3 ms·
> the anonymous smear letter ... quoted three sentences out of context: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want
by tjic 17y ago
> the anonymous smear letter ... quoted three sentences out of context: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.”
If the only time that pedophilia is wrong is when the child does not want it, or is neutral about it, this makes it pretty clear that the writer thinks that sexual contact with children is acceptable if the child "wants" it (or claims to want it).
It doesn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to conclude that the writer does defend some pedophilia.
- driax 17y agoFrom what I read in the article, I think what he thinks is that a child would never want sexual contact with an adult. Additional he explicitly says that if he had written something on the subject today he would be more explicit about his views om pedophilia. And he does explicit say that he "by definition" believe that pedophilia is wrong. (the "by definition"-part would probably best be changed to "always"). He can't really change what he wrote back then, and while I agree that there, in the quotes, he and you cited, are the posibility that he thinks some child/adult sex contact is okay, the entire article makes it rather clear that this is not his view.
- DrSprout 17y agoIt's clear in context (and you've again taken the quote out of context) that he's referring to edge cases, like where a 16 year old was prosecuted for having sex with a 13 year old, and so on.