesn't believe in Jesus should be considered a horrific form of child abuse; and he might have even indicated that if he'd had his 'ruthers, priests (in fact, the entire leadership of the Church) would be prosecuted for it - I seem to remember him having said something along those lines but I cannot be sure.

Against that backdrop, I have no idea why he considers sexual molestation to be a "mild" offense undeserving of judgment or outrage. Perhaps he feels that the ongoing successful prosecution of the church in many quarters for these sexual crimes against children unfairly minimizes or ignores the religious teachings that he feels are a far greater offense.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Against that backdrop, I have no idea why he considers sexual molestation to be a "mild" offense undeserving of judgment or outrage. Perhaps he feels that the ongoing successful prosecution of the church in many quarters for these sexual crimes against children unfairly minimizes or ignores the religious teachings that he feels are a far greater offense.

From my understanding of his quotes, it is more a case of {paraphrasing here} "if you use up your judgment or outrage on the guys that inappropriately touched something that is embarrassing at the time, but not harmful long term, and treat them as monsters for doing so, what do you have left for the ones that actually did things like raping their victims, something that leaves permanent mental and physical scars, or the ones that kill their victims."

Further more, I'd suggest that this line of argument would carry on to say that If indeed you do treat the touchers in the exact same way and with as much outrage as the rapists and murderers, then what practical reason is there for an offender to stop at touching?

As a result he's pointing out that instead of using rage and anger to get the ones who were touchers 30 years ago and stringing them up by their ankles, we should get them help and save the rage for the molesters who are monsters and left their victims with serious physical and mental injures.

At least that is what I think he is saying. YMMV.

 

[Belgian thought]

Of course we do. First, second, third degree murder, manslaughter, sexual harassment, sexual assault, robbery, armed robbery, etc., etc. There are different degrees for pretty much any crime you care to name. Sometimes we give different names to them, sometimes we don't. And obviously not all crimes that fall into the same category are exactly the same, so modifiers such as "mild" or "severe" are frequently used. I really can't imagine why anyone would think pedophilia would be any different.

True, fair point.

 

[BStrong]

Was it "rape" or "rape, rape?"

People continue to stick their foot in their mouth past the limit of stretch.

 

[shuttlt]

Yeah, that thing about not condemning people of an earlier era? Doesn't apply to people who are still alive.

Why? Surely the issue is with understanding people and their actions in the social context of their times? Is there some other reason we don't condemn people from earlier eras. I don't understand why someone's longevity should be effect this.

 

[angrysoba]

Guys, this is an old story, and I seem to remember from the first time around that he wasn't talking about 18-year-olds having relationships with 16-year-olds or any such thing; he was talking about the priests/teachers in charge of whatever religious schools he was attending, putting their hands down young boys' pants.

He wasn't talking about a priest at a religious school, but a "master" at a regular boarding school.

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.

In that link he clarifies the point that he thinks has been misrepresented by others.

 

[Checkmite]

From my understanding of his quotes, it is more a case of {paraphrasing here} "if you use up your judgment or outrage on the guys that inappropriately touched something that is embarrassing at the time, but not harmful long term, and treat them as monsters for doing so, what do you have left for the ones that actually did things like raping their victims, something that leaves permanent mental and physical scars, or the ones that kill their victims."

Further more, I'd suggest that this line of argument would carry on to say that If indeed you do treat the touchers in the exact same way and with as much outrage as the rapists and murderers, then what practical reason is there for an offender to stop at touching?

As a result he's pointing out that instead of using rage and anger to get the ones who were touchers 30 years ago and stringing them up by their ankles, we should get them help and save the rage for the molesters who are monsters and left their victims with serious physical and mental injures.

At least that is what I think he is saying. YMMV.

Hey, maybe. I've heard the line of argument many times before and it doesn't make much sense to me; it usually comes from people seeing you speaking your mind about a molester, without actually knowing what you would say or do about a violent rapist, and assuming that you can't possibly think worse of a violent rapist than you appear to feel about the molester. In my case, they're wrong, likely due to what I would characterize as a lack of imagination.

 

[Checkmite]

He wasn't talking about a priest at a religious school, but a "master" at a regular boarding school.

Ah good, thank you; I know it had been a while so I figured I had some of the details hazy.

 

[qayak]

8 years ago Dawkins discussed this in The God Delusion and people are just now becoming outraged?

That's as absurd as Islamic fundies burning buildings and killing people over cartoons drawn a year earlier. Not as extreme perhaps but just as absurd.

 

[Walter Ego]

8 years ago Dawkins discussed this in The God Delusion and people are just now becoming outraged?

It was a slow day on the outrage front.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, that thing about not condemning people of an earlier era? Doesn't apply to people who are still alive.

Especially not when they're defending people who are still doing the things we're condemning them for now.

According to this reasoning I am guilty of many sexual offences. I started having sex at the age of 17 which was 4 years under the age of consent. At the time I and anyone I had sex with faced prosecution and actual imprisonment.

 

[rjh01]

I agree that you need to consider the standards of the era before passing judgement. Today caning is illegal in schools. Does that mean that every teacher that once practiced caning could now be sued, condemned or charged with a criminal offence? No, because in the past it was a standard punishment. Ditto with many other things.

Sexual abuse of children has been illegal for as long as anyone who is still alive and so the fact that it may have happened in the 1960s is not important.

 

[shuttlt]

Sexual abuse of children has been illegal for as long as anyone who is still alive and so the fact that it may have happened in the 1960s is not important.

True, but something can be illegal, and yet condoned/tolerated by society, or a subset of society. I've read at least some first hand accounts that seem to imply the sorts of things Dawkins describes fell to some degree into that category in English public schools in the past.