'Mild Paedophilia Never Did Me Any Harm': Atheist Scientist Richard Dawkins Declares

[CoffeeCat]

130. Actually, Dawkins is aiding and abetting pedophiles...

I find Dawkins' words completely selfish and outrageous.

It's possible that Dawkins was able to shrug off what happened to him. If you've got a good support system
and loads of other advantages, and you've got genetics on your side and you're amazingly resilient--YES, you
may be able to rise above it. But that is IN SPITE of being molested. This outcome is very rare.

Most victims who are molested are traumatized. Believe me, I've met hundreds of victims. Many commit suicide. Many have eating disorders and addictions. Many struggle to hold down jobs. The list of their symptoms is painful and ongoing.

Also, Dawkins was not molested by a family member. Most molestation victims are preyed upon by members of the family. The damage this causes, for life, is untold. The pain is horrendous.

So, maybe because Dawkins was molested by someone not in the family and maybe because he coped in a rare way--he doesn't have any lasting effects.

However, the big problem is--his remarks make pedophilia and molestation sound not-that-bad. In a way, he is feeding into the flawed and sick processes of the pedophile--that their touching, their rapes, their fondling--doesn't hurt the victim. They like it. I wonder why Dawkins would play into this sick mentality--which hurts victims who suffer for life and also helps pedophiles to justify their crimes against children?

This is what is so sick. Why would Dawkins say these things? He harms untold numbers of victims, when he suggests that these crimes "really aren't that bad" and "cause no lasting effects." I mean really...what is he had talked about being mugged at gunpoint at a gas station and explained that he didn't have any lasting effect from it. Does that mean that anyone else who had been mugged at gunpoint should feel the same? It's like saying, "Buck up! I didn't have any lasting effects so maybe there's wrong with others who do!" He didn't say that, but it's practically suggested. And this hurts other victims!

He's a complete sack of shit for saying these things. He may be a "victim" as you said--but victims can say hurtful and damaging things. They can hurt others and cause pain, can't they? He doesn't deserve a free pass because he was molested. Jeffrey Dahmer was a victim. Was eating people for lunch, ok? Dawkins is a very intelligent, clever, man and he knows he is an influential public person to whom many respect.

He was reckless and selfish for saying these things.