Richard Dawkins defends ‘mild pedophilia’:

[redqueen]

Teacher putting hands down my shorts didn’t do ‘lasting harm’

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins refused to condemn sexual abuse he admitted to having suffered as a child in an interview with The Times magazine of England, Religion News Service reported on Tuesday.

While he told the Times that an unidentified schoolmaster “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts” when he was a child, he argued that he did not think the abuse — which he referred to as a “mild touching up” — against himself and other children in his class “did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours,” Dawkins was quoted as saying. “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.”

Dawkins’ remarks were quickly criticized by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, (NSPCC) a British organization that works with children either at risk of being abused or survivors of abuse.

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” NSPCC child protection director David Watt told RNS. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/10/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-teacher-putting-hands-down-my-shorts-didnt-do-lasting-harm/

[djean111]

1. On the assumption that this may be used to paint all atheists with the very broad Dawkins brush,

as an atheist, I would like to mildly mention that Dawkins means nothing to me one way or the other, as far as my being an atheist goes.
He is the biggest example of why it is silly to group atheists together as a cohesive group. I don't give a rat's ass what other atheists believe - or don't believe - in. Just as I don't claim kinship with other people who do not believe in unicorns.
I don't define myself starting from a position of atheism. Ridiculous for others to do so and expect any sort of meaningful results.

[Warpy]

3. The only thing we have in common is not believing a word of it.

Other than that, we're the most disparate group one could find.

[Warpy]

2. Given the long, colorful and possibly deserved reputation

English public schools have for buggery, he's right that he got off lightly, just a copped feel. He is likely not outraged over the betrayal of trust, especially at this distance.

However, he needs to acknowledge that the instructor who felt him under his trousers was probably doing worse to boys who reacted to it far differently from the way Dawkins did. They do choose their victims carefully and apparently Dawkins doesn't realize he'd failed an audition.

That's why we take such things more seriously now. We've learned quite a bit more about sexual predators who prey on children.

[redqueen]

4. Well, some of us have, anyway. nt

[seabeyond]

5. wasnt he the man that said family sex abuse is enjoyed by all??? or something like that. nt

[seabeyond]

6. maybe he is the one that says a woman in elevator at 4 am having a man ask her back to a room

is a b**** if she finds that inappropriate????

i get my men who embrace the nasty mixed up

[redqueen]

7. Warren Farrell is the "family sex" guy, and the 'date rape used to be called exciting' guy.

Dawkins is the 'dear Muslima' guy who said women who aren't being stoned to death or having acid thrown in their faces should STFU and tolerate men's entitled sexual harassment.

[ismnotwasm]

8. I'm not a fan of Dawkins

And yes you can judge people by the standards of an earlier age. That's why it's no longer a "standard"