Richard Dawkins and the Pedophile Apologist

Humut Kentler was the social scientist who, according to Wiki, “used his position to turn children over to a powerful pedophile network disguised as research.”  When reading to the Wiki article about him, what caught my attention was this description:

Kentler warned the parents against making too much of a problem of also involuntary sexual contacts of children with adults: “The wrong thing to do now would be for parents to lose their nerve, panic and run straight to the police. If the adult had been considerate and tender, the child could even have enjoyed sexual contact with him.[16] Kentler considered equal and non-discriminatory sexual relationships between adults and children to be hardly problematic

This is strikingly similar to something atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a few years back:

First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn’t mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like ‘predatory monster’ are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.

Notice that both Dawkins and Kentler try to get us to focus on the “mild pedophiles.”

Kentler:  If the adult had been considerate and tender, the child could even have enjoyed sexual contact with him.

Dawkins:  A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile

Dawkins, and the pedophile apologist, want people to understand that not all pedophilia is all that bad.

But there is more.  Both Dawkins, and the pedophile apologist, think the real problem is with adult’s reaction to pedophilia:

Kentler: The wrong thing to do now would be for parents to lose their nerve, panic and run straight to the police.

Dawkins:  Phrases like ‘predatory monster’ are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.

I would suggest that both Kentler and Dawkins are dipping from the same well.  The basic argument is that some forms of pedophilia are not harmful and the only harm that comes about in such cases is when the pedophile is targeted by the rest of society.  To this day, Dawkins stands by his defense of pedophilia.

This entry was posted in pedophiles, Richard Dawkins and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Richard Dawkins and the Pedophile Apologist

  1. Ilíon says:

    And I would say that philia of pedophilia/ephebophilia is a natural result of actively rejecting the worship of the Living God, and consequent rejection of the morality which grows from that worship.

  2. Maybe it’s time we consider dropping the archaic and irrational rule prohibiting scientists from getting married.

  3. Ilíon says:

    ^ LOL Troll-level: Doctorate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.