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

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.

Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

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

via Salon

So wait – this is how many articles suddenly coming out (or is that “coming out”?) about how pedophilia really isn’t so bad?

I guess pedophilia is the new gay?

“These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed,” he said. “But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”

In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles, meaning that they have a dominant attraction to prepubescent children.

Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.

By contrast, pedophiles tend to think of children as romantic partners and look beyond immediate relatives….

…Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots….

…There have been some grass-roots efforts to bring pedophilia out of the shadows.

via LA Times

If it’s an “orientation”, that means it’s a crime to “discriminate”, right?

And if “discriminate” means/includes everything gays are saying it does, that means they have the right to behave any way they want, and you owe it to them to be approving – and if you don’t, you’re an evil hater, right?

(Isn’t that what critics said would happen, as soon as gay marriage was accepted? Or am I not supposed to think about all those slippery slopes that don’t exist?)

Or are we close enough to the “enough is enough” point that we get to rethink some of the less logical associations, assumptions, and/or conclusions yet? (And if not, how much further do we really need to go?)