Pedophilia does “no lasting harm”??? Yeah, right!

Richard Dawkins, well known for his militant atheism, has really put his foot in it this time.

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.

. . .

Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.

There’s more at the link.

All I can say is, as a pastor and clinical counselor, I’ve had a great deal of experience trying to help the victims of pedophiles. Many went on to become pedophiles themselves – a cycle that carries on down the centuries, if you go back far enough.  Others have had their confidence in themselves destroyed, their ability to love and be love corroded, and their lives ruined.

I’m a strong believer in the rule of law.  I’ve worked inside the criminal justice system to help promote the rule of law.  Nevertheless, if there’s any one sin or crime that cries out to Almighty God for vengeance, it’s pedophilia.  In the words of Jesus himself:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

You can debate, if you wish, whether those words were meant to include pedophilia, or merely other types of offence.  Personally, I have little doubt.  No, scratch that – I have no doubt.  If a pedophile were caught in flagrante delicto, I would have few or no moral qualms if the parents of the child concerned executed him on the spot.  I think there’d be little or no sin in that;  in fact, I could make a strong case for it being the justice of an outraged God.

Pedophiles can’t be cured.  Time after time that’s been tried, and failed miserably.  They can only be prevented from committing their crimes, either by incarcerating them where they can’t get at children, or by executing them.  Harsh?  Yes, it is harsh.  Having seen too many children’s innocence destroyed by pedophiles, my feelings towards the latter are very harsh indeed!  Right now, I’m not feeling particularly charitable towards Mr. Dawkins, either . . .



  1. I have never understood why the justice system values the convicted pedophiles' possibility at reform over the lives of all the children said pedophiles destroy when they reoffend again. And again. And again.

    It is interesting, how this type of news has all been coalescing over the last year or so and how it connects to other seemingly unrelated things. Was it last year or the year before when a few articles on Salon (I believe) actually defended pedophiles as not being monsters? And there was the thing on Twitter. Then Pizzagate. Then over the last few months the quiet news that a number of pedophile rings that have broken up, and the monsters they've brought in.

    And now Richard Dawkins, a victim himself, telling people (many who have been thoroughly conditioned via SJWs that one person is basically representative of an entire group–so long as said person follows the narrative) that it's okay. "Mild pedophilia" doesn't really hurt anyone.

    The most despicable of monsters might not look like monsters, but that doesn't change their natures. Perhaps the most sickening thing about this evilness is that innocence gets twisted and tortured into monstrous shapes and the victims often go on to perpetuate the cycle.

  2. Pedophilia is the shining beacon on the hill for the cultural Marxists. Sexualize children and they win: no more families, a society of broken, shame-wracked individuals incapable of forming meaningful relationships with others. A perfect environment for the All-Powerful Party.

    They want it so bad they can taste it. They were so close — a Hillary administration would have made it so simple: declare pedophilia an innate, possibly genetic condition, and then anyone who disapproves is a horrible bigot who deserves to be "no-platformed" and possibly beaten with iron rods by tolerant liberals like the ones in Berkeley.

    They were so close, but now it has slipped out of their grasp again. They won't give up, though. They're going to fight hard for this.

  3. In general, I agree, BUT

    Something needs to be done with the Sex Offender Registry, and soon. One of their selling points has always been the idea that people could see if a dangerous person was living near their homes or schools. But with more and more people being put on the registries that have no business there, this is now mostly a fable.

    A teen boy who is sexted a racy photo by his underage (but close in age) girlfriend doesn't beling on the registry. A man who ismarrested for pissing against a wall doesn't belong on the registry. There are plenty of other examples.

    A real distinction needs,to be made between people who molest children or rape somebody, and eveybody else that some DA has convicted of a 'sex offense'. Because there IS a major difference. Pedophiles ruin lives and don't get better. People who piss outdoors don't do any lasting harm. Teenage boys grow up.

  4. It is true you cannot 'cure' pedophilia.
    But you can remove the motivation to commit it by removing the organs producing the hormones that drive sexual behavior.

    Castration prevents re-offense with a rate of over 99%. It's frequently requested by sex offenders, whether molesters or murders in Czech Republic, because the policy there is to keep them (after serving their prison sentence) in a secure mental ward as long as psychologists believe these men pose a danger.

    After international human rights organisations protested, the regulations were tightened in 2012 – it's not legally possible to castrate someone who asks for it, if they have not yet harmed a person. So, for example, due to good intentions, a 20 year old who desperately seeks help because his sexual urges drive him to kill animals, he can't be legally castrated.

    >>Pedophiles can't be cured. Time after time that's been tried, and failed miserably. <<

    Pedophile is a person who is fucked in the head for reasons unknown and thus sees children as romantic interest. But they are less common than pederasts, apparently.

    This defunct but rather good blog has an article on it,

    Child molestation is something else – it's what pedophiles do, but a good fraction of people who commit it are for example, just assholes, and usually drunk.javascript:void(0)

    And to make the whole thing even more chaotic is that now some people see attraction to 'jailbait' as on par with pedophilia and a new term was made for that 'hebephile'. Scientists are obviously disappointed, because pathologizing attraction to sexually mature humans is somewhat odd, to put it mildly.

  5. I worked with prison officers on a project (no names, no pack drill etc.) and discussed paedophilia with one of the very senior officers who worked extensively trying to rehabilitate offenders.

    The very interesting discussion he had with a convicted paedophile was telling. The paedophile described it as "Well, you fancy women? You have preferences like big breasts, blondes etc.? Well, I fancy little children".

    Just as a normal person has sexual preferences n their partner that can't be changed drastically, then so do paedophiles. In short, they can't be cured, other than castration or death. Personally, I wouldn't care wich option is selected.

    Phil B

  6. Your quote:

    "Pedophiles can't be cured."

    Much as I respect you, and much as it pains me to disagree with you, I would suggest that pedophiles can be cured with a .45 vaccination.



  7. I was mildly victimized by a pedophile many years ago. I did not become one. I did not seek or receive counseling. It seems to have done me little or no long-term harm. That said, I have no sympathy for pedophiles, nor would I tolerate 'normalizing' their behavior.

  8. Given the twin factors of Mr. Dawkins normalizing the behavior and his previous admitted victimization; if I were a parent of anychild that he would have had access to a very serious inquiry is warranted.

    Because this of normalization seems to come straight out of the NAMBLA handbook.

  9. I've been saying for years that the normalization of homosex, then transgenderism and all these other perversions would lead, inevitably, to normalization of pedophilia. Once you've been browbeaten into acceptance of that which was previously unthinkable where are there limits ?

  10. "No lasting harm"
    Tell that to the child who with every inch of growth in height feels their GI/reproductive tract tear through the scar tissue. Then heal. Then repeat.

  11. TwoDog, the difference is pedophilia is an inherently unequal transaction, with one party who cannot legally give consent. I have gay and queer friends, none of whom have expressed attraction to children. In fact, many are much more against it than straights; gay youths are particularly vulnerable to predatory adults, because they're much more isolated.

    I'm tolerant and accepting of what consenting adults do, precisely because they are consenting.


  12. @Phil

    > The paedophile described it as "Well, you fancy women? You have preferences like big breasts, blondes etc.? Well, I fancy little children".

    We don't punish people based on who they are attracted to, but rather on the actions they take.

    If you are attracted to busty blonds, that's not a problem. If you use your power (force, position, authority, etc) to force busty blonds to let you grope them, then there is a problem.

    While there can be real mutual attraction, if the power difference is too great, the presumption is that power was involved (President/Intern, Boss/employee, military in the same chain of command, etc)

    In the case of adult/child (excepting teens where they are close in age, but one has passed the magic threshold) you inherently have such a significant power difference that the West has decided to elevate this presumption to a hard-line law.

  13. @David Lang – agreed! If I acted out on my passions, my world would be about 5% less people and about 95% less crime of all sorts. I WON"T put the theory to the test.

    My point is that it isn't similar to a conventional disease. It is built into the persons personality and is incurable. The prison officer made it clear that the paedophile was unrepentant in his preferences and indeed took the attitude that as he could no more help this than having blue eyes, that he wasn't at fault.

    he would always be a danger to children he found sexually attractive unless something was done to prevent him (either incarceration, castration or execution).

    Phil B

  14. @Anon

    you view the fact that he is attracted to children to imply that he will act on that attraction.

    Normal Adults interact with all sorts of people they are attracted to, including lots of people who they hold power over, but don't ever act on that attraction.

    The idea that one type of attraction is going to automatically be acted on, while other types are not isn't a sane argument.

    As people mature, they learn to not act on their impulses. In some cases, it takes being punished FOR acting on their impulses (sometimes multiple times) before they learn to restrain themselves, but almost everyone can learn.

    punish people for actions they have taken. When you start punishing people for acts that they MAY TAKE in the future, you are going too far.

    I would agree that being attracted to one group vs another is not something someone has much control over. However they have absolute control over what actions they take

  15. @ David,

    Well as he was in prison and sentenced for paedophilia, you will excuse me for unreasonably jumping to the conclusion that he did act on his predilections.

    And as I stated, he did not consider that he had done wrong in the same way that I do not consider myself to be a sinner because I have blue eyes. His attitude was that it was part of him and therefore he could not help that and WHEN HE ACTED OUT HIS DESIRES, he was caught, sentenced and serving time behind bars. There was zero remorse and no acknowledgement that what he did was bad.

    However, I do bow to your greater understanding of the paedophile mind than a serving Prison officer of 22 years experience.

    Phil B

  16. sigh, you missed my point.

    I'm not defending people who think they did nothing wrong. I'm opposing the idea that once someone has once done something wrong of a sexual nature (or feels inappropriate attractions) that there is zero chance of them being rehabilitated and behaving well in the future.

    someone who is in jail, admits that they did the crime, and still think they did nothing wrong are obviously a high risk to commit the same crime again (they may be deterred by the fear of punishment, but the lack of shame for the crime means they are at a much higher risk in the future)

    I think the mantra of the media "If it feels good, it can't possibly be bad to do it" greatly encourages bad behavior. Being an adult requires taking responsibility for the results of your actions, and the left has been setting up a system where that just doesn't happen for far too many people.

  17. @David Lang:

    "I'm opposing the idea that once someone has once done something wrong of a sexual nature (or feels inappropriate attractions) that there is zero chance of them being rehabilitated and behaving well in the future."

    David, that's precisely the problem. There is EVERY chance that pedophiles, once they are active, WILL relapse and commit the same crime again. This has been demonstrated in study after study. It might as well be a law of nature. As far as this disorder is concerned, once the curtain has been drawn, it can't be un-drawn. Once the tap has been turned on, it can't be turned off.

    I'm prepared to accept that someone with pedophile tendencies who has controlled them sufficiently well that he's never, ever given in to them, might – MIGHT – be able to live in normal society without posing a threat to others. That's not an absolute acceptance, but a tentative and rather reluctant one, subject to change. However, once a person has crossed the line from pedophile TENDENCIES to pedophile ACTIONS, I don't believe that he will ever be able to turn back – whether he wants to or not.

    That opinion is based on several years' experience in dealing with both the victims of pedophilia, and with pedophiles themselves (largely in prison, like Phil B. has done). It teaches you a lot that you won't find in textbooks or academic discussions.

    I continue to hold as an absolute belief that the only way to deal with an active pedophile is to remove him from society, altogether and forever. That means either lifetime incarceration, or death.

  18. @Peter

    I think your view is a bit biased. As you said, most of your (knowing) interaction with pedophiles happened in prison with people who actually did the crime. On the other hand you have no way to say that "this man" you met in the diner is a pedophile who knows his urges are wrong and has suppressed them for a few decades.
    It is not stenciled on his brow that he has this urges.
    I personally think we should respect these that fight against the urges.

    Also against all opinion, the chance of rehabilitation is not zero. It is pretty damn close to zero, but there were cases where pedophiles were rehabilitated. Sure somewhere around 99% are irredeemable but if there are enough safeguards (monitoring, gps and such) I think everybody deserves one second chance. But only one. If they stray only a bit of the right path, they are incurable.

    Another thing is that politicians often run wild in defining pedophile behavior and/or child pornography.
    Don't get me wrong, pictures and videos actually showing a child in sexual or erotic context is no question.
    But there are cases where the pictures or videos of toddlers only in diapers has been declared child pornography and the parents who took them where charged for child abuse and as pedophiles.
    Or cases where somebody who stumbles over pictures and/or videos, alerted the agencies responsible for it and was charged because to alert them he proved that he has seen them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *