12 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins says something sensible for a change.”
He’s one of the lucky few, eh? 🙂
Quite right. To judge crimes of long ago using today’s standards is not right.
Many ordinary people would be classed as sex offenders from past deeds, which were deemed quite acceptable fifty years ago.
gazoopi, I’d be interested to see your list of sex crimes (2013) which were ‘quite acceptable’ in 1963.
I bet you would 🙂
Seriously though, give me some examples.
J anus, I agreed with you on your post about Parliament declining Cameron’s request to go to war. Surely that must satisfy you.
As for the changing mores: I see that the minimum age for sex workers has been raised from 16 to 18 in Switzerland. The age of consent generally was much younger in many countries around the world, and still is in some.
In 1963, young children could be hugged by a teacher, male or female without there being any recriminations or any hint of impropriety. Even if ‘light petting’ by a teacher towards a young pupil, such as that described by Dawkins, was frowned upon rather than prosecuted ‘with prejudice’ as is the case today. My generation of kids was caned by teachers at school sometimes, having to bare their bums. At boarding school, we all showered in communal showers in full view of each other and the presiding dorm master. Photographing one’s children at swimming pools or when they were participating in school plays was perfectly acceptable. Date rape did not exist. If a woman climbed naked into bed with a bloke, she could not afterwards cry rape if she changed her mind. A man could not ‘rape’ his wife. He had conjugal rights. Society accepted that sort of behaviour.
A couple of boys removed a girls knickers and hung them out of the school window. No-one ever thought about sex crime but just naughty boys. They both got the cane, but didn’t have “sex abuse” on their records for life as would be the case today.
What passes for acceptable behaviour has changed throughout society. When I were on the beat, pilfering by kids was treated with a quick clip round the ear and a march home to the parents. Now the parents would report you for abuse/assault. Now you nick ’em, take them to court and give them a criminal conviction to carry round for the rest of their lives.
When it comes to sex offences sometimes we choose to ignore the law. Having sex with a under the age of 16 is statutory rape. End of. Even if she consents. How rare is it nowadays to read of girls giving birth at 14 or 15 years of age? Not very. So do all the 14/15 year old fathers go down for rape? I don’t think so!
In most situations jhleck, I prefer the old way.
Schoolboys sorted out there differences away from adult interference, naughty kids got clipped or caned, it was all part of growing up. I will not say that it was perfect and there were some casualties of that system too, but it was better than today.
Sipu good evening again.
Thanks for the link which made an interesting read.
Left me with worries though, I note that your man Dawkins is unstressed about his experience of ‘mild paedophilia’ in his ‘Salisbury prep school’ when a master pulled him onto his knee and put his hand into his shorts.
My main worry, however, is that I myself attended a ‘Salisbury prep school’ from 1958 to 1960 for the duration of Dad’s Southern Command posting. Until today, I had always thought that the only former pupil of any note, apart from myself, was Christopher Biggins but I now wonder if my present day agnosticism is down to my childhood exposure to the Great Satan.
I do certainly remember a maths teacher who was inordinately fond of punishing you by making you lie across his lap while he hit your buttocks with a gymshoe. Never put his hands in my shorts, to be fair, but then he’d probably met my mother and knew that she would have publicly hacked his bollocks off with a blunt chisel if I’d reported such interference. As I have said before, my Mum was a sort of CO with attitude.
To be fair, I was a Day Boy and we did hear dark tales from the Boarders about what went on after we’d all gone home.
Agree with most of the above.
There was a female side to this too.
On occasion one got oneself into hot water by being pissed in the wrong place, accepting the offer of coffee,
etc,etc. You know the drill and unfortunate things came to pass!
Nobody I ever knew cried rape for sure.They all got home older, sadder and wiser and vowed not to repeat their own stupidity
If they had any doubts they merely went to the clap house in another city to maintain anonymity!!
At most it would be passed discreetly around amongst the ladies that it would be best not to find yourself alone with a certain male who could be described as ‘over enthusiastic’!
Cry rape in the courts?
You have to be bloody joking!
Nobody in their right minds would ever go near the police for anything short of murder.
I’m afraid I must reject the old saw that ‘it never did me any harm’ to defend the use of child abuse of various kinds. School violence meted out by the staff was all about power and not education.
Furthermore rape within marriage is also about power and not conjugal rights. Where in the marriage ceremony does it confer the right to dish out physical and mental abuse?
Boadicea's Chariot 
He’s one of the lucky few, eh? 🙂
Quite right. To judge crimes of long ago using today’s standards is not right.
Many ordinary people would be classed as sex offenders from past deeds, which were deemed quite acceptable fifty years ago.
gazoopi, I’d be interested to see your list of sex crimes (2013) which were ‘quite acceptable’ in 1963.
I bet you would 🙂
Seriously though, give me some examples.
J anus, I agreed with you on your post about Parliament declining Cameron’s request to go to war. Surely that must satisfy you.
As for the changing mores: I see that the minimum age for sex workers has been raised from 16 to 18 in Switzerland. The age of consent generally was much younger in many countries around the world, and still is in some.
In 1963, young children could be hugged by a teacher, male or female without there being any recriminations or any hint of impropriety. Even if ‘light petting’ by a teacher towards a young pupil, such as that described by Dawkins, was frowned upon rather than prosecuted ‘with prejudice’ as is the case today. My generation of kids was caned by teachers at school sometimes, having to bare their bums. At boarding school, we all showered in communal showers in full view of each other and the presiding dorm master. Photographing one’s children at swimming pools or when they were participating in school plays was perfectly acceptable. Date rape did not exist. If a woman climbed naked into bed with a bloke, she could not afterwards cry rape if she changed her mind. A man could not ‘rape’ his wife. He had conjugal rights. Society accepted that sort of behaviour.
A couple of boys removed a girls knickers and hung them out of the school window. No-one ever thought about sex crime but just naughty boys. They both got the cane, but didn’t have “sex abuse” on their records for life as would be the case today.
What passes for acceptable behaviour has changed throughout society. When I were on the beat, pilfering by kids was treated with a quick clip round the ear and a march home to the parents. Now the parents would report you for abuse/assault. Now you nick ’em, take them to court and give them a criminal conviction to carry round for the rest of their lives.
When it comes to sex offences sometimes we choose to ignore the law. Having sex with a under the age of 16 is statutory rape. End of. Even if she consents. How rare is it nowadays to read of girls giving birth at 14 or 15 years of age? Not very. So do all the 14/15 year old fathers go down for rape? I don’t think so!
In most situations jhleck, I prefer the old way.
Schoolboys sorted out there differences away from adult interference, naughty kids got clipped or caned, it was all part of growing up. I will not say that it was perfect and there were some casualties of that system too, but it was better than today.
Sipu good evening again.
Thanks for the link which made an interesting read.
Left me with worries though, I note that your man Dawkins is unstressed about his experience of ‘mild paedophilia’ in his ‘Salisbury prep school’ when a master pulled him onto his knee and put his hand into his shorts.
My main worry, however, is that I myself attended a ‘Salisbury prep school’ from 1958 to 1960 for the duration of Dad’s Southern Command posting. Until today, I had always thought that the only former pupil of any note, apart from myself, was Christopher Biggins but I now wonder if my present day agnosticism is down to my childhood exposure to the Great Satan.
I do certainly remember a maths teacher who was inordinately fond of punishing you by making you lie across his lap while he hit your buttocks with a gymshoe. Never put his hands in my shorts, to be fair, but then he’d probably met my mother and knew that she would have publicly hacked his bollocks off with a blunt chisel if I’d reported such interference. As I have said before, my Mum was a sort of CO with attitude.
To be fair, I was a Day Boy and we did hear dark tales from the Boarders about what went on after we’d all gone home.
Agree with most of the above.
There was a female side to this too.
On occasion one got oneself into hot water by being pissed in the wrong place, accepting the offer of coffee,
etc,etc. You know the drill and unfortunate things came to pass!
Nobody I ever knew cried rape for sure.They all got home older, sadder and wiser and vowed not to repeat their own stupidity
If they had any doubts they merely went to the clap house in another city to maintain anonymity!!
At most it would be passed discreetly around amongst the ladies that it would be best not to find yourself alone with a certain male who could be described as ‘over enthusiastic’!
Cry rape in the courts?
You have to be bloody joking!
Nobody in their right minds would ever go near the police for anything short of murder.
I’m afraid I must reject the old saw that ‘it never did me any harm’ to defend the use of child abuse of various kinds. School violence meted out by the staff was all about power and not education.
Furthermore rape within marriage is also about power and not conjugal rights. Where in the marriage ceremony does it confer the right to dish out physical and mental abuse?