Dawkins defends "mild" pedophilia

He may be a great biologist, but I am not sure about his therapeutic credentials.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_...

On the one hand, more than once I have said we cannot judge someone who is a product of their times. Calvin was more open to religious tolerance than most people of his day, but compared to today's standards he seems positively barbaric. Dawkins apparently wants "mild" pedophiles to have a pass.

I am going to channel JGL here and say he would make a good priest.

Ummm....

One might question his credentials as a therapist, and most certainly ask for explanation as to how he can extrapolate from his personal experiences to a general pronouncement.

I'd like to see the context of the interview that prompted Dawkins' remarks.

Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse.

Including, presumably, Dawkins himself?

Here is the link, but you have to subscribe:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/article3858647.ece

And here is the Washington Post version: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/richard-dawkins-under-fire-for-m...

Some things are indeed better left unsaid.

>5 RickHarsch: It does make me wonder, since Dawkins is clearly not a stupid guy or a clueless guy, why he chose to say it.

In re #5. Rick, of-course you are right, but there are some things I cannot resist saying, and among them is this: Dawkins is dripping, one might even say DROOLING with self-importance. I tend to avoid droolers: in bars, in books, and everywhere else.

For a somewhat similar take, I think, see Alan Bennett's The History Boys play and movie.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45OsKkHhv90

I wonder if others have seen it. We might even turn this conversation to books!

He certainly doesn't have the discretion of a statesman, and shouldn't have generalized. On the other hand, can he not speak of life experiences without beating them into the socially-acceptable viewpoint?

Dawkins is not only pro-pedophilia, he is also quite the bigot, when it comes to Muslims:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_...

But then, I never did like the man.

>10 madpoet: Dawkins is not only pro-pedophilia

Is he? Do you think if asked, he'd be like "hell yeah, whatever rocks your boat! Sign me up for NAMBLA!"?

he is also quite the bigot, when it comes to Muslims

But not Arabs, unlike, apparently, Ann Coulter. Dawkins' bigotry seems pretty equal opportunity when it comes to organized religion, but this is hardly news.

Is he? Do you think if asked, he'd be like "hell yeah, whatever rocks your boat! Sign me up for NAMBLA!"?

Consider someone else--a woman who said she'd been sexually abused as a school girl. She told people it wasn't such a big deal. If it were violent rape maybe it would have been a big deal, but it was "just" coercive fondling and some unwanted but not violently resisted fingering by her math and drama teachers. One might justly say such a woman was not "pro-rape" in the sense of wanting to rape anyone herself, just as--we assume--Dawkins has no such interests. But, well, isn't there some degree to which dismissing and minimizing a crime is complicity in it?

Well, imagine yourself telling such a woman that she should feel bad about being abused, or scolding her for not considering it a bigger deal.

>12 timspalding: One might justly say such a woman was not "pro-rape" in the sense of wanting to rape anyone herself, just as--we assume--Dawkins has no such interests. But, well, isn't there some degree to which dismissing and minimizing a crime is complicity in it?

It's interesting you bring up this example, because when the topic was first posted I immediately thought about a conversation we had on another thread about rape-as-sex (perversion) versus rape-as-assault (power and consent).

I'd say that Dawkins, in his remarks, sidesteps the issue of power and consent completely when he talks about a teacher's hand in his shorts as "not that bad" (in the general scheme of things, I assume) and when he suggests that men of a different era can't be judged by our standards. (As a woman, let me tell you, that line has worn utterly thin for me).

I am EXTREMELY wary of assigning motivations long distance to person who is basing his opinion on his own personal experience, so I won't speculate on things like coping mechanisms, survivor's guilt, or the man's tendency to go for shock value whenever he has something to say. I won't presume to assign motivations to Dawkins when I don't know him or know what happened beyond what he has revealed here.

I will offer this freely: I have personal experience with what Dawkins calls "mild pedophilia." One, that happened to an immediate family member, and one case that happened to myself. In both cases I'd say that we came through without any permanent damage. In my case, when I was in sixth grade a school janitor found me alone at my locker and put his hand between my legs. I froze, naturally. But luckily someone came by and saw what was happening. The man was fired and arrested, and life went on.

Beyond a certain awareness that the world was not as safe a place as I had thought, I would say that the incident was an unpleasant one, but not a defining one. So when Dawkins says he came to "no lasting harm" from being touched by his teacher, I believe him. And no, I don't find that an admission of complicity--because unlike him, I do not forget that between a teacher and his student, consent was not possible. So the notion of "complicity" is off the table.

>13 Amtep:: But we're not saying the victim should feel bad: we're saying that the abusers should feel bad.

#15

As I understand, often abusers DO feel bad. Or at least claim to feel bad. But as a citizen, I'm not interested in what they feel; I'm concerned about what they do, and continue to do, even while 'feeling bad'.

#14

Again, this is personal experience/anecdotal. It's not that it's invalid; merely that extrapolating from 'I didn't suffer lasting harm' to 'no one would suffer lasting harm' is a mighty big leap. I don't think Dawkins is advocating or even dismissing such behavior; but he comes across as minimizing the harm it does, and (by implication) condemning the penalties imposed for such actions.

But luckily someone came by and saw what was happening. The man was fired and arrested, and life went on.

That is a happy ending to a potentially harmful situation. Imagine if he had not been caught, and every time you saw him, you knew he might do it again.

Abuse is a tricky term. What constitutes abuse for one person may not bother another person at all. Of course, if you stole my current bicycle it would not bother me because it is a cheap beater. But it is still theft. Put your hand down a students pants, and even if they beg for it, it is still abuse. (I know one person who was traumatized when a flasher exposed himself to her.)

As I understand, often abusers DO feel bad. Or at least claim to feel bad. But as a citizen, I'm not interested in what they feel; I'm concerned about what they do, and continue to do, even while 'feeling bad'.

Few of the offenders in our program feel bad about what they have done. They minimize it, or deny it happened (even when there are eyewitnesses and physical evidence). Many abusers tell themselves that the other person really wanted it. The fact is, someone who abuses a youth is sick. They think it is normal and acceptable, but it is not. Not Ever. Period.

If I have an absolute in ethics, it is that.

>12 timspalding: 'But, well, isn't there some degree to which dismissing and minimizing a crime is complicity in it?' That would make you an advocate of the crimes against the Palestinians, would it not? Think of all the crimes against humanity you accuse yourself of. And YOU are the one who goes to the Hague because you are not protected. I would retract that line if I were you.

14 Brilliant post. Thank you.

>8 timspalding:

Saw an interesting production of The History Boys in Chicago a few years ago. As I recall, the question of pedophilia was partly defanged by depicting the teacher as a duffer who was generally outflanked by the boys. Thus the crucial issue of power--who is using whom--became more complicated.

But yes, it did give me pause. The continuum of power is a complicated one, ambiguities can exist, but exaggeration or fabulation about the power of the younger party is a commonplace among abusers or their inadvertent apologists.

>16 BruceCoulson: he comes across as minimizing the harm it does, and (by implication) condemning the penalties imposed for such actions.

It's those "implications" I think we need to be careful with.

The point I was trying to get across is that there is a danger on both sides here: Dawkins, by disregarding the inability of a child to consent, and the fact that a teacher is in a position to abuse their power over a student, minimizes the terrible seriousness of the situation. I don't for one minute think he's really suggesting it's okay for students to be molested by their teachers but Dawkins is smart enough to anticipate how he would be heard, and I don't think his phrasing was clumsy or accidental, but was instead quite deliberate.

But his critics also run the risk of devaluing the man's own offered experience by doubting the sincerity of his account, or by flattening his personal story into a twitter post: "Dawkins defends 'mild' pedophilia" -- which in this conversation didn't take long to morph into "Dawkins is pro-pedophilia."

It makes me want to tread very carefully, because I don't understand Dawkins' own motivations, and I don't fully trust those of his usual critics. He's a polarizing guy, but the subject demands our empathy and compassion, not to be tossed around in as the latest political football in the world-vs-Richard Dawkins contest.

>17 Arctic-Stranger: The fact is, someone who abuses a youth is sick. They think it is normal and acceptable, but it is not. Not Ever. Period.

I agree. However, if someone says they were a victim of such abuse, but came through it and consider themselves "not damaged" then I believe them.

I do agree with that. I know many people who suffered mild to serious abuse, and are perfectly healthy people today. Some needed therapy to deal with it, others did not.

But I know many more who suffered lingering effects far into adulthood, the most common being inability to sustain a long term relationship, or become truly intimate with the person they love. Not to mention that many abusers were abused as kids. We have a several kids in our program who was abused as infants, and which carried on through much of their childhood.

Granted this is a far cry from what Dawkins is talking about.

I think I got my hackles up about this because telling rape victims that they are now permanently spoiled or damaged is such a common and socially-approved way of hurting them even more. I know someone who was raped twice and is now fine, and she commonly gets into arguments where she has to insist that YES SHE IS FINE. And I know someone else whose main remaining problem is that she now feels that she's spoiled goods. She feels society's judgement more harshly than the rapist does.

So, anyway, my main point is that telling people that they MUST have been harmed is also harmful.

The rape case in India in which the young woman was so brutalized that the doctors had to remove some of her damaged "organs" underscores that women especially have some real "issues" with the male world?

The Penn State compliance -- one sees Sandusky uh "doing something" to a boy in the shower and one walks away wondering OH what to DO?!!!!!!!!!

And it almost seems as if EVERY Catholic priest EVER has "doodled" some vulnerable kid as well -- as well as have a number of hasidic rabbis for that matter.

If one leaves a British "public" (i. e., private) school without being sodomized by SOMEONE I suppose that may be quite an achievement in itself?

One gets "used to it" I guess?...

Headline: Welch Declares GET USED TO IT!

OUCH!...

Actually recovery from sexual abuse (and I not specifically talking about a violent rape here, because I have not worked with that population) is very commonplace, if people either deal with it, or get help dealing with it. It is easier to recover from sexual abuse than say, neglect.

I would say "that depends" but I know of those who recalled sexual abuse DECADES after it happened and it still was vivid to them...

>27 Arctic-Stranger:

i agree with what you've been writing, but my problem with what dawkins said is my problem with your last sentence here (It is easier to recover from sexual abuse than say, neglect.)

i'm ok with someone making whatever statement they want about what happened to them and how they did or didn't recover from or deal with or move past "it", "it" being something traumatic or otherwise. but to assume that someone else's story is yours is the mistake. some people who experienced what dawkins did probably brushed it off as he did, others not so much. same with any degree of trauma/abuse/neglect. however people respond and react is how they respond and react and as the society around them, we need to let them respond and react that way and tell them that response and reaction is just fine for them, and support them if they need/want/seek it. so if dawkins is fine, i'm glad. but he doesn't know that others who experienced what he did are also fine. and you can't say that It is easier to recover from sexual abuse than say, neglect. as a blanket statement for everyone.

Not for everyone, but research shows, and in my experience, that is a true statement. Not for everyone of course, but essentially the trauma caused by sexual abuse is easier to heal through therapy than the trauma caused by neglect. Just like an appendectomy is an easier operation than a bypass, but not for everyone.

>11 southernbooklady: Dawkins' bigotry seems pretty equal opportunity when it comes to organized religion, but this is hardly news.

Did you read the article? This goes a little beyond his general dislike of religions.

It's funny how, when it's someone we like and respect, we'll find all kinds of excuses for what is essentially an indefensible comment. Although, to be fair, I may have been a little hard on him because I never liked or respected him to begin with.

30 The problem arises when the comparisons take on an 'academic' note, I think.

>31 madpoet: This goes a little beyond his general dislike of religions.

I'd say Dawkins' "general dislike" is more of an uncompromising and implacable and even irrational hostility.

Did you read the article? This goes a little beyond his general dislike of religions. It's funny how, when it's someone we like and respect, we'll find all kinds of excuses for what is essentially an indefensible comment.

I did read it. Both what was written and how it was written. And then I tried to find the sources of the various quotes, since as a rule I like to understand context and I'm suspicious of storms caused by whatever people (Dawkins included) vomit onto their twitter streams.

But you've misunderstood my original comment, which was offered as an observation and a clarification, not an excuse. So sorry if that didn't come across well. People have suggested that the "Islamophobia" of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al is a thin veil for a kind of anti-arab racism. I don't see evidence of that.

I will say this, though. I think if your position is that all religion is irrational and harmful, you've taken a kind of "end stance" and relinquished your ability to make any kind of authoritative finer point. You can't say "fairies aren't real" and then insist that "elves, especially, aren't real." Or say that "Porn is immoral -- especially porn with three people in it."

So whether Dawkins is calling the Catholic Church a "child-raping institution" led by a "leering old man" or tweeting about the non-existence of scientific inquiry in contemporary Islamic-dominated countries, he doesn't have any solid philosophical ground to stand on. It's just a kind of damnation by association thing--there were pedophiles in the priesthood, so the Roman Catholic church encourages pedophilia. The men who flew planes into the World Trade Center were Islamic fundamentalists, therefore Islam encourages terrorism.

I think Dawkins regards religion as a kind of gateway drug to extremism. But he hasn't actually been able to make that case in a rational, convincing way. It's a big flaw (in my mind) to his political thinking, that undercuts his authority in that sphere. But this does not actually invalidate his original, (well-reasoned) stance--that religion is irrational and unnecessary. As for whether it is harmful, well, human beings can make anything harmful--Dawkins hasn't yet made a good case for why religion is uniquely harmful.

>33 southernbooklady: Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comments.

I agree with your assessment of Dawkins and his fellow 'New Atheists'. I've had many friends who were atheists and agnostics, and we had good, non-heated discussions. I respect their beliefs, and they respect mine. But the 'New Atheists' like Dawkins and Hitchens and their disciples are like the zealots of a new religion (or anti-religion). For them, religion is the source-of-all-evil, and they have nothing but contempt for anyone who believes in God.

It reminds me of a classmate I had in college. He invited me to join him and his friends went they went downtown to 'beat up some skinheads'. I was horrified. I asked him why on earth he'd want to do that, and he said, "They're violent and racist." He didn't see it, of course, but he was essentially the same as the skinheads- he just had a different excuse for his violence. In the same way, the New Atheists are every bit the fundamentalist extremists they deplore; they're just inspired by anti-religious views instead of religious ones. A few centuries ago, they would have eagerly joined the Inquisition.

I don't believe there is a god, but refuse to say with certainty that there is not, for the very reason the mad Canadian poet suggests. I like Bill Maher and his style of dealing with religion--mockery elevates society, in short. But serious organized anti-religion only makes sense when specific issues need to be addressed.
A good play to throw a baseball with my son is against a church wall in a square in Izola, we throw and field the grounders returned by the church. The was has no windows within range, and yes I hit the infant Jesus in the head twice, but I missed Virgin mama. Preparing for any criticism I decided there are two responses: 1) if the person is aggressive and impolite, we say 'Jebem ti boga', meaning I fuck your god--sounds bad but is used here mildly, bizarre as that may seem; if not aggressive and impolite, we simply say that we are sure God would gladly offer his church for a father and son to play ball.

In re #35. You know my beliefs, Rick, so I will simply say (to the rest of the gang) that as far as I am concerned, on the matter of God's offering the church, S/He obviously did.
I am reminded of the limericks by Ronald Knox, on a couple of the classical metaphysical and epistemological issues raised by Bishop Berkeley, and sundry other stand-up comics. "There was once was a man who said God/ must think it exceedingly odd/ when he sees that this tree/ continues to be/ when there's no one about in the Quad." "Dear sir, your astonishment's odd/ I am ALWAYS about in the Quad/ and that's why that this tree/ will continue to be/ since observed by Yours Faithfully, -- God"
Go Buccos, even @ the expense of my Cubs.

Your Cubs are my Cubs, baby. Arjun chose the Bucs and we're riding his train to glory.

There once was a Cub who played well
He could pitch like William could Tell
And I mean God damn
when he hit a grand slam
I knew he would end up in hell

>34 madpoet: For them, religion is the source-of-all-evil, and they have nothing but contempt for anyone who believes in God.

Organized religion is a kind of bete-noir, I think. And there's no question that his ideas became radicalized after 9/11. Here where I live everyone was all up in arms about "defending freedom" against all threats internal and external. Dawkins seems to have come away from the event with the conviction that the planet could erupt into a religious war at any moment.

But I don't agree with the second half of your statement, and I suspect it wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. I think it was Dawkins who said he didn't mind saying grace at a friend's table in the name of friendship? I think the man reserves most of his contempt for the institutionalized form of religion.

But there's no question he's dead set against religious anything in principle: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." is probably the best summary statement I've come across of his position. He thinks religion is fundamentally about acquiescence, about "giving up." And it is also about suppressing whatever is in us that encourages us to ask "why?" and "how?"

The idea can be debated but as a proposition it does have some teeth to it. Dawkins is blunt and he pisses people off just by breathing, but that doesn't make him wrong. Personally, I think he makes a better biologist than a philosopher. But I understand the path that led him from one to the other.

But there's no question he's dead set against religious anything in principle: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." is probably the best summary statement I've come across of his position. He thinks religion is fundamentally about acquiescence, about "giving up." And it is also about suppressing whatever is in us that encourages us to ask "why?" and "how?"

Funny, I am a Christian because it helps me delve deeper into understanding people--my particular version of science--and not because it insulates me from that. And by understand, I do not mean it gives me all the answers I need to know why people think the way they do. I mean that if I am called to love people, it is essential to know HOW to do that, and in order to know how to do that, you have to know the people. The biblical stories do give some insight into human behavior, the way all stories do, but you have to work out the context and particularities on your own.

I wonder if the study of people is trickier than the study of, say glacier or particles. Maybe not, but I do know that people make a mess of relationships on a very regular basis. Christians, myself included, are not exception to that rule. (I did a fair amount of marriage counseling, and was quite good at it while my own marriage was falling apart. Go figure.)

I guess that statement is why I don't find the critiques of Dawkins, et al. appealing. They do shoddy research on their subjects. I read their critique of Christians and I wonder where they find such specimens. I know some do exist, but they base their arguments on stereotypes and projections, not on real people. It is similar to me saying that science is bad because all scientists are poor at dealing with people. That statement is stereotyped, and not true on a host of levels. Yes there are scientists who are piss poor at dealing with the intricacies of human relationships. That is why hospitals hire chaplains! More than once I had a doctor come in, tell people in a very matter of fact way that a loved one had just died, and when they responded appropriately (by weeping and wailing) they doctor would look at me helplessly and say, "You take it from here." So can I say I don't like doctors because they see people as machines?

No, of course not. That is a severely limiting view of doctors. But many critiques of the Christianity are no better informed.

Mockery is what you use when you run out of arguments! (Just kidding, er, mocking.)

I find religions very interesting and I've tried a few. I always liked Rick's observation that "I like Jesus" but the RELIGION! Yes but even Jesus gets a bit prickly.

I've read Gore Vidal's novel "Creation" a couple of times, also "Julian," and I heartily recommend them as per a rather skeptical view of religions. In "Creation" the protagonist, an Afghan Zoroasterian working for the Persian emperor, goes wandering all over the far east, mainly India and then China, and his meetings with the Buddha are quite entertaining in that the latter is always saying some obscure thing and he and his buddies (in the know!) are laughing at some existential joke of theirs yet the main character is left wondering whether the obscurity is the message?

Vidal once said (as per "Creation") that he himself admired Confucian thought most because it puts the citizen in service of his society as the "highest" aspiration, not the seeking of only the "salvation" of ONE's own "soul."

Me -- I like Jesus too but I find that if I'm as honest with Himself that I'm really more of a Greek or a Jew, i. e., I DON'T "turn the other cheek" but I attempt to behave with a judicious attitude toward others.

I guess too when I was (briefly) at St John's Univ in Collegeville MN, a Benedictine institution ostensibly, I read some of Augustine's "City of God" in which I found a section that has Augie dismissing the localized, personal gods of folks like a "god of the cradle" and one of the flower's nettle and so on, not Jupiterian gods (those are for the rich and powerful) but the ordinary people's gods.

I thought that that concept of the "sacralization of everything" was actually pretty nice -- the god of this grove of trees, of this brook etc. -- and of course when Christianity took over (see Vidal's "Julian") and excised the old gods and goddesses they became fairies, trolls, witches and wizards et. al., and continued in the folklore that we now call "fairy tales." And "the folks" STILL abide "the evil eye" and so on and enlist the BVM ("Blessed Virgin Mary") as their "great goddess" and various saints stand in for the cradle god and so on eh.

Well do I "believe"? I seem to "believe" in "everything"!...

>40 Michael_Welch:: Augustine does, in fact, articulate a theory of "sacralization of everything", but the key is that the sacred to which all things point is not an individual god of each thing -- a god of this cradle, a god of that grove of trees, and a god of those brooks -- but to the one God, the source of all. This is his notion of sacramentality, that everything that exists does so because God made it and sustains it, and therefore everything reflects the divinity of its source. (The book on this is his De Doctrina Christiana, which is better translated as, Teaching Christianity.)

Yeah I understand but then "God" is another Great BIG God even BIGGER and more remote than Jupiter Who at least has some near equals.

The reason there are saints is because the church knew it had to recreate that "intimacy." It worked but The Great BIG God always "ruins it"...

He's posted a response pointing out that he didn't want to compare 30 seconds to longterm abuse. http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/9/11/child-abuse-a-misund...

>40 Michael_Welch: Michael, one of the finer posts I've read.

>42 Michael_Welch: Touche!

>40 Michael_Welch: I like Jesus til I found he cheated at cards, now I LOVE the guy.

Well thanks Rick; I always want to know your reactions, pro or con. I'm somewhat a "romantic" re religionS but I've learned to see them as I will, not as "required"?...

Lately I find most of your posts interesting but don't really have much response in me--I generally agree, but for Syria, and if I disagree it's mildly, but for Syria. I liked the response to your Hillary had to fall on her sword (Why didn't Bush have to? Okay, obviously...But still). Nonetheless, wouldn't it be nice to put mini-dynasties and notions someone's time has come behind?

I understand that the Syrian thing is problematic and I'm not always "convincing" myself. As per the Clintons I don't as Chip does "hate them" but there's so much silliness that SIGH!

Yeah I hope to see maybe Andy Cuomo or even Howard Dean and my especial "hope" is that Fort Worth state senator Wendy Davis run for gov and then for the presidential nomination. Obama after all was a mere state senator in 2004, a senator only from 2007-09 SOOOOOOOOOOOO --...

It is I think about time America had a left wing President. but I have been thinking that for my politically aware entire life.

"If I am wrong about any particular individual; if any of my companions really was traumatised by the abuse long after it happened; if, perhaps it happened many times and amounted to more than the single disagreeable but brief fondling that I endured, I apologise."

This is a pretty odd and defensive little statement.

Perhaps I'm just not as much of an optimist about human nature, but by Dawkin's admission the teacher's abuse was habitual, and involved many students, probably over years. Further, it seems that he carried things further when possible--Dawkins says he "wriggled free," which would seem to indicate it would have gone on far longer if he had been frozen in fear and confusion. Color me a pessimist, but I don't think you can sexually abuse boys like that for years and avoid there being at least some students who found it "more than (a) single disagreeable but brief fondling."

In other words, Dawkins' may justly claim no actual knowledge any of his "ifs" are true. But a rational person should conclude it's very likely others were traumatized. And a more empathetic person might just apologize for trivializing probable harm, not secret his apologies behind walls of "ifs."

No teacher ever "abused" me and no priest either for that matter. It seems however that this is common practice in British "public" (private) schools?

Archie Bunker once insisted that "England is a fag country!" to which Michael became as usual exasperated but the joke doesn't "work" without British public schools hmmm.

As per "the US ought to have a left wing president" one hasn't kept up. Didn't you know that FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ were all "socialists," that Eisenhower was "a conscious agent of the international communist conspiracy" and that as per bumper stickers: "Save US From Communism -- Impeach Obama!"

Commies have been running this country since 1933 -- uh but for the eight holy years of the Reagan restoration and then the recent Bushite (II) recap...

No abuse, but I rememeber Vettes really pissed you off once (and verse the vice)

He never hit me -- I ran!...

No, you let him have it--verbally of course, in a sort of I don't care if you ARE a professor way...Oh, I remember it well.

Well I could be as stubborn as he...