>>3245262It doesn't sound like he's condoning pedophilia. He's only recognizing varying degrees of the offense. He clearly states the he would condemn it today, but that offenses that occurred in a different era weren't considered to be the same because the entire zeitgeist was different. In my understanding, he was neither promoting nor defending pedophilia, but acknowledging that something that happened to him, something he experienced personally, didn't have the effect it might've had today because attitudes have changed since he was young. The article goes on to describe more how attitudes affect us more than experiences because the attitudes are what put the actions into perspective. For example, (my own, not from the story) being an unwed mother in the Victorian era would've been socially destructive, but now it's acceptable. Mental distress due to being castigated by your entire culture is no longer an issue. The action is the same, but the social reaction has changed over time. The author of the article chose to write about what I feel he's misinterpreted to get people to read his writing.
