Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vegeta897 said:
People will attack even the safest and most harmless expressions of pedophilia
Click to expand...

Not to come along and just pump the room full of shit or anything... but that statement alone... no matter what the context... is something you would never want to tie to your name.

I mean the sexual attraction of an adult to a child in and of itself isn't really a crime in itself. Depending on the severity it's basically a mental illness. And of course by severity I mean the age of the child to which the individual is attracted. If it's a child that hasn't even gone through puberty then it is truly an issue of mental illness. If it is a post-pubescent child, then of course it's a matter of what one considers the age of consent would be. If you're 20 and you're attracted to a 17 year old, personally I don't think that is pedophilia, but since 17 is by definition a "child" then it is considered that.

The issue here is that this book is clearly referencing people under the age of 13 which is generally pre-pubescent and thus the pedophilia described here is in tune with mental illness. Adults should not be sexually attracted to those that cannot really have sex.

Now what you're describing as safe and harmless expressions is similar to what I mentioned before with an individual that might be considered a child in one place and time but not in another... adding a layer of subjectivity to an issue of morality - which is - if you've studied any Ethics... a bad thing. Of course at the end of the day this book is clearly not about this and pedophilia no matter what the situation will not be morally acceptable. If something is against the law it's how the majority of society which created the law feels about it. If people in the US believed that at 13 an individual possessed the cognitive capacity to consent to sex then maybe it would be 13 and this book would fall into the cracks of oblivion, but that's not the case. It's saying "this is how I as an adult would have sex with a pre-pubescent child."

I think you're just missing the point when I look at your comparisons.... leaving out the entire aspect of what people see as "bad" and "really ****ing bad." Murder is something that happens all the time. It's state sanctioned in situations. There are situations where it's actually celebrated. In the American society things like rape and pedophilia fall well beneat murder on the "Bad scale." It makes sense if you look at it subjectively like everyone in the world does. The secret of philosophy, ethics, and morality is that deep down every single aspect of it is subjective. Just don't tell a philosopher that.
 
A lot of what you're saying could be applied to homosexuality.

"If it's a child that hasn't even gone through puberty then it is truly an issue of mental illness."

Why? Because they haven't reached sexual maturity and are not ready to bear children?

Well, two guys can't make a baby either. So is being gay a mental illness? Just because it's abnormal, and people don't accept it, and it's a sexual act that isn't for reproduction?

And I realize consensual gay sex is not the same thing as sex with a child, because a child is not able to give real consent because they don't know any better.

But the real way in which people who do this are ****ed up is their sense of right and wrong, not their attraction to children. Like you said being a pedophile isn't a crime. But abusing a child is. Someone who is willing to abuse a child just to act out on their fantasy is more than a pedophile. They are mentally ill because of what they would do to a child, not because they are attracted to the child.

If a gay man raped another man, you wouldn't blame the gayness. You'd blame him for committing the wrongful act of rape. For not knowing to keep fantasy and reality separate. You wouldn't say "put that ****** in jail" you'd say "put that rapist in jail"
 
Vegeta897 said:
A lot of what you're saying could be applied to homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I know, I was aware of that while typing it. But it's a matter of subjectivity. You can't possibly in any amount of effort try to see it objectively because that's not how rules are made. In reality - from an objective standpoint - homosexuality is a mental illness. It's an individual that was born in an unchangable way that is not in line with the nature of humans. If someone was born sexually attracted to peanuts, it would be considered a mental illness. The difference is that subjectively, two adult men or women can be consentually attracted without the majority saying "This is illegal because they both are doing things outside of the natural order." They're both aware of what they are doing and the result, while not the standard of human nature, is socially acceptable because of how the majority views it.

Of course in another time and place, homosexually was not allowed because it that particular society didn't allow it.

So in conclusion, what we have here is a matter of subjectivity within societies. You're allowed to disagree with the majority, a lot of people do it everyday, but it's not going to change the fact that illegal things are illegal.
 
I don't remember saying anything about having a problem with anything being illegal. I agree with the laws and moral consensus of society regarding sex with children. But writing a book about it? Other than disturbing people (which it wouldn't have if people didn't freak out about everything and have a fetish for spreading stuff like this all over the internet) I don't think anything is wrong with it and Amazon shouldn't censor itself by choosing not to sell some books because some people find it in bad taste.

I mean hell, Amazon sells Trevor Brown books and lots of other things that some would call illustrated child porn.
 
Well in this specific situation it's less about legality and more about right and wrong. Society says pedophilia is wrong. It says rape is wrong. If you create a resource by which to make people better at these things, people will say you're wrong. Is it legal and protected by free speech? Sure. Is it in really really bad taste (aka offensive to a lot of people)? Yep. No while it's legal for it to exist and be sold by Amazon, why would Amazon want to associate itself as providing a resource to improve the abilities of those who wish to do something that is pretty much universally hated in our society? It's poor judgment at the ground, outside of the fact that it's just a bad idea for it to exist. It's just like the Qaran burning by that crazy religious group. It was protected by free speech but it was a really really bad call because absolutely no progress or good came of it. This book does not bring progress or good. Best case scenario people read it and keep their children out of such situations. Sounds ok, but worst case scenario, someone who fantasized about pedophilia reads this and executes an illegal sexual act. Personally I'd rather avoid even a single instance of worst case scenario and rely on parents to protect their children using their best judgment and avoid increasing the odds of a person being better at a bad thing.
 
StarBob said:
homosexuality is a mental illness. It's an individual that was born in an unchangable way that is not in line with the nature of humans.
Click to expand...
Not to derail the thread but

you are ****ing wrong and know nothing about humans or the animal kingdom
 
Wrong. He is a bear. And therefore, can eat you if you disagree.
 
StarBob said:
I know, I was aware of that while typing it. But it's a matter of subjectivity. You can't possibly in any amount of effort try to see it objectively because that's not how rules are made. In reality - from an objective standpoint - homosexuality is a mental illness. It's an individual that was born in an unchangable way that is not in line with the nature of humans. If someone was born sexually attracted to peanuts, it would be considered a mental illness. The difference is that subjectively, two adult men or women can be consentually attracted without the majority saying "This is illegal because they both are doing things outside of the natural order." They're both aware of what they are doing and the result, while not the standard of human nature, is socially acceptable because of how the majority views it.

Of course in another time and place, homosexually was not allowed because it that particular society didn't allow it.

So in conclusion, what we have here is a matter of subjectivity within societies. You're allowed to disagree with the majority, a lot of people do it everyday, but it's not going to change the fact that illegal things are illegal.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality was not against the law before there were laws, and I'm pretty sure it was legal before it was illegal, once laws came into the picture.

And I'm not convinced it's a mental illness.

I say this all the time: humans don't like diversity (things that are different from the norm), but life thrives on it. If it wasn't helpful for the survival of a species, homosexuality and pedophilia wouldn't exist. It would have been lost in billions of years of evolution.

Other animals (besides humans) often exhibit homosexual behavior. And people say it's worthless because it doesn't procreate, but that's not the 'be all, end all' on survival of a species. Maybe the two homosexual rabbits end up helping each other survive. Maybe sexual pleasure gives the rabbit something to want to live for, to fight that much harder to try to survive. Maybe the company of the other homosexual rabbit helps to keep the rabbit warm in the winter. Maybe one of the other rabbits will bear children with a member of the opposite sex.
 
Viperidae said:
Not to derail the thread but

you are ****ing wrong and know nothing about humans or the animal kingdom
Click to expand...

I didn't know that homosexuality was something practiced regularly in the animal kingdom. Enlighten me if you have the facts. Don't spout off to me a bunch of things that you believe either because that's not going to do anything.

From everything I've learned in biology and basic psychology, sexual desire is a very basic principle in the brain of any organism. It was developed initially as a way to diversify gene pools and strengthen the species (the offspring). Homosexuality has been well established as a trait that an individual is born with, right? It is not possible for this sexual desire (read emotional attraction, etc, as far as you want to take it) for this to diversify a gene pool or even create offspring. Mental illness probably wasn't the best term but it was a direct reference. The better term I guess would be... mental diversification? By the way I'm aware there are animals outside of humans that practice homosexuality, but it does not mean it is something beyond the brain not accurately processing the desire to procreate with a strong genetic match. But like I said, I'm listening.
 
Vegeta897 said:
They are mentally ill because of what they would do to a child, not because they are attracted to the child.
Click to expand...
10/10
VirusType2 said:
Maybe the two homosexual rabbits end up helping each other survive. Maybe sexual pleasure gives the rabbit something to want to live for, to fight that much harder to try to survive. Maybe the company of the other homosexual rabbit helps to keep the rabbit warm in the winter. Maybe one of the other rabbits will bear children with a member of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Um so if you're around later we should probably IM
 
So I read through that... seems conclusive that it's not a universal thing and my more accurate description (as I mentioned earlier) of "mental diversification" seems accurate.

I'd conclude from the various activities animals exhibit of a homosexual nature that it occurs for a variety of reasons for different species. I think that for some reason people are getting the idea that I'm being homophobic because I used the term "mental illness" incorrectly (even though it has more stigma than it deserves considering its broad definition) instead of the term I coined that seems to more accurately describe it. The main issue here is that each of these species perform these mating acts on same sex for so many different reasons, I don't see how any could be accurately compared to human sexuality. All this shows me is that is quite commonplace - which I said before.

The point of all of this before my statement was dissected and taken into various worlds of context is that both pedophilia and homosexuality are products of a mental state different from the majority of humans. That was the only comparison I made between the two. Pedophelia is not accepted in any form in America. Homosexuality is in a somewhat limited way (obviously). It may have been a stretch to say homosexuality is not natural in humans, but it is not common which is a matter back in the range of the subjectivity monster. Even the most natural and unchangable things in humanity are subject to scrutiny in any society. 150 years ago if you were born with a dark skin color in America you were automatically designated a lesser individual by the majority. It's a natural thing. If you were born with a mental handicap in Germany during Hitler's reign, you'd be killed because that was acceptable for the Nazi party. Pedophiles don't just suddenly choose to become such. It's part of the way their mind works. They're attracted to children. We all agree it's bad because we as a society believe that is how it should go, but at various points in history, pedophilia was accepted just as any relationship would be today.

Do we all understand this? Just because you have an innate mental of physical difference from the majority doesn't mean that you are "bad" or "unnatural" but it does mean that there's a chance you will be scrutinized under the subjectivity of your environment.

NOW TO BRING THIS FULL CIRCLE!

This book is hated by our society because in our culture we see pedophilia as some of the worst of the worst in crimes. That is why it is in poor taste for Amazon to sell it.

Now can we all move on since that covers all of the issues with my original statement?
 
StarBob said:
It may have been a stretch to say homosexuality is not natural in humans, but it is not common
Click to expand...
Haven't finished reading, but stop right there.

brazilgaypridecelebrati.jpg


3 million march in world's largest gay pride parade in Sao Paulo, Brazil

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/...-largest-gay-pride-parade-in-sao-paulo-brazil


EDIT: I don't really disagree with what you are saying though.
 
StarBob said:
From everything I've learned in biology and basic psychology, sexual desire is a very basic principle in the brain of any organism. It was developed initially as a way to diversify gene pools and strengthen the species (the offspring). Homosexuality has been well established as a trait that an individual is born with, right? It is not possible for this sexual desire (read emotional attraction, etc, as far as you want to take it) for this to diversify a gene pool or even create offspring. Mental illness probably wasn't the best term but it was a direct reference. The better term I guess would be... mental diversification? By the way I'm aware there are animals outside of humans that practice homosexuality, but it does not mean it is something beyond the brain not accurately processing the desire to procreate with a strong genetic match. But like I said, I'm listening.
Click to expand...
You have to consider the fact that sexual desire is directed towards interpreted stimuli - how the mate looks, smells, sounds, and so forth - not towards types of objects that we've classified in the cultural consciousness. If you're straight, you're not attracted to "women", you're (presumably) attracted to things that evoke the image or essence of the things your Y-chromosomed ancestors procreated with, which just so happen to be females who mostly have the exaggerated sexual features that humans in general do. And if you're gay, the converse is true.

This raises the question of "If gays only mated with the same sex, how can they reproduce?" The answer to that is twofold. One, sexual preference is fluid, given that it's based on interpretive stimuli. It's subject to errors of interpretation and missing information, and so always leaves room for one's gender to be mistaken. And two, the neocortex (the "mammal brain" that supports what we know as conscious thought) can suppress every single one of your instincts in favour of what your mind decides is a more important goal. For example, if you've got an essay to do, and you're hungry, you could do the essay and not eat for those six hours if you wanted to. The same goes for sexual instincts. If you want to, you can turn yourself off of what would otherwise be an incredibly sexy situation simply by thinking of something gross. And you can choose to do this. You can make yourself learn to enjoy almost anything (see: stockholm syndrome). So it follows that if society demands it, and you're gay, you could still manage to impregnate a woman and pass on your homosexual genes.
 
VirusType2 said:
Haven't finished reading, but stop right there.

brazilgaypridecelebrati.jpg


3 million march in world's largest gay pride parade in Sao Paulo, Brazil

http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/...-largest-gay-pride-parade-in-sao-paulo-brazil


EDIT: I don't really disagree with what you are saying though.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't disagree, don't take it out of context before you read it all. And that's only 0.05% of the world's population (roughly). I don't know this to be true, but the only percentage I've ever heard of homosexuality in humans was between 5 and 10 percent. When I say "not common" I don't mean "scarce." I mean not common. Not common is all it takes for a society to be able to control a group. If there are more non-somethings then there are somethings, the non-somethings make the rules. Often the non-somethings and the somethings agree. Like - to cite a previous example - black people and non black people agreed that slavery was wrong and it no longer exists.

Anyways none of that negates the point I made in my last post. It's just a product of how people feel about a subject. I just happened to be on the side with the vast majority that disagrees with pedophilia. I'm also part of the majority that thinks it's fine to be black or to have downs syndrome or to be homosexual. All this book does is try to aid in the execution of what I believe is a very wrong act. It's a worthless waste of the English language in print and has basically no benefit to counter the number of terrible ideals it perpetuates. Amazon would be a lot better off without it since it has the final say in what it sells. I don't even think many free speech advocates would rally against this debauchery of literature.

Ok I've made all the points I came to make... I'm going to bed.
 
StarBob said:
It's a worthless waste of the English language in print and has basically no benefit to counter the number of terrible ideals it perpetuates. Amazon would be a lot better off without it since it has the final say in what it sells. I don't even think many free speech advocates would rally against this debauchery of literature.
Click to expand...

Kind of a lot to say considering nobody here has read it.

I see your point though. I don't really understand calling the book a 'waste' just because it has nothing to offfer.. I mean, this is kind of a silly statement isn't it? "This book is very controversial and I don't even get the point of it so it shouldn't be sold"

I'm happy with where the argument sits in this thread right now (and happy with this) so I'll just leave it at that, too.
 
kineaesth said:
Um so if you're around later we should probably IM
Click to expand...
haha

No seriously, I don't know if you are suggesting that because of the things I'm saying, I am gay?


I guess I'm just progressive, but it seems to me that the laws are just conservative.

I believe that it's fine for people to be attracted to whatever it is they are attracted to, whether that be animals (bestiality), dead people (necrophilia), children (pedophilia), same sex (homosexuality), and the opposite sex (heterosexuality). I think it's completely irrelevant. Someone attracted to children (and I won't say pedophile because it seems to have multiple definitions) may be a great scientist that discovers the cure for cancer or something. Their sexual desires are unimportant to society, unless they break the laws, in my opinion.

EDIT:

I stick up for any of these because I believe people are born that way, and I very, very, very strongly disagree with persecution for thoughts or desires.


StarBob said:
So in conclusion, what we have here is a matter of subjectivity within societies. You're allowed to disagree with the majority, a lot of people do it everyday, but it's not going to change the fact that illegal things are illegal.
Click to expand...
Yes, laws are meant to reflect the views of the majority, but they don't always, and they can be changed. It's the law because (the majority in power) voted for it to be. But, it's not always the majority of people, it's the majority of voters.

StarBob said:
Well if you don't disagree, don't take it out of context before you read it all.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it out of context.
StarBob said:
I don't know this to be true, but the only percentage I've ever heard of homosexuality in humans was between 5 and 10 percent. When I say "not common" I don't mean "scarce." I mean not common. Not common is all it takes for a society to be able to control a group.
Click to expand...
Maybe you feel I am nitpicking, but I just don't think you are using the word common correctly. If 55% of the human population is male, that doesn't make females uncommon. EDIT: But I'll take it that you mean majority.
 
You know, if I went and killed off all the homosexuals in the world, all your arguments would be moot and Starbob would be right. It would simplify things, don't you agree?
 
15357 said:
You know, if I went and killed off all the homosexuals in the world, all your arguments would be moot and Starbob would be right. It would simplify things, don't you agree?
Click to expand...
That's an extremely stupid thing to say.
 
*looks in on thread, clicks link, reads article* No thanks bro, that's ****ed. *rides segway into sunset*
 
I like how this thread went from deriding people for jumping to conclusions about a book they hadn't read, to defending it by jumping to conclusions about it's contents based on a few brief excerpts. Yeah, I'm sure the worst thing in a child molestor "how-to" is a paragraph on practicing safe sex. Really? You can't think of a single thing in there that might be worse? Like, say, some tips on being discrete about their 'business' so as to not get caught? You know, info that could result in more incidents of molestation?

Nope, it's just society being paranoid about pedos.

Christ.
 
I'm not sure if it's been established, but the ebook has been removed.

An e-book for sale on Amazon.com entitled "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure," was apparently pulled by the online retailer late Wednesday
after shocked consumers across the nation called for a boycott.
Click to expand...
It is currently accepting pre-orders for the hardcover version of "I Am the Market: How to Smuggle Cocaine by the Ton, in Five Easy Lessons" by Luca Rastello.
Click to expand...
:LOL:
Nor is it the first time Amazon has come under attack for selling objectionable content in its store. In 2002, the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group, threatened to sue Amazon for selling "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers." That title is still available through Amazon.

In 2009, Amazon stopped selling "RapeLay," a first-person video game in which the protagonist stalks and then rapes a mother and her daughters, after it was widely condemned in the media and by various interest groups.
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/11/amazon-pulls-pedophile-guide-amid-outrage/

EDIT: here's a better article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/10/amazon.pedophile.guide/?hpt=T2

(slow news day)
 
book is ****ed. if you want to **** kids or find kids sexually attractive, something is wrong with you.
 
StarBob said:
In reality - from an objective standpoint - homosexuality is a mental illness. It's an individual that was born in an unchangable way that is not in line with the nature of humans.
Click to expand...

I think you're incredibly misinformed.
 
Bad^Hat said:
I like how this thread went from deriding people for jumping to conclusions about a book they hadn't read, to defending it by jumping to conclusions about it's contents based on a few brief excerpts. Yeah, I'm sure the worst thing in a child molestor "how-to" is a paragraph on practicing safe sex. Really? You can't think of a single thing in there that might be worse? Like, say, some tips on being discrete about their 'business' so as to not get caught? You know, info that could result in more incidents of molestation?

Nope, it's just society being paranoid about pedos.

Christ.
Click to expand...

I like how the argument that the book should be banned becuase it can be "used for instructions" has been brought up several times, shot down, then Mr. BadHat comes along and makes THE SAME argument.
 
"Before the book hit the headlines today, its author claims it had sold precisely one copy. After we, the media, had done our work, it had shifted enough units to make the top 100 list."

"judging by the reviews of the book on Amazon, most purchasers ordered it only to determine the precise level of contempt they have for its author."

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/10/amazon-banning-one-vile-ebook-a-victory-for-what-exactly/


15357 said:
Yes, but my point is that arguments like these invariably lead to.... stuff like this.
Click to expand...
That was your point?

Maybe we were arguing over things that seem trivial, but personally, I was enjoying the discussion.
 
VirusType2 said:
"Before the book hit the headlines today, its author claims it had sold precisely one copy. After we, the media, had done our work, it had shifted enough units to make the top 100 list."

"judging by the reviews of the book on Amazon, most purchasers ordered it only to determine the precise level of contempt they have for its author."
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that the haters helped put it in the top 100 list.
 
Samon Fish said:
I'll take that "embarrassment" over your sum total of posts and their content in this thread.
Click to expand...

Nothing embarassing about a logical analysis of the social nature of humanity in order to explain to Vegeta why people are so up in arms about the existence of this book and their disappointment in Amazon for selling it. In posts following I rephrased my statements in a less absolute fashion and made the point much more clear and reasonable. Of course - you looked at the thing that sparked an entire discussion that was resolved and decided to pluck it out and take us back to square one. I guess from now on when I rephrase statements and change the way I say things I should edit each post to say the same thing so we can all stay on track.
 
Remus said:
I like how the argument that the book should be banned becuase it can be "used for instructions" has been brought up several times, shot down, then Mr. BadHat comes along and makes THE SAME argument.
Click to expand...

Hey guy, thanks for going ahead and inferring I wanted it banned. That was just super good of you to do.

I'm merely pointing out that everyone seems to be working on the assumption that there is no information in this book that could actually be (for lack of a better word) helpful to people who would take advantage of it. The argument against this point seems to be "well no one is going to read the book and decide to molest children!" And you're probably right, there's little chance it will create new offenders. But I think the idea that it could help existing ones get away with more offenses is a point that has been largely ignored or dismissed, mostly due to the lack of insight into the book's contents. Still, I find it a little hard to believe that, in a book as clear about it's intentions as this one, there wouldn't be even a few pointers on being discrete, keeping your victims quiet, or any other means of avoiding capture. If a child molester is able to go about his business (I really hate that expression but I honestly can't think of a better way of putting it :x) without being caught, that means there's a possibility he will continue said activity. Basically, I'm not arguing that the book could create new molesters, I'm saying it could lead to more instances of molestation.

As I say though, nobody here seems to have any great insight into the book's contents beyond some excerpts and the author's summary (which is, err, not entirely trustworthy I should think), so this debate is ultimately going to hinge on assumptions. Just saying that it may not be as innocent as people seem to be suggesting it is.

Wow, though. Only one copy sold before this uproar? Heh, good going fundies. :thumbs:
 
Guide to Love and Pleasure

Chapter 1: ~How to stay out of Trouble~

1) Don't buy this book.

THE END
 
Another book for the FBI watchlist, hurrah!
 
VirusType2 said:
"Before the book hit the headlines today, its author claims it had sold precisely one copy. After we, the media, had done our work, it had shifted enough units to make the top 100 list."

"judging by the reviews of the book on Amazon, most purchasers ordered it only to determine the precise level of contempt they have for its author."
Click to expand...

And now, according to the logic in this thread, all those people are now child molesters. Good job The Media!
 
well aleast vegeta wouldnt feel lonely whit his copy











jk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jammydodger
Want To Be A Games Tester?
Replies
0
Views
744
Jammydodger
Jammydodger
Back
Top