A Brief Word On Pedophilia

I agree with Dawkins that “pedo-hysteria” is, like many puritanical causes, out of touch with reality. In a recent interview, he apparently said:

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,

Dawkins’ easy acceptance of changing ‘standards’ is bizarre but at least it’s semi-honest as a real description of leftward movement. The problem with Dawkins is that his materialism runs so deep, he can’t find strength within himself to prefer one normative system over another or contemplate the possibility that one system might be more in touch with reality than another.

Huxley and Darwin thought blacks were sub-human? Well, that was okay back then. If you think that today, well, goodness me, what a racist you are! My old schoolmaster diddled my cock fifty years ago? Well, that was okay back then. Cock-diddling today, though, goodness me, that’s vile!

Certain reactionary thinkers have suggested that pedophiles will be the next ‘victim group’ protected by progressive society. I have, at various blogs, voiced my skepticism. Dawkins’ quote seems to contradict my skepticism, and perhaps it does; then again, Dawkins is not your typical progressive. In fact, many progressives hate the man. He’s a eugenicist, for Christ’s sake. I don’t think that he speaks ex Cathedra, as it were.

C.S. Lewis once wrote something to this effect: when society decides to abandon deep tradition and re-construct its own morality, it never makes up its own morality so much as pardons a hundred sins while heaping all its moralistic ire on one or two sins for no reason it can give. You can’t get rid of humanity’s moral impulse. It needs an outlet.  The progressive pretense of moral relativism isn’t relativism at all: it’s simply picking and choosing what to be moralistic about. Progressivism denies most sins, but that’s precisely why it damns to hell with fury the few “sins” it does recognize: racism, sexism, et cetera. And I’ve always thought that pedophilia made it onto this short list of progressivism’s damnable sins. The popularity of To Catch a Predator at the the height of the anti-racist years makes the point. And we should remember that upping the age of consent was always a proto-feminist cause, along with prohibition and universal suffrage.

My last post was about careful definition of terms and about the left’s gleeful rejection of careful definition. I think we find the same leftist stamp of sophistic word-play when it comes to pedophilia.

In Mexico, it’s legal to bang a 13 year old. In Canada, it’s legal to bang a 16 year old, and until recently, it was legal to bang a 14 year old. I believe that the average age of consent in the European Union is 14. In the Roman Empire, the age at which females could be married and thus banged was 12. In the Confessions, St. Augustine mentions that his mother, St. Monica, had procured a lovely, newly ‘of-age’ Christian woman that Monica hoped Augustine would wed: most commentators assume that St. Monica had found a sexy 12 year old for Augustine. Was she or he a pedophile? What about God? The Virgin was probably about 13 or 14 when God knocked her up.

(I’m not providing link-proof about this stuff. It’s late. Look it up yourself.)

Now, what does “pedophilia” mean. Wikipedia:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children

Prepubescent children. Of course, puberty can hit within a range of ages, from 10 to 13, so we shouldn’t give prepubescence an age. Rather, we should give it a phenotype. A girl who has yet to have a period, start growing tennis-ball boobs or soft curves, she’s prepubescent. So, if you’re attracted to this, you’re a pedo.

By the same definition, if you’re attracted to this or this or this, you’re not a pedo. You’re a normal human male.

Shows like To Catch a Predator, which, like American laws, criminalize and shame males attracted to post-pubescent teens, are puritanical and anti-biology. Pedo-hysteria is hysteria precisely because most of the men it ensnares aren’t even pedophiles. It’s the same process that Handle talks about here: take a natural thing, rename it, cast it in a negative light, and thus create a pre-text for its removal.

[Via Commenter SMERSH: Turns out that Dawkins was 11 when his cock got diddled. That age probably fits the definition of real pedophilia. This proves my point that Dawkins isn’t your average progressive: when he said pedophilia, he actually meant pedophilia. He wasn’t playing the progressive re-definition game, referencing an incident that occurred when he was 15 or whatever. What has the reaction been? I haven’t quite followed it. Has Dawkins come under fire for his remark from blatantly leftist sources?]

35 responses

  1. Wholly agreed. We’re already seeing some of it these days, but maybe the next cause celebré for victim groups could be trannies. They don’t have much visibility, though. Lots of people know racial minorities or homosexuals, but I don’t think many know someone that they can describe as “yeah, that lady was born with a schlong”.

    September 13, 2013 at 5:02 am

  2. “if you’re attracted to this, you’re a pedo.”

    Dear lord that picture is going to give me nightmares! Was that a young girl or some kind of Eldritch horror?

    September 13, 2013 at 5:10 am

  3. “Certain reactionary thinkers have suggested that pedophiles will be the next ‘victim group’ protected by progressive society. I have, at various blogs, voiced my skepticism.”

    Yes, I agree with you.

    I think the deification and sanctity of children trumps the ‘rights’ of the pedophile – progressive society or not. At the same time, I think it will always be associated with a abuse of power by some patriarchal figure, so I find it difficult to see how it would be absorbed into the cathedral zeitgeist as something pardonable. A lot of the times it’s associated with the past, with boarding schools, the church, the authority progressivism is always trying to replace via crime-think. It’s too much of a juicey (straw-man) opponent to accept into the bosom of ‘agreeable sins’.

    September 13, 2013 at 9:53 am

    • My guess is: the same way elites enforce diversity to the middle class, while isolating their children in purely white-asian communities, they will be able to keep the sanctity of their children’s rear ends while allowing homosexuals to bang 6 years old boys.

      September 13, 2013 at 10:50 am

    • Cyder, I think your analysis is spot-on. ‘Protect the children!’ is a progressive chant, not a conservative or traditional one. The Catholic priest ‘pedophilia’ scandal is the perfect example of the entire point. From what I’ve read, well over half of those incidents involved post-pubescent teens and young-ish priests. So for the left to be able to bludgeon the church, it had to distort the definition of pedophilia to mean “attraction to teens under 18.”

      Here’s a page with some broken links to what look like interesting primary sources on the subject of age of consent laws: http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

      September 13, 2013 at 12:33 pm

      • I’ll have a look – this is Mark W by the way, just in case you don’t know. Haha.

        September 13, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      • Yeah, I know. I go back and forth randomly between calling people by their names and handles.

        September 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm

  4. Oh – and you should of re-used that image of the precocious Olivia Hussey in Romeo and Juliet in your links. She was one morena-haired angel in her day..!

    September 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm

  5. However, proggies like stories like 17-year-old Lena Dunham getting knocked up by Barack Obama, Sr., they forgive stories like the Muslim who recieved no jail sentence for raping a 13-year-old English girl (after all, he was never taught about English law. Colonists live under their own laws. This was the actual legal reasoning.), and they demand gay scout leaders.

    What’s the common thread here?

    September 13, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    • The same thread it always is: different standards for whites and non-whites. When Muslims or blacks do it, it’s okay, because they’re not white. When Cletus at the trailer park does it, he’s a pedo.

      Re: gay scout leaders. The progressive line there is not that it’s homophobic to suggest that a gay scout leader would diddle the boys in his care. I imagine that if a gay leader (assuming he is white) actually got caught diddling a 14 year old boy, he’d be a pedo, too.

      September 13, 2013 at 7:19 pm

      • jamesd127

        Progressives want children of people who are not like themselves, Christians, people who send their kids to boy scounts, raped, and by raped I mean beaten until they take it up the ass, actual rape, not date rape, marital rape, drunk rape, etc.

        At the same time, they want people who are not like themselves, Christians, people who send their kids to boy scouts, charged with rape if they ever get any sex under any circumstances, including marriage.

        It is 100% who whom. The privileged can have sex, the unprivileged, not.

        September 14, 2013 at 6:05 pm

  6. spandrell

    I think that what Dawkins is referring to is actual pedophilia of adults groping 8 year old boys in boarding schools.

    September 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    • Hmm. Maybe. I always imagine that English boarding school buggery is a 12-14 year old thing, which is what prompted the whole post: I assumed Dawkins was referencing something that’s not actually pedophilia. But it would be creepy indeed if he actually meant that real pedophilia isn’t the worst thing in the world.

      September 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      • spandrell

        I can understand that an attraction to fertile 14 year old girls is natural, but an attraction to 14 year old boys, might not be accurately described as pedophilia, but is still pretty fucked up.

        September 15, 2013 at 6:13 am


    It’s pretty normal for gay people though.

    And that is why you don’t want gay scoutmasters or priests.

    September 15, 2013 at 10:13 am

  8. You make a good case. Still, I think it’s understandable, as the Cathedral demands (and wins) ever more control over people’s children, that parents will want to maintain — and strengthen — defenses against state-employed creeps and weirdos. Cynically, a contagious meme that the state is after your kids’ asses has obvious use, especially as much political correctness programming blurs into the ‘sex ed.’ curriculum.

    September 16, 2013 at 1:32 am

    • @ Nick
      I’d forgotten about the weirdness of some of those progressive sex-ed curricula. In Montana recently, a leftist school board tried to introduce a curriculum that apparently would have taught to first graders such things as safe sex and the normative status of homosexuality.

      The progressive stance toward sex is in and of itself an interesting topic. I think this is one of those areas in which you see obvious tears in the Rainbow Coalition. Some progs, of a feminist bent, would criminalize pornography and vote for billions to be spent on homes for prostitutes. These same progs, however, want to legalize gay marriage. And yet others want prostitution legalized, too. And then you have the ACLU, which has defended the North American Man-boy Love Association (NAMBLA). But the ACLU never, ever came to the defense of any of the men busted for arranging to bang a 15 year old in an online police sting. Very, very conflicted.

      September 16, 2013 at 1:20 pm



    It turns out that Dawkins was eleven at the time of the incident, so the teacher was probably a pedophile after all.

    And Dawkins didn’t really want to say anything too interesting, he just phrased things poorly and confused a lot of people.

    September 16, 2013 at 3:30 am

  10. Pingback: linkfest – 09/15/13 | hbd* chick

  11. Messi

    The worst incarnation of today’s pedo-hysteria is how people think its “pedophilia” when older men are attracted to girls in their upper teens. First of all, its perfectly acceptable for 19 year olds to like 17 year olds, why would that suddenly change if your 29? Of course, they then bring up the whole “old enough to be their father” argument, which doesn’t even make sense. If that were our criteria, wouldn’t it be pedophilia for a 60 yr old to be attracted to a 30 year olds? or 70 year olds to be attracted to 40 year olds? I didn’t know that “there is an age gap” became the same as “being attracted to childern.”

    And secondly WHO THE F**K ISNT ATTRACTED TO UPPER TEENAGE GIRLS! Are there actually straight men who have thought, “Ew! You have the body of a 17 year old cheerleader! No thanks.” Unless that happened to be true and I’ve been largely misinformed, we really need to change our definition of pedophilia to something that isn’t simply part of being a typical heterosexual male.

    September 16, 2013 at 10:24 am

    • we really need to change our definition of pedophilia to something that isn’t simply part of being a typical heterosexual male.

      Well that’s the whole point. I think pedo-hysteria is essentially a feminist tactic designed to find one more way to criminalize typical heterosexual maleness.

      September 16, 2013 at 1:22 pm

      • That’s one side of it. but I still think you’re over-simplifying if you ignore the conservative dimension. After all, the people it most vehemently mobilizes are parents — hardly the core feminist constituency.

        September 17, 2013 at 1:49 am

      • Jim

        “After all, the people it most vehemently mobilizes are parents”

        Duh – parents, by definition, have children. Which demographic were you expecting to be most mobilised thus?

        And it’s not even obvious that you’re correct on that – lots of pedo hysteria comes from the cathedral. Anyone who remembers the satanic ritual child abuse hysteria in the US (e.g. the Bobby Fijnje case – thank you Janet Reno) in the late 1980s should remember that the official cathedral line on it was originally “religious perverts molesting children”, then, when the hysteria was exposed, it became “religious freaks overly paranoid about children being molested”.

        In other words, pedo hysteria is just another cathedral talking point, cynically used for status-competition purposes, and like all cathedral status-competition talking points, it randomly pole-reverses when necessary, intellectual consistency be damned.

        Of course, the Fijnje witchhunt didn’t stop Reno becoming AG in the Clinton administration. The cathedral would never let something like that get in the way.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:26 am

  12. Pingback: Dogwhistle puritanism: Dawkins versus the Great Kneejerk | Lady of the Snows

  13. Relevant features of the r/K spectrum suggest this thread is gathering momentum in the direction of decivilization.

    September 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    • Relevant features of the r/K spectrum suggest this thread is gathering momentum in the direction of decivilization.


      Look, there is obviously a conservative reading of all this. It’s natural for males to be attracted to ‘illegal’ teens, but the protective parenting instinct is just as natural. There is nothing inherently progressive about the desire to keep blossoming girls away from the likes of Heartiste.

      It all comes down to motive, I suppose. Is this truly about protecting one’s children? If so, then the pedo-hysteria, while wrong-headed, can be understood and sympathized with. But in many cases, I think it’s just another tactic to shame the behavior of heterosexual males,another weapon of convenience with which to bludgeon Catholics priests, another reason to get children away from the evil that awaits them in their private spheres and into the arms of ever-more vigilant state protection.

      September 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    • jamesd127

      Not seeing it.

      Age of consent has been part of the puritan program from day one, and all increases in age of consent have been from puritan descended groups, and the American empire pushing on its subject nations, who pretend to comply more than they actually comply.

      Thus leftism analysis points in the reverse direction from r/K analysis.

      K behavior for the individual female is to postpone reproductive sex.

      K behavior for the father of the individual female is to postpone his daughters sexual activity, but also to make sure sexual activity takes place only within marriage, hence to marry his daughter off as soon as she is fertile – which approximates to as soon as she has boobs or starts getting up to mischief. Hence the patriarch does not want other people meddling in his decision’s about his daughter’s marriage. W’e have all observed (or most of us, Spandrell says he has not) girls getting up to mischief at startlingly young ages, and the patriarch would like to have to option to apply shotgun mariage regardless of age.

      A society controlled by high status patriarchs tends to K behavior, but

      Resolving the apparent contradiction:

      A society controlled by a group of patriarchs will tend make sexual activity with their daughters illegal regardless of age – hence illegal to seduce a virgin, and make their own sexual activity with girls not under the control of their fathers, sluts, legal regardless of age – hence extremely low age of consent, combined with very little sexual activity by very young females.

      September 17, 2013 at 9:57 pm

  14. jamesd127

    Repeating in different words to clarify.

    K behavior is late sex, marriage, monogamy, and male authority over female reproductive and sexual behavior.

    But the presence of male authority leads to early age of consent, and the absence of male authority leads to late age of consent, as the state substitutes for the father and the husband.

    September 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm

  15. Anthony

    What Dawkins was trying to say was that having your dick diddled by the Headmaster (!) won’t necessarily fuck you up for life. It’s one way in which Dawkins doesn’t quite get the Cathedral’s program, but actually thinks for himself – he’s saying “just because something not ok happened to you doesn’t make you a Victim”.

    The left *has* jumped all over Dawkins for this, and while the complaint is “normalizing pedophilia”, which is a legitimate compalint, the real sin is saying “don’t be a Victim”.

    September 18, 2013 at 1:15 am

    • Excellent analysis. I think you’re probably right.

      September 18, 2013 at 1:57 am

    • Maybe he enjoyed it and developed his personal view from that experience. I’m just guessing and not accusing. But it doesn’t make for a good general rule. Schoolmasters should keep their hands off their pupils. I might make an exception in the very late teens where consent can be imagined.

      July 2, 2021 at 7:21 am

  16. Pingback: In Defense of “Paedophilia” | Deus Ex Machina

  17. Promotion for NHL Iphone Case, Rock bottom price, top quality, absolutely price to value.

    November 28, 2016 at 7:17 pm

  18. Pingback: I’m Opposed to Civilizational Collapse, But it Has Its Pluses – The Daily Antifeminist

  19. Pingback: I am a Jailbait – The Triweekly Antifeminist

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 )

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