Before You Buy Anything Else From Amazon, Read This...

[JOZeldenrust]

Amazon defends 'Pedophile's Guide'

NEW YORK — Amazon is selling a self-published book defending pedophiles, sparking discussions about the retailer's obligation to vet items before they are sold in its online stores, and threats of boycott from Amazon customers if the book is not removed.

The book, " The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct" by Philip R. Greaves II, offers advice to pedophiles afraid of becoming the center of retaliation. It is an electronic book available for Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle e-reader.

Rest of article at the link above.

Advise for pedophiles to avoid nasty repercussions? Don't engage in sexual activities with minors. Pedophiles can't help being sexually attracted to children, but they can refrain from abusing them.

[lordpasternack]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

[Rum]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.

[maiforpeace]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.

Yes, I too am not understanding exactly what you mean LP. Are you saying that in some cases paedophilia that has been acted upon may not be abusive? Since it is a psychiatric disorder, wouldn't it at a minimum be abusive to the paedophile themselves?

[devogue]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.

Yes, I too am not understanding exactly what you mean LP. Are you saying that in some cases paedophilia that has been acted upon may not be abusive? Since it is a psychiatric disorder, wouldn't it at minimum be abusive to the paedophile themselves?

But is paedophilia a psychiatric disorder any more than homosexuality is a psychiatric "disorder"? I think that sexuality is a bit like the autistic spectrum but because homosexuality (for instance) is seen as a benign form of sexuality society at large quite rightly agrees that it is not a disorder but a positive facet of human nature.

Uncomfortable as it sounds, I think that paedophilia is also a facet of human nature, albeit a negative one, and as such it is as impossible to dispel from the individual as homosexuality (or, indeed, heterosexuality). In other words, it's not the person's "fault" that they are a paedophile - they are bound by their natural inclination. I would imagine, and perhaps someone could confirm or deny this, that counselling for convicted paedophiles does not involve surpressing their inate sexuality, but containing the desire to act on their urges.

[Rum]

I tend to agree with Dev. It is certainly not a mental 'illness'. It may be a disorder in the statistical sense, but it may well be an unalterable part of a person's sexuality. Certainly the persistence and serial nature of paedophilia, even those who have had several prison sentences seem unable to break the compulsion - would indicate that.

[maiforpeace]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.

Yes, I too am not understanding exactly what you mean LP. Are you saying that in some cases paedophilia that has been acted upon may not be abusive? Since it is a psychiatric disorder, wouldn't it at minimum be abusive to the paedophile themselves?

But is paedophilia a psychiatric disorder any more than homosexuality is a psychiatric "disorder"? I think that sexuality is a bit like the autistic spectrum but because homosexuality (for instance) is seen as a benign form of sexuality society at large quite rightly agrees that it is not a disorder but a positive facet of human nature.

Uncomfortable as it sounds, I think that paedophilia is also a facet of human nature, albeit a negative one, and as such it is as impossible to dispel from the individual as homosexuality (or, indeed, heterosexuality). In other words, it's not the person's "fault" that they are a paedophile - they are bound by their natural inclination. I would imagine, and perhaps someone could confirm or deny this, that counselling for convicted paedophiles does not involve surpressing their inate sexuality, but containing the desire to act on their urges.

I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm just going with what I read on Wiki...technically, pedophilia (I'm going with the US spelling now ) is considered a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I recognize that pedophiles suffer tremendously - whether or not they act upon their urges.

[devogue]

technically, pedophilia (I'm going with the US spelling now ) is considered a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is not.

I find that to be astonishing. Of course, I know bugger all about psychology so I'm just throwing this out there, but my feeling is that sexual urges are not wired to sexual morality. Frankly, a man shagging another man is as sexually pointless and fruitless (from a reproductive point of view) as a man having sex with a minor - it seems strange that one is seen as being a psychiatric disorder while the other isn't.

[lordpasternack]

I'm saying that purely for the sake of argument, sexual interactions between a minor and an adult needn't be qualitatively abusive per se in how they are committed. Saying that paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and therefore abusive per se to the perpetrator at least, is no more of an argument than it would have been when homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder. I'm not saying these are equivalent scenarios for the record, but just highlighting how saying "it's in the DSM, ergo my argument follows thus" is a pretty weak flow of argument.

As to the idea of power, and the imbalance of it making scenarios at least seriously iffy if not abusive through the most objective, impartial of eyes - what is it about sex in particular that causes these particular strong qualms? There are numerous ways in which adults may use children to gratify them in benign ways, or for mutual gratification, if you will; times even when adults flagrantly take advantage of the naivety of kids to get them to do certain things. Are such things just wrong per se, or just with particular respect to sexual activities? And how do you rationalise that?

Also, earlier in the thread I wrote a longish post in which I mentioned a brief fling I had with a 13yo boy when I was 10. As I said, it isn't a gaping age difference, and we were both legally minors - but it was an age difference that was significant enough at the time that he was pubescent and I simply wasn't. I had actually JUST turned 10, for more context. I don't know how far he was from turning 14. I think it's safe to say that he had a bit of an upper hand in power there. Would you deem that be abusive, or at least iffy, by default? As I've stated, I never felt, and still don't feel I was abused…

I should also add that I'm arguing mainly speculatively and a bit devil's advocate here - with a view to reaching a rationally consistent and defensible viewpoint on this topic in general for myself, and I suppose for those who also weigh in on the discussion. It isn't enough for me just to accept popular taboo sometimes. I really need to analyse and cross-examine things to hell.

[Cunt]

If Amazon stopped selling porn, would you all be outraged? What if they only stopped selling certain types of porn?

This flap is simply because the word 'pedophile' gets people excited, and makes many feel that they have license to stop being civilized.

[charlou]

I haven't seen anything uncivilised in this discussion, Cunt.

[BrettA]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

I am not sure we have any disagreement here, but for me it is about who holds the 'power'. Even if a child agreed to go along with the sexual requests of the paedophile in question and there was no aggression or violence and they found it pleasurable (and many do, which is where emotional confusion often arises later on), the point is that the child should not be subjected to and used for the sexual gratification of an adult - period. They are not equipped to make informed decisions goes the argument.

Yes, I too am not understanding exactly what you mean LP. Are you saying that in some cases paedophilia that has been acted upon may not be abusive? Since it is a psychiatric disorder, wouldn't it at a minimum be abusive to the paedophile themselves?

The issue I have with the "They are not equipped..." argument is that the age specification is somewhat arbitrary and as far as I know, varying from place to place. Since humanity doesn't go "not being equipped to make informed decisions" to "being equipped" uniformly or based on a birthday, I can see at least from my perspective that I'm almost positive I'd not consider to have been abused if the "right" adult had initiated sexual advances on me at say, 13 (and I have more than a couple of girls or young-ish women from that period of my life in mind).

I'm not sure if LP had this scenario in mind, but that's my personal take. I'll also note that I've known several guys who did experience this and all were profusely thankful for the experience and others like me who simply like the idea of this as sexual introduction but never experienced it. I know we have to have laws to protect abuse (and I fully agree with the protection), but I wish there was a way that these experiences could occur to the eager, willing and comfortable-for-life people (perhaps partly based on whether they had physically matured).

[Warren Dew]

I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm just going with what I read on Wiki...technically, pedophilia (I'm going with the US spelling now ) is considered a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is not.

That's because homosexuality has become more socially acceptable while pedophilia has not. Prior to 1973, homosexuality was also considered a psychiatric disorder. Whether a personality trait is considered a psychiatric disorder is more a function of society's prevailing opinions than of the individuals who have the trait.

[JOZeldenrust]

The above does beg the question of whether said sexual activities are always automatically abusive, per se - and this is one of the arguing points that certain paedophiles will continue to raise, and thus far be quite entitled to raise - since hypothetically, the activity could be seen to be benign to any impartial observers.

Yeah, it could be benign, but the risk of harm is just too great. Just like driving drunk might not get anyone killed, but the risk is just too great to allow poeple to take it.

[GreyICE]

technically, pedophilia (I'm going with the US spelling now ) is considered a psychiatric disorder, homosexuality is not.

I find that to be astonishing. Of course, I know bugger all about psychology so I'm just throwing this out there, but my feeling is that sexual urges are not wired to sexual morality. Frankly, a man shagging another man is as sexually pointless and fruitless (from a reproductive point of view) as a man having sex with a minor - it seems strange that one is seen as being a psychiatric disorder while the other isn't.

From a reproductive point of view, swing dancing and basketball are both pointless activities. So is Michael Jackson's little Neverland nonsense.

One of them is recreation people do to bond with eachother, have fun, and form companionship. One is a neurotic activity.

Having a desire to form a companionship and relationship with other people, regardless of gender, is human nature. That some people have that wired into their sexuality is a natural occurrence. Having a desire to have sex with someone who is so much your developmental inferior is just fucked up. Period. There is no fucking comparison between the two. Frankly, it seems closer to necrophilia than anything else - there's the act without the least possibility of a true emotional connection. It's just completely messed up.