I can't believe Amazon.com is selling this trash.

by JeffT 71 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • m0nk3y

    The current laws about it are really silly as far as I can see. They really need to be simplified. I completely agree with you Yerusalyim.

    In Western Australia the age of consent is 16, personally I think that is way to young for kids to be having sexual relations .. they just aren't emtionally or mentally ready for that resposability. I think it should be 18 as well Yerusalyim. Although I know everyone will have sex when they want, god knows I did

    Getting back on the topic though I don't think there is anything wrong with Amazon selling this book. There are alot of things sold on Amazon.com that I don't personally agree with but it's all about freedom.


  • closer2fine
  • czarofmischief

    I think we might as well admit that this idea terrifies us. After all, homosexuality was formerly unacceptable and then became acceptable, and I'm terrified of pedophilia becoming accepted in society the same way.

    YES I KNOW THE TWO AREN"T RELATED, I was just using it as an example of how ideas can change.

    After all, pedophilia was accepted in Greek and Roman times - treated as normal, even laudable. It's disgusting and frightening to think that this idea could become accepted, and how do we fight it? By banning books? Probably not. By boycotting markets? maybe not.

    Killing pedophiles? Fun, but not really effective.


  • Abaddon

    Well it seems everyone agrees that sex with minors is bad. Minors are minors, and are deemed, quite rightly, not to be capable of informed consent.

    For those that disagree with Amazon selling that books, are you;

    1. Against Amazon selling that book, or
    2. Against someone publishing that book, or
    3. Against someone writing that book, or
    4. Against someone having the thoughts that lead to the writing of that book?

    Now, Amazon, and let us be quite clear about this, are NOT BREAKING THE LAW. If you don't like the law, please refer to your local politicians. Likewise, the publication of that book, is, again, NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Similarly, you will find that writing that book is NOT AGAINST THE LAW, and that having the thoughts that lead to writing that book, is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

    Now, we may all agree on the reprehensibility of sexual activity of adults with minors, but, if this is the fact, how come thinking/writing/publishing/selling such things is not against the law?

    Obviously legislating against certain mental activity, although attempted by various religious and political organisations (Orwell's 1984 discusses this quite well) is rather difficult to enforce. So, even if we don't like it, people have the privacy of their thoughts, even if they are what we would commonly refer to as 'sick'.

    As regards the freedom of speech, if there is one thing that the first amendment has done time and time again it is to resist every attempt to define limitations of freedom. This is essentially because freedom either is, or isn't. If God tried to get the freewill/no eating from tree of knowledge trick through the Supreme Court, he'd be laughed at, as time and time against (sometimes overturning itself) the Supreme Court has realised that saying you have freedom and then describing limits means... YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM.

    Now, you can lobby your politicians to change these laws, but to do so entails the risk that someone will decide something YOU do should be controlled, and BANG!, the next thing you know you have Hustler banned whilst Soldier of Fortune carries on being sold, which is pretty mixed-up really.

    As it is legal to think and write this, it is also legal to publish and sell. Now, you can punish the companies involved if some of the things they make or sell offend you by withdrawing custom. But they are complying with the law, whether you like it or not, and changing the law makes a mockery of the concept behind the law.

    Then of course, we have the hypocracy. The Sun; isn't it great how the Sun, which not too long ago would happily have had topless 16-year-old girls on page 3, suddenly has a thing about the sexuality of minors being in need of protection? This is a newspaper from the end of the sewer where the amount of time spent lingering over the details of a sex crime is absolutely purient.

    As for the two 14-year olds Yeru, they are being criminally prosecuted for attemoting to have sex with each other. I don't know how that is meant to help them; if you read the newspaper accounts BAD PARENTING is what screams out at you; the boy was on bail until his dad 'phoned the authorities and said he wouldn't follow rules, and is now in jail. The girl is virtually never home at night. I know who I'd lock up.

  • Abaddon

    Yeru: in correct usage paedophile (pedophile is also a valid spelling) applies to people attracted to pre-pubescent children (up to and including age 12). Hebephile is the term used to describe people attracted to pubescent and postpubescent minors (13-age of consent).

    Obviously it's a bit of a wooly definiton; puberty comes when it bloody well wants, no matter what age a child is, and in some countries the age of consent is 14, in other 18, in most, 16. Looking at the imagary associated with young women in the media, half the males in the Western world are hebephiles.


    YES I KNOW THE TWO AREN"T RELATED, I was just using it as an example of how ideas can change.

    An example using two things that you yourself accept are not related is commonly refered to as a BAD example.

    I am getting increasingly annoyed with this lack of comprehension people have; comparing consensual sex between two adults with a crime is just pure ignorance.

    After all, pedophilia was accepted in Greek and Roman times - treated as normal, even laudable.

    Wrong. The age when someone was considered an adult was lower, but having grown up in a society where this was the case, being married off in a girl's early teens was what she was raised to do. You cannot compare this with a modern girl being forced or lured into sex before she is at an age where THIS society expects a person to be ready for such things. I think you're getting the idealised homoerotic relationships the Greeks were famous for, which were not paedophilic in nature but a cultural insititution we find distatseful today. What would today be hebephilia and sexual assault was normal attraction in that society, and as with the above example concerning girls, cannot be compared to a priest seducing or raping chior boys.

    By your use of 21st C definitons, God was a hebephile who sexually assaulted the Virgin Mary, as she was likelt between 12 and 14 when she had Jesus (unless that bit is made up too).

  • Yerusalyim

    I view Amazon as a medium, similar to the phone company. I don't believe they are any more morally culpable for any influence this book may have than the phone company is for having internet porn sites carried over their lines.

    Ummm, would you say that if they were carrying kiddie porn sites?

    There's a difference....generally speaking all the books they sale are selected.

  • funkyderek
    The Communist Manifesto, which I own and have read...is an economic/political thesis, not a manual that glorifies molesting children...BIG Difference. While communism as proclaimed in the CM is a failed economic theory, it is not by it's very nature evil.

    No matter, Amazon also stocks Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, The Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey, Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman, 120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade, The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell (interestingly even the author doesn't agree with this being sold) etc. Surely you find at least one of those books worse than the one over which you're boycotting Amazon. You'll find these books in most large bookstores. Are you going to boycott them all?

    I take it from your comments then, that you approve of the sale of a book that promotes pedophilia?

    Absolutely. That doesn't mean I approve of pedophilia, though as I'm sure you realise.

    I don't dispute Amazon's "right" to carry this book...why dispute my "right" to boycott them.

    I'm not. I would defend your right to withhold your custom from any business you choose for any reason, just as strongly as I would defend Amazon's right to sell books that contain ideas I find repugnant.

    Like I said...will my not doing business with them hurt their bottom line? No, but principle is prinicple.

    Fair enough. I'm just not sure what the principle is here, exactly.

    Personally, I would be more likely to boycott Amazon if they stopped selling these books, although I would also defend their right to do that.

  • JeffT

    All this back and forth about free speech is missing the point. This book is advocating making the abuse of young children legal. Look back at the line about they think the age of consent should be 4!!!

    Yeah, there's one way to solve the pedophile problem. We'll just make it legal for an elder to assault twelve year old girls in the back of the kingdom hall.

  • Cassiline
    All this back and forth about free speech is missing the point. This book is advocating making the abuse of young children. Look back at the line about they think the age of consent should be 4!!!



    I have to agree with you 100 percent. Free speech and a free way to advertise you’re criminal, inhumane and deviant behaviors in hopes of finding those who may sympathize with these malicious acts is despicable IMO. Pedophilia 101 is what this book entails. And it sickens me to no end.

    Suppression of “free speech” and the natural instinct to protect future generations from those who prey on babies for sex is IMO two different world’s altogether. Those who wish to have free speech in this form please visit NAMBLA and read their comments about how they would seduce YOUR child and rape and torment them so they will never be the same innocent child you once knew.

    Until you have one of these predators ruin and rape your peace of mind and that of your baby’s for the rest of their and your life, I doubt one may have a grasp on how much this crime affects those who are stalked by these revolting people. Here in this book they learn the aspects of how to rape and learn tactics on assuring it is accepted in society by the publication of books such as the one Amazon sells.

    I ask you to read more or speak to those who have experienced this first hand. Then ask yourself if you would still back the same "free speech" or perhaps there are or should be limits on criminal behavior.

    Are some of my comments based on emotion rather then reason. Yes.


  • rem

    Who here has actually read this book? I keep hearing that it's some sort of instruction manual for pedophiles. Is there any factual basis for this assertion? From what I've heard it's a pseudoscientific tome that attempts to rationalize pedophile behavior. How better to fight pseudoscience than with real science?

    Do I wish that pseudoscientific 'research' (of all types) would not exist? Of course! But this is the real world. It does exist, and banning books is not the answer. Well reasoned, scientific rebuttals are the answer. Otherwise you just end up looking like a fanatic, which gives the pseudoscientific 'reasearchers' undue credibility.


Share this