Banned Books discussion

BANNED/CHALLENGED > Tricky Topic: A Pedophiles Guide to Love: A Child Lover's Code of Conduct

Comments Showing 1-50 of 59 (59 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) This created a huge stink yesterday. First Amazon defended the right to publish it, then recanted and took it down.

This was mostly because of the huge public backlash that dubbed the book 'a child rapist's guide' or a 'how-to manual for molesting children' or other inflammatory statements, without looking at the content of the book (which I haven't either, and by the author's misspelled description of the contents, I probably won't). This has turned into a news frenzy, with sides seemingly trying to yell louder than their opposition.

Here are a few links (the original page has been removed, with all the comments) with the overview of the story.

message 2: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) Really? No one has an opinion either way?

message 3: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments I think this is a bit of a tricky topic, but due to the fact that this was self-published and does appear to be a "how-to" guide, I think it is/was justified for Amazon to have pulled the book. I think in this case it is more of a question of public safety than freedom of expression. I also kind of hope that Amazon has contacted the police, because this individual could likely be luring kids at this moment. Oh boy, I know we are treading on thin ice here, but there must be some regulations, especially when it comes to children. But also, Amazon should perhaps not make it that easy for "authors" to self publish on Kindle, I am not trying to curb creativity here, just that there need to, obviously, be some type of safeguards.

message 4: by jb (last edited Nov 14, 2010 12:42PM) (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) Anything to do with pedophilia (promoting, encouraging, pictures, etc) should be illegal (not to mention disgusting). A "book" about it would pretty much be considered child pornography.... As far as some of the comments I read....about how we (as a community/citizen) should better understand their (pedophile) position, blah, blah. I do not understand and will never understand. There is no sympathy....this is a HUGE crime against a child and that child may never be able to recover from this deplorable act.

Personally, after reading some of the comments by the author, I feel he is a sick individual. Anyone who would suggest this “To tell you the truth I don’t think it’s always bad for the child”, Grieves told horrible. It is always bad for the child.

This is not about the author's freedom of expression....this is about how the author can take advantage of freedom of speech and turn it into a lack of respect for every child out there who deserves to be well cared for and loved.

Now I certainly have not read the all of my comments are based off the articles I read and the comments the author made. I do not feel this really qualifies as a seems of sorts like a how to guide for taking advantage of and dehumanizing children. I know there is a market for those "recovering" from pedophilia; however, this does not seem to be the case. Besides that, I really do not feel pedophilia can be is a cycle and either the innocent succumb and become the guilty or the stop being the victim and help others and learn and grow as a real living healthy person.

message 5: by J.C. (new)

J.C. (jcjoranco) | 4 comments anything that puts "pedophiles" and "love" in the same sentence is going to get nothing but disgust from me.

if its "pedophile finds plenty of unwanted love in prison" I still find the very idea of a pedophile existing just disgusting.

message 6: by Madge (new)

Madge (madge_the_bibliomaniac) I heard about this on Facebook and Cafe Mom yesterday. I personally found it disgusting and I'm glad that it's been removed. I am NOT for the banning of books and the like, but I do think there should be some form of regulation that doesn't permit how to guides for child molestation to be distributed. There are enough sickos walking around without getting new ideas from a book devoted to harming children. There is a difference between freedom of speech and producing how to guides for harming people. I'm all for being able to say whatever you like, but I think this book crossed a line.

I have not read the book, nor do I intend to, so what I have said has been based on what I've read about the book on Amazon and other websites.

message 7: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments I also hope that Amazon has learned a lesson and will actually monitor their self-publication options for the Kindle device a bit better in the future; this trash (and that's an understatement) should never have been allowed to appear on the website in the first place.

message 8: by Rory (last edited Nov 12, 2010 02:05PM) (new)

Rory (rdbrew) It's interesting that this topic is such a taboo that almost all reactions are declamations just from the title. Pedo = Child Phile = Love . If we look at history children have been sexualised for pretty much all of recorded history.

In ancient Greece this was a formalised right of passage involving expensive gifts .

In modern day Afghanistan a version of this exists quite openly in society .

Almost world wide the practice of child marriage was a norm .

There have been theories back and forth whether Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a pedophile, though little to no evidence points towards him ever raping a child .

Then there's Lolita.

None of this is me trying to promote child rape. I think that is one of the most abhorrent acts a human can do to another human, in fact I can't imagine any thing more horrid. However, neurological studies have found structural abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles (mostly to do with the amygdala, for more info look at this peer-reviewed paper ), that seems to point out that this is often a compulsion, a built in defect, not willful cruelty.

Doesn't all the hyperbole make it difficult to assist pedophiles to control themselves and avert potential harm? Actually not discussing it while making it public policy to assume that all pedophiles want to do is rape your children actually prevents things from getting better http://pedophiliasexabuse.wordpress.c... .

Now I know it is hard not to put them all in one box, personally I would never leave my nieces alone with a Catholic priest, no matter how nice he seemed, but by labeling all the individuals who share a common urge as rapists and ignoring that there, like in almost everything else in life, is a spectrum of acts and individuals to deal with society makes things worse.

Imagine someone who is nearing their twenties, and they start to realise that they keep fantasising about kids in a sexual way. First they deny it, try not to think about it, but the thoughts keep popping back in against their will. They want it to stop, but it doesn't. They think, "Maybe I can get help?" But it doesn't take them long to realise that there is a HUGE chance that just by confiding to a psychiatrist or psychologist they will end up arrested and having to register as a sexual offender. Essentially ruining their lives, when they were trying to get better. Now don't you think they are more likely to think "It's not worth the risk, I'll just control it on my own." And like most of humanity, they think they'll be different, they won't turn out like everyone else, they can quit cold turkey.

Doesn't trying to understand the problem and the issues make more sense than just closing our eyes and kicking it into a closet?

On a side note, Amazon still has pedophilia related books on their website. Here's one:

Also, the subtitle "A Child Lovers Code of Conduct" implies some sense of restraint, not a how to commit crimes and get away with it.

Here's an update on the police investigating the author, so chances are if he did anything criminal, they'll find it soon.

(I'm not a pedo, I just think we should think and talk about anything, especially taboos)

message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

If the guy wants to write it, and sell it, then I don't particularly care. If Amazon wants to sell it, fine. It's not as if the child molestation rate is going to rise because of it. Sure, it's sick, and the guy's certainly not the kind of folk I'd want around me or in my town, but I've no right to say he can't write it and sell it, and I've no right to tell people they can't buy it.

message 10: by Irene (new)

Irene Hollimon | 20 comments Okay- just the title bugs me. If I saw it in a bookstore, I'd have to look. The curiosity would kill me if I didn't.
Titles like that make me rethink censorship. I don't know- maybe it's okay if not EVERYTHING is available in a mainstream bookstore.

message 11: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) someone actually on amazon purchased it and read it, then returned order to provide an actual description of what was in it...she said that the majority of it was cut and pasted definitions of stuff from places like the DSM-IV about pedophilia and that there were only a couple real squicky parts...I think if you look at the initial thread on amazon, her review is on like page 10 (or so)...

there was a case in 2000 IRT something similar involving NAMBLA in which the court basic said, you can write about the feelings etc, however, you can't say I did xxx...or you should do xxx...and based on what the reader on amazon said, I don't believe that it fell within that realm...not saying that I support it, but that is the current legal precedent...

another thing that should be pointed out, pedophilia itself isn't illegal, because by definition, pedophilia is the THOUGHTS of love and attaction to a child (as defined as being under the age of 13) is when they act on it, that the true crime of child molestation occurs.

secondly, the book itself didn't fall under the legal definition of child pornography because there were no pictures within it, if you listen to the person who read it...the current legal definition of pornography is the use of pictures

message 12: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) Delicious Dee Challenge Addict wrote: "I think if you look at the initial thread on amazon..."

I've been looking for a cached page of all the comments, but I haven't found one yet. If you do, please post the link, because there is a lot of raw emotion there that could us a bit of analysis.

I agree that it doesn't sound like this was pornographic (as the police didn't arrest him). No pictures, no descriptions of acts and it sounds like it was not about inspiring actions, but rather reigning them in.

Good call on the thought police parallel, I hadn't actually thought about it in those terms. I just finished The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and Harris has an interesting chapter on determinism and free will, where he argues that free will is the illusion of us experiencing thoughts and emotions milliseconds AFTER they are electrochemical reactions within our brains. In other words, consciousness is seeing the interior workings of our own brains, just after it happens. Kind of how we don't see an object, we see light particles reflected off something, go through our pupil, hit the retina, get transfered to our brains, flipped right side up, and THEN we "see it".

Not that determinism would likely change how we lived our day to day lives, because even if free will is an illusion, it is impossible to live our lives like it is. And the Justice system will probably still reflect that.

Glad to hear there are voices from both sides of the chasm. Dialogue is how we learn to fix problems, or what we can do to prevent them in the first place. Screaming is fine if all one wants to do is RE-act, and stay one step behind the issue.

message 13: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) this is the original thread from the discussion forum that actually started with an AP article, so not sure how long the book was on the site prior to this

I guess for me, and i'm not a parent, there are bigger things to worry about - not saying pedofila is something to not worry about, but (and I made this comment to a friend the other day), we seem as a society to be over-sexualizing our children at a younger and younger age with the role-models (if you can call them that) who they are exposed to (Miley Cyrus and Lindsey Lohan being 2 that come to mind), the junk on TV (Teen Mom on MTV for example) and we wonder why kids are having kids; why our children are becoming sexual active at younger and younger ages (the colored arm bands that mean will participate in different sexual activities for example)...but that is jsut my two cents

message 14: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments Delicious Dee Challenge Addict wrote: "this is the original thread from the discussion forum that actually started with an AP article, so not sure how long the book was on the site prior to this"

I agree with you about how we, as a society, seem to be over sexualising children. I mean, just look at the clothing available for children nowadays, my parents would never have let me wear clothing like that, and I would not have wanted to. On the other hand, if sexuality, strong language, homosexuality, problems like eating disorders etc. appear in books, there is often a push to get these books removed or banned.

I'm still not sure exactly what to make of this particular situation. Emotionally, I find the idea of a how-to book for pedophiles disgusting and potentially dangerous, but it is definitely problematic to make judgment calls if one has not read the book in question. Also, if the book did not include pictures and/or detailed descriptions of sexual acts, then the book is likely not as "terrible" as first believed, although I am still glad that the books was pulled by Amazon.

message 15: by Dee (last edited Nov 13, 2010 06:47AM) (new)

Dee (austhokie) that was part of what got my friend and I started talking on that yesterday...her son is only 3 months old, but when she was out clothes shopping for him, some of the stuff available for little girls she couldn't believe

I find a how-to guide for pedopiles wrong...but from waht I got from C. Parker's post it wasn't that...and there was (as silly as this is going to sound) a law and order episode that covered similar...about a child molestor who had gotten out of jail and was maintaining websites where other people of the same ilk could talk without acting

I still think its a slippery they pulled this, there are already discussions for various groups about trying to get other books pulled...I guess my theory, just becaues its there doesn't make it right, but no one is forcing you to buy it either

message 16: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments Delicious Dee Challenge Addict wrote: "that was part of what got my friend and I started talking on that yesterday...her son is only 3 months old, but when she was out clothes shopping for him, some of the stuff available for little gir..."

It is definitely a slippery slope, and of course, the media got hold of it and that likely also really propelled this out of control (from what I remember here in Canada, the CBC definitely stated that the book in question was a how-to guide for pedophiles, which is why I had such a negative reaction). I really think that the media needs to practice some prudence and restraint, I find that with controversial topics, they are often the ones who really kick the hornet's nest, really cause negative reactions (often due to untrue or misleading information). On the other hand, we should realise that the media likes to sensationalise stories, so that we need to do our own research and not just believe what one hears or reads in the news (I certainly now wish that I had done some independent research before commenting, but the news story did sound quite convincing).

And, of course, now that this one book has been pulled by Amazon, this is likely going to be used or attempted to be used by other groups to get books they don't like removed and/or banned.

message 17: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) i think it was in the media before it was posted on the amazon forums...the thread that I the first post is the link to the AP...

while I had initial negative reactions to it, I did some additional reading and research and tried to not have a knee-jerk of things I'm noticing now on amazon is that the book has been gone for 4 days nearly...there are still people posted and saying they are boycotting Amazon until its removed because they've only read the first page of the thread and not the subsequent 40 odds (not that I would expect anyone to read those if they weren't on it from the beginning)...but it was posted probably at least 50 times that the book has been removed

message 18: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments Delicious Dee Challenge Addict wrote: "i think it was in the media before it was posted on the amazon forums...the thread that I the first post is the link to the AP...

while I had initial negative reactions to it, I did ..."

Honestly, by now everyone should be aware of the fact that the book has been removed.

message 19: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) you would think...

message 20: by jb (last edited Nov 14, 2010 12:43PM) (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) My reactions to this are.....if it is a how to guide of sorts....then it should be considered child pornography and that is illegal. The author would be arrested and the book would be pulled immediately. If it is a guide to helping pedophilia people deal with this psychological issue then I can see a market for it. Of course my initial reaction is this is a disgusting piece of trash, but so long as the author does NOT mention the actual how to of taking advantage of or molesting children, then his book is legal. From what I can tell, the police are involved and so far have found no wrong doing. If the author wants to be a pedophilia sympathizer then that is his right....and he can certainly write about it.

Amazon is a private seller and certainly can sell or pull any book it wishes. From a stand point of morality, I think Amazon is better off pulling the book as I am sure a lot more customers would be outraged at the selling of the book rather than the banning/pulling of the book.

Frankly, I feel this author with some of the comments I read is just pathetic....I am not sure I would even read the book for the sake of finding out what it really is about because I just felt (based on the articles and his comments) he was trying to take advantage of the system and children in general.

message 21: by jb (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) I have done a bit of reading on this topic and the First Amendment as well as the Miller Test and the Protect Act of 2003.

In general, (and this is without reading the book), it does not seem he has violated the law (especially if CO police have not arrested him). With that being said coupled with a few of his comments, I would venture to guess he is a predator of sorts (whether he admits it or not). If the police would look hard enough and long enough, they would probably find something on him (just my guess).

Now that does not mean, someone could not push the issue and have this book and author investigated a bit more. There are is the Miller Test which partly relies on community values (one part of a three part test). Besides that there is an obscenity part to the First Amendment as well....

I saw a brief television interview (all he said was read my book and I am not doing anymore television interviews). I found a copy of his other book Our Gardens of Flesh which I am currently in the process of seems like it is about masturbation.

message 22: by Mawgojzeta (new)

Mawgojzeta Great discussion! I really cannot add anything to it. Whichever way Amazon chooses to go (pulled, I understand) is a business decision the company has a right to make for itself. I personally would not boycott them for carrying this ebook.

message 23: by Renae (new)

Renae (renaener) | 1 comments Yeah, I personally have not read the book so I cannot judge it without opening it but if it anyway promotes child sexual abuse it is definately spewing hatred that is unnecessary in our already hate-filled world as unfortunate as that is.

message 24: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) It is interesting (and I am guilty of this myself), that we all (or close enough) state that we have not read the book (which is rather difficult now that it is not available), and then state an opinion about it.

Just seems funny to me.

message 25: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments Rory wrote: "It is interesting (and I am guilty of this myself), that we all (or close enough) state that we have not read the book (which is rather difficult now that it is not available), and then state an op..."

It is funny, but also rather scary and troubling. I mean, I know I have often criticised potential book banners when they state that they have not read the book(s) in question, and here I am, happy that Amazon has removed a book, simply because the media has stated that it is a how-to book for pedophiles. On the other hand, if this book is indeed a how-to manual for pedophiles, I don't really want to read the book, either. I still think that if the book was/is indeed a how-to manual for pedophiles, then people were right to be outraged (and it would be a matter of child safety), but it seems more and more that the media and everyone else jumped the gun here, that the book certainly is troubling, but not a manual on how to lure children and/or engage in sexual relationships with children. I still believe that the book was and is problematic and potentially dangerous, but there really is no easy answer here. Also, the power of the media and the speed at which Amazon pulled the book might cause other groups wanting certain books banned or censored to try similar tactics.

message 26: by Monika (new)

Monika (marriedmurder) | 3 comments i agree that based on the description of the book, it is beyond disgusting and it should not be a book anyone would want published...but he does have the right to publish it. it's up to us to read or not read the book, and in fact, by talking about it so much, and making more hype about it, more people are actually going to read the book now...

don't get me wrong, i'd spit in his face (or worse) if i ever met the guy, but he does have the right to publish the book and sell it.

question...if you're opposed to this book-are you also on the committee to remove the naked photographs Lewis Carrol took of children (thank you Rory for posting all of those links)? shouldn't those be removed from existence as well? or are you going to go out and buy Alice's Adventures in Wonderland when there are rumors he was in love with a little girl named Alice-who he wrote the book for- and his relationship with her is questionable? hmmm rumors, rumors....

we live in a double standard society. technically, (as of now) the guy hasn't done anything to a child (that we can prove). based on the book description it is about loving a child, yet not doing anything sexual...granted he seems creepy and wouldn't be allowed 10 miles from my own future children, but he hasn't done anything wrong except write a questionable book.

let's not go down the witch hunt route...

message 27: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) Monika wrote: "don't get me wrong, i'd spit in his face (or worse) if i ever met the guy,"

So, you are against censorship, but for assault?

message 28: by Monika (new)

Monika (marriedmurder) | 3 comments Rory wrote: "Monika wrote: "don't get me wrong, i'd spit in his face (or worse) if i ever met the guy,"

So, you are against censorship, but for assault?"

wow mr. high and mighty. get off your high's not like im ACTUALLY going to meet the guy. it's a figure of speech signifying disgust for the man himself. not his right to write a book or not.

calm down...geeze. have a cookie or something...

message 29: by jb (last edited Nov 17, 2010 11:04AM) (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) I read Our Gardens of Flesh....all I can say is gross. This author (if you want to call him that) in my opinion has no organization or thought process to his book. He kind of just rambles and is disorganized. The book starts off with masturbation and moves on to a variety of other disturbing topics. First, he believes incest is fine and feels there should be no shame to it. He also mentions everyone should be homosexual (he feels this would take love out of the mix?????) (although he used a couple of other terms) and that way everyone could PICK their children based on genetics (a bit Hitler like). He moved on to pedophilia and he does feel it is okay especially if the adult in the "relationship" lets the child call the shots and direct the turns of the relationship (meaning let sex is okay as long as the child is in control). He feels any minor should be able to consent and make choices dealing with sex. He had a "story" written by a person who had sex with an ice cream man. He says the story is written by the boy who had the actually "experience" with the man who paid him to do sexual things (I won't describe them). At then end of the book, there is an excerpt about the author who from age 7 to 15 had oral sex with younger boys age 4 to 11......he also says had an adult come to him, he would have allowed him and taken pleasure (from the adult).

After reading this book, Our Gardens of Flesh, (most of it...there were a few pages missing), I just do not know if I would actually be able to read the pedophilia book. I know what his stance is....he feels any child should be "loved" and by love he does not mean feelings. He is a victim himself (although he will not acknowledge it) and he is also a perpetrator if you go by his excerpt at the end of the book.....having oral sex with minors (even though he was a minor as well).

With all of that being said....I am not so sure this author wanted as much notoriety as he has gotten. He is on the radar now and as such will be the target of investigation. Most pedophiles do not want attention in this form as they want to keep their secret safe. If he is an active predator, this will put a damper on his activity and if he is not active, it will certainly impede any future offenses.

message 30: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) Monika wrote: "Rory wrote: "Monika wrote: "don't get me wrong, i'd spit in his face (or worse) if i ever met the guy,"

So, you are against censorship, but for assault?"

wow mr. high and mighty. get off your hig..."

Okay, you took me a bit too seriously. I wasn't trying to be high and mighty, I was just asking a question to see what you actually believe. The internet is not the best way to recognise when something is meant literally or as a figure of speech.

But good calm rebuttal. I'll have that cookie now.

message 31: by Christine (new)

Christine (christinesey) This is a difficult one because while I find the subject matter repulsive and horrible I still feel he has the right to write/publish the book and anyone that wants to has the right to read it.

Like many books just because I find the content morally objectionable doesn't mean that I have the right to decide if it is published or not. I don't agree with what is written in The Turner Diaries and I don't personally like books such as The Anarchist's Cookbook but that does not mean that I have the right to assign value for everyone. I know these examples do not compare to a "how-to manual" for molesting children (or so I've heard, I have not seen the book) but different kinds of people will find different types of material offensive.

There are lots of books that have been legally "banned" throughout the world and some of them I find to be worthwhile and interesting literature.

I know it is a wikipedia article and that it is not necessarily a great source but it was the best I could find on short notice.

message 32: by Irene (new)

Irene Hollimon | 20 comments pedophile is a hot button word. seems like a good marketing ploy on the part of Amazon. They put the book out there. It gets attention publicity for having the book on the market and then it gets even more attention publicity for pulling the book.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that anything with pedophile in the title is going to spark interest. They could have weeded that out right in the beginning and never put the book out there. But then none of us would be discussing Amazon would we?

message 33: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Nov 24, 2010 06:14AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
I hadn't read this thread yet when I found info about the subject and came here to create a topic on it. I'm out of the loop! The idea I wanted to bring to the metaphorical table is whether there is ever an instance of something being so horrific it justifies being banned. It's a slippery slope, but how slippery when the ideas presented go against the morals of 99.99 percent of the people in the world today? We did agree that it was okay for a government to protect it's secrets.

I don't know the answer. Most of the world thinks homosexuality is morally repugnant and obscene. Of course I don't because I see it doesn't hurt anyone if it's between two consenting adults.

In relation to this book, I agree with those who say that Amazon has the right to carry or not carry any book they want. I also find the topic so offensive my initial reaction was one of horror just due to its title. But we all got up in arms when Amazon changed even the labeling of books on homosexuality.

It makes sense to me that private entities can choose to publish or sell anything legal and that public entities can choose to public or sell anything that is legal and that their shareholders agree is okay to sell. It also makes sense the publishers can choose whether or not to publish something and that even those who make and distribute self-published manuscripts could opt not to do so for something heinous.

But isn't that censorship? Why are we okay with Mein Kampf being published and made available, with the Turner Diaries and other works advocating violence against other races but we're not okay with this? Bigotry knows no chronological age.

In this country children become adults at 18 but in many other cultures children become adults at 13 or when they menstruate or when they complete a walkabout type thing. There were cultures long ago where children were taught sex by adults.

Of course, even if we understood that, in our society where children are raised with the expectation that they are children and to be protected until they are 18, it is beyond wrong.

One thing I have to say about this guy from what jennbunny said about his work (kudos to you for reading it to understand what we're actually talking about!) is that he is reinforcing the stereotype that it's homosexuals who are pedophiles (damn NAMBLA who made that worse) when research shows that most pedophiles are straight men.

I agree with Irene that by making this book an issue, more people are going to try to read it and give this horrible person a platform for his inflammatory rhetoric.

So I don't know what the answer is. My first and last and always inclination is to protect those who can't protect themselves, in this instance children. Pedophilia is one of the worst things I can imagine. Most of the kids I work with have been either sexually abused or witness to inappropriate sexual behavior. And I've always believe everyone's rights end when they infringe on another person's rights, e.g., I'm very pro freedom of religion but don't think anyone should deny their children health care or make gay people accept fewer rights.

Anyway, those are my thoughts right now.

message 34: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
I have to add, that I, too, noticed that this guy was a victim and victims of sexual abuse frequently grow up to be abusers. Even when he was a child he preyed on those younger and presumably less powerful.

But I find this interesting from the Canadian Press article:
"Greaves said he had only sold one book and insisted it doesn't advocate for adults to harm children."

But he claims he doesn't think having sex with children isn't only harming them, right?

Also I'm sure we all know this but the reason we have statutory rape laws is because a child is not capable of consent. They are way to easily manipulated by those who take advantage of their lesser experience and psychological needs like breaking away from their parents or needing approval from adults. The cannot be in power over an adult. This is the whole point of Lolita. So his assertion that it's okay between a consenting child who is in control isn't possible. Any child who knows enough to lead an adult has already been victimized.

message 35: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
OK, sorry, last comment from me tonight.

On the Card2 site advocating for the removal of the book:

'He compares the plight of the pedophiles with the plight of the Jews during World War II and believes that pedophilia is only a crime when it includes action upon sexual impulses toward children. He further describes the book as an "attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles... by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow... I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps lighter sentences should they ever be caught."

When CNN asked on what rules he advises, Greaves answered, "Penetration is out. You can't do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don't think is that big of a problem."'

He's also ignorant. According to the same site he says, "As long as both partners have passed the age or majority, there is no question of pedophilia. So, a ninety-year-old is not a pedophile if its partner is thirteen and they both live in New Mexico."

He is wrong. The age of consent (not the age of majority) in New Mexico is 16. It is only fourth degree rape for engaging in penetration with a child ages 13 to 16. First-degree criminal sexual penetration when an any adults has sexual intercourse with a child less than age 13. Just because the penalty is less doesn't mean it's not still illegal.

See below for statutory rape laws in other states. You need to click on the state name to get the full details.

I hope he doesn't actually do this. If he does I hope he gets caught very very soon.

message 36: by Sam (new)

Sam (ecowitch) | 14 comments I haven't read this supposed how to book and so I have no opinion on it. Surely if it was as bad as the media have made the guy would have been arrested for child endangerment or some such thing.

And another does everyone seem to have missed the fact that the term pedophile basically means a love of children, it doesn't define what type of love that is so it can be platonic, parental etc not necessarily sexual in nature. Not sure if people have made a few assumptions because of the word used.

message 37: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Dec 20, 2010 11:13PM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
The comment in your last sentence (and people have actually already said that above) is patently untrue. I'm glad you brought this up because it's really been irritating me. The derivation of the word is the Greek for "love of children." However that is not the English definition. (None of the definitions that follow have more than one entry so they never say it means what you claim.)

English definitions
American Heritage online dictionary:
NOUN: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

Webster's online dictionary:
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Online Cambridge dictionary:
paedophile noun
UK (US pedophile) /ˈpiː.dəʊ .faɪl//ˈped.oʊ-/ n [C]
a person, especially a man, who is sexually interested in children

MacMillan online dictionary:
paedophilia /ˌpiːdəˈfɪliə/
1. sexual feelings for children in an adult
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
1950–55; pedo-1 + -phile, or directly < Gk paidóphilos loving children

World English Dictionary
paedophile or esp ( US ) pedophile (ˈpiːdəʊˌfaɪl) a person who is sexually attracted to children

Legal definition:

International Law Dictionary:
A person afflicted with "pedophilia", a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

Duhaime's Canadian law dictionary:
An individual who prefers a child as a sexual partner.

I can provide you with more if you want them.

This guy claims that "love for children" is the meaning but he also claims that sex with children is not always bad. In addition, love has many different connotations depending on the context: I love my dog, I love eggplant, I love my husband/wife, I love my children, I love my friends. To differentiate in this context and to take the meaning of that from which this word is derived rather than the dictionary meaning is absurd.

As to your second point, the book is bad enough that the man has been investigated by the police but they could find no proof he did the things he talks about in the books. That doesn't mean much. They need proof to arrest and convict. Even if he outright advocates child rape in the book, or describes it, they still have no proof it's not fictional or written for attention.

message 38: by Sam (new)

Sam (ecowitch) | 14 comments Isn't the change in definition just the result of how the word is used on a day to day basis, since definitions are regularly updated depending on popular use? And isn't it possible that specific words are used in ways that aren't defined in any dictionary (slang is a brilliant example of this)?

And if he has just written it for attention, it certainly seems to be working...

message 39: by jb (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) I know there is the difference in meaning of the word with different versions of dictionaries. AND maybe at one time the word meant love as in affection and caring for, but I can tell you, that is NOT the author's meaning or intention of the word love in his books. Like I said, I only read Our Gardens of Flesh and he did not mean affection and caring....he meant sex.

message 40: by Taneka (new)

Taneka (ninatravis) | 15 comments I would like to read it just to know what to look out for. I think that putting your head in the sand and waiting for it to go away, causes more harm. As a child I was touched by a Deacon at the church and this same man impregnated a young girl in the church. Pedophiles linger everywhere. At church, in schools, across the street. As a parent, you need something to give you an indication of what to look for. Just because a person is nice and "GOD" fearing, doesn't mean that they don't have skeletons in their closet.

But I am sure that I would have a hard time getting through the first page. Although I want the heads up to know how to better protect my young ones, I can't imagine myself reading about such conduct in a book. Knowing all the gory details will definitely make me sick.

message 41: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) I agree Taneka. They should be metaphorically dissected so we know how and what makes them tick. Analysis should hopefully lead to prevention as well as harm reduction. At least that's the model that seems the most effective in every other field.

message 42: by jb (new)

jb Byrkit (jbbyrkit) Author of pedophilia guide to face charges in Florida

I live in Florida and I checked the news today and found this story. I actually live one county over in Pasco County.

message 43: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Dec 20, 2010 11:20PM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
Sam wrote: "Isn't the change in definition just the result of how the word is used on a day to day basis, since definitions are regularly updated depending on popular use? And isn't it possible that specific ..."

That's my point: it never changed. The word was coined to mean a child molester. They used Greek words that kind of fit because that's what psychologists and scientists do. The meaning of the word never changed. It wasn't a word in Greek, it was created by melding two Greek words together.

Jennbunny, I saw that, too. In the article I read, the book was said to have specific depictions of child molestation from the child's point of view. That's why it's labelled obscenity. It definitely is stirring up some new ethical questions.

message 44: by Brenda (new)

Brenda  (readingfan654) | 3 comments i just banned Borderline its horrible

message 45: by Mawgojzeta (last edited Dec 21, 2010 01:24PM) (new)

Mawgojzeta Phillip Ray Greaves II has just been arrested:

** after posting this I realized (message 42)jennbunny already had posted a link.

message 46: by Heidi (new)

Heidi (tender_creedish) I can't bring myself to read all of the horrible things people have to say about this topic... yet. I hope to get there, but I've had the same discussion over and over again in recent weeks, so you'll excuse me.

Pedophilia may not be in vogue right now... to the extent that it has become considered a mental illness in recent decades... The fact that non-pedophiliac people are advocating pain/imprisonment/and worse for people with a MENTAL ILLNESS, makes me sick! Yes, it's semantics... I'm arguing them and will continue to do so for as long as I am able. You have GOT to stop lumping pedophiles with criminals! Let me put it simply - people do not go to jail for being pedophiles, pedophiles go to jail for committing crimes (however antiquated the law may or may not be).

Second, let's get our facts straight. Children DO survive sexual abuse! And more often than not, with no lasting affects/"issues". Think about it... where are the +80,000/year people in the US who have "suffered" from child sexual abuse? Where are they right now? They are living their lives to the best of their ability, in and among society.... EXACTLY AS YOU AND I ARE DOING! Child sexual abuse has been sensationalized over the years by the likes of Enquire Magazine and (what's the name of that vomitious TV show?) Lifetime, as well as the various "Societies" and "Academy’s for" - and if you are going to be disgusted by the act of pedophilia, you should be pissed about the fact that such organizations PROFIT from child sexual abuse!

As for the “book”… had the joke-of-a-media not picked up on the “story”, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere. One person bought the stupid thing prior to all the attention. It would have died a lonely old man, with its author as its only companion. Therefore, I blame those who buy into the sensation of having an opinion about how terrible pedophiles are and rant hate-speech while the actual victims, just ….. live.

message 47: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod

People aren't arrested and imprisoned for "being" pedophiles. They are arrested for committing crimes. That's why this guy wasn't arrested at first, they couldn't prove he did anything wrong and he was a self-proclaimed pedophile. He has been arrested now because he sent allegedly child pornography through the US mail. However, my guess is that he will be acquitted both because of entrapment and also because they will have a hard time proving it was actual child pornography.

As for "surviving" child sexual abuse, you have got to be kidding me. I can tell you right now that children may physically live but the damage inside is irreparable. I am a therapeutic foster parent and almost all the children I work with have been sexually abused. They may look fine on the outside but their huge psychological problems, their acting out, doing drugs, running away, all stem from the abuse they suffered in childhood, be it sexual or otherwise. Those abuse experiences stay with them the rest of their lives as has been proven by studies and real-life experiences of organizations working with these children.

These children are being *raped* when they are the victims of sexual abuse. Adults who are raped once often have a hard time getting over it. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are almost always victims repeatedly. The perpetrator is usually someone they know and trust, a parent, a clergy person, a babysitter, a relative. They are children, not developed adults who can put the abuse in perspective with a supportive family.

These children often grow up to be predators themselves. They have abnormal relationships, they have difficulty with commitment, attachment, and normal relationships. They may be "living their lives" as you put it, but it is only on the surface. These scars effect their everyday lives even if they don't think about it.

Those organizations exist to help educate and prevent child sexual abuse. They are nonprofits and do not "profit" from child sexual abuse. Perhaps you are speaking from personal experience, but if so, you are very much in the minority. I was very minorly sexually abused as a child, nothing like what happens to the kids I work with. I hardly ever think about it but every once in awhile it sneaks up on me. I've dealt with it, and really don't "have a problem" with it, but I am morbidly obese and started gaining weight shortly after the abuse happened. My weight is clearly a protection mechanism. There have been other factors, too, but that was a huge part of why I am overweight and never had healthy romantic relationships.

As for the media, yes they sensationalized it, but if they hadn't brought it to Amazon's attention, it might still be out there, bought up by pedophiles trying to justify their actions.

message 48: by Christine (new)

Christine (christinesey) Kelly, you did a wonderful job articulating, nicely I might add, everything that I couldn't say.

I can't add anything without being disrespectful and mean, so I'm just going to thank you for your excellent response to Heidi's post.

message 49: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 485 comments Christine wrote: "Kelly, you did a wonderful job articulating, nicely I might add, everything that I couldn't say.

I can't add anything without being disrespectful and mean, so I'm just going to thank you for your ..."

I second that, my feelings exactly.

message 50: by Rory (new)

Rory (rdbrew) I'd just like to say that it is good that there is a place where adults are talking about these extreme issues openly and in-depth. And without being ostracised. We need to always keep looking closely at everything, and especially issues that have an emotional reaction as strongly as this issue does.

« previous 1
back to top