When I first heard about Amazon selling Phillip Ray Greaves II’s e-book The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct back in November, I nearly pissed myself with laughter: immediately, the (alternate) title quote from an episode of Law and Order: SVU sprang to mind. Reading the Amazon “reviews” provided more hilarity, what with the whole web world reduced to frothing Pavlovian animals over a book none of them had even read.
Not that reading said book counted as a viable option amongst that lot, seeing as they would’ve had to buy the fucker, and only kiddyfiddlers would ever make such a purchase.
I encountered such sterling Dubya logic on Amazon’s Facefuck page, where anyone who raised even an eyebrow toward the baying mob’s anti-Amazon crusade got smeared as an enabler and supporter of kiddyfiddlers everywhere.
In any case, I saluted Amazon’s chutzpah in selling this terrible tome and applauded their professed stand in defence of free speech–up until they folded to Pavlovian pressure and pulled the paedoguide from their e-bookshelf (a taste of things to come with Wikileaks).
“Oh well,” I sighed at the time, “that ends that”…
…only to read of Greaves’ arrest, a week or so back, on the True Crime Report site:
Due to public pressure, Amazon was forced to dump the book from its site. But that’s when it also caught the attention of the Polk County, Florida Sheriff’s Department. So undercover deputies contacted Greaves, ordering a $50 copy that was sent — complete with autograph — to Florida.
Alas, Greaves may know the ins and outs of going perv on children, but he apparently hasn’t boned up on his Florida obscenity laws. It’s a felony in the Sunshine State to distribute obscene material depicting minors. So detectives got themselves a warrant.
He was arrested yesterday in Colorado, and has apparently waived his right to fight extradition. He’s expected to arrive at his new home at the Polk County jail today, where he’ll no doubt receive a warm welcome from its current residents.
Nice, detached tone, news source!
Reading the reactions on the comment thread, I noticed how many of them differed little from those to the original controversy, which inspired such gems as people claiming his book had fuck-all to do with free speech, people thinking that their pigshit opinions merited a certain elevation on account of them being parents, folks giving the thumbs-up to the state “investigating” folk who bought the e-book, sanctimonious fucks chatting about how free speech ends when it transgresses “decency”, “society”, “common sense”, “morality” and “the children”…
…and, most abundantly of all, the Dubya logic I earlier alluded to.
To bring up the topic of paedophilia amongst the “sexually liberated” folk of the West is to send their mental faculties into cerebral arrest: folk who’d be adequately at ease discussing the (hur, hur) ins-and-outs of homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity, adultery, and even incest seem to work themselves into a lather when the words “child” and “sex” appear in the same sentence. The thought that someone, somewhere, might be jerking off to a Pampers ad seems to awaken the lynch mob mentality like nowt else. I should know, seeing as I live in the UK, a land that harbours an aversion-obsession with the topic that could be called pathological; fuck—once upon a time, you’d have heard me joining in with the blood-baying!
Nowadays, I take a more detached, sceptical perspective on this topic. Many questions have bounced across my brain pan on this topic:
- Is paedophilia a “sickness” and “disorder”, as many claim, or, like homosexuality, bisexuality, and polyamory, just one more natural urge that certain members of the human species happen to possess?
- Why do parents abhor their kids getting into situations where their consent is a possibility, however debatable (sex), yet have no problem endorsing interactions where their consent is definitely absent (corporal punishment, infant circumcision)?
- Does the Sex Offenders Register serve a useful civil function, or is it just a Trojan Horse, a means of “grooming” the populace for the molestations of Big Brother Britain?
- Does a randy Dateliner’s (attempted or fulfilled) dalliance with a midteen really belong in the same sweeping category as some sick cunt who thrusts his todger into a toddler during a nappy change?
- Does the state enforce “age of consent” laws in order to protect its pubescent populace or to keep them under the thumb in its forced indoctrination camps?
- Does coital consent come from the aware individual, regardless of age, or is it something that only sheet-shuffling bureaucrats can decide upon?
- Does the passive paedo need to be conflated with the nefarious nonce?
- Does the mere possession of kiddy porn really warrant a collaring from the long limb of the law?
- Do some people view kiddy porn for reasons totally unrelated to their genitals?
- If governments hate paedos so much, why do they keep employing them?
All these questions pale in priority for the pitchfork posse, compared to the most pressing of them all: cage, castrate, or cull?
This whole sorry-arse situation regarding Greaves proves no exception to this. Never mind the bloke’s freedom to write what he will: he buggers a bambino with each sentence he scribes! You can bet your arse that were this bloke arrested for penning the script to Cocksucking Cumsluts #69, his decriers would rally round him, viewing the “obscenity” laws set against him with a healthy degree of skepticism.
“But the book is a How-To for possible harm!” comes the collective cry.
Gee, glad to see you’re being consistent in your crusades, eh?
Of course, if you were consistent, I guess that’d put you in the dock for your own how-tos for violence.
From the True Crimes Report thread:
I hope someone writes a book on how to sodomize his ass and sells it to prisoners across the country. He should get a kick out of that.
Posted 12/21/2010 at 11:25:31 AM
Pete Kotz said:
I think I’d like to write that book, Crazy, if only because it would be really easy. It would just be one page with a picture of his ass and the caption, “Insert the object(s) of your choice here.”
Posted 12/21/2010 at 11:30:03 AM
I agree! But I wouldn’t even make the lowly scum in prison pay for that, I’d pass it out w/ every commissary dispersment!!!!! Hope he has a really happy holiday!!
Posted 12/21/2010 at 11:31:12 AM
“But that book’s different! It’s a how-to for abusing children!”
The complete antithesis of those sacred, revered, and wholesome texts, The Bible and The Koran, of course:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Yikes! Just the Koran then.
Wait…what’s that, David Wood?
Western Muslims are typically quite embarrassed by the fact that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and Muslim apologists are doing everything in their power to rewrite history in order to rescue their prophet from criticism. But are they willing to rewrite the Qur’an as well?
According to Surah 2:228, if a Muslim man wants to divorce his wife, he should wait until she has gone through three monthly cycles (i.e. three periods). But the question later arose: What are men who want a divorce supposed to do when their wives, for whatever reason, do not have monthly cycles? The Qur’an answers this question in Surah 65:4, where it gives divorce rules for (1) women who do not have monthly cycles because they are too old, (2) girls who do not have monthly cycles because they are too young, and (3) women and girls who do not have monthly cycles because they are pregnant. The verse declares that, if Muslim men want to divorce girls who haven’t yet reached puberty, they must wait three months (after having sex with them).
Are you seriously gonna tell me that there’s a difference between Philip Greaves and “Prophet” Mohammed beyond the far superior fan-count of the latter (almost a quarter of the world and counting)?
Oh, yeah! The latter actually practised what he preached—I forgot.
That said, I don’t see the Muslimfolk I know imitating their prophet’s peculiarity: what’s wrong with them?
Whatever their malady, I must have something similar: I mean, I’ve watched Urotsukidoji loadza times, yet don’t go round raping females with my “tentacle”; my viewing of A Serbian Film hasn’t awakened any latent urge in me to shoot snuff films or knob newborns; and, I must say, I’ve yet to behead anyone after seeing the Daniel Pearl execution vid (though there’s temptation aplenty there, I’ll admit!).
What kind of twisted fuck am I?
Seriously, as something of a misopaedist, I often despair of the way adult minds melt to mush upon contact with—or mention of—kids. If it ain’t a nonce trying to molest a friendly child, it’s a “concerned” parent, politico, or paper trying to molest the rest of the world into child-friendliness; moral panics like this make me think the two have more in common than the latter would care to admit.
Will reading paedo prose turn you into a playground-prowling pervert? The reviling rabble seem to think so, going by all the noise they’ve made; I guess it’d go some way of explaining their Dubya defensiveness in regard to casting eyes on the bloody book!
Frankly, it makes me question whether what they fear really resides without.
Do paedophiles have hypnotic, Pied Piper powers, even via prose…
…or are those who fear them simply that susceptible?