Hysteria Reigns Over E-Text Removed by Amazon

It didn't really seem worth blogging about Phillip R. Greaves' "text," mistitled The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, whose title touted itself as a Guide. From what I can tell, the text was really nothing much more than some suggestions ("if you're going to do x, then do y"), admonitions ("never do a, b, or c") and uninformed opinion. Part of the problem with blogging about it is that I didn't read the entire text. I found the same very brief excerpts over and over. One blogger said she got Greaves to send her the entire text, then proceeded to edit it selectively. Who knows why she printed the positive account of man-boy sex in its entirety. Maybe she liked it.

I wrote to her, in any case, hoping she might sent the text to me so I could actually write about it. At the same time, I must have looked at over 200 blog postings, most of them the same. Funny how people who consider themselves so moral and concerned about the law seem not to understand much about the law. They also seem to enjoy advocating plainly illegal conduct (most of it involving maiming or murder) -- but maybe, like all of Greaves' text, it's just fantasy.

To be sure, there was moderately intelligent discussion out there, most of it centering around the idea of free expression and Amazon's bad choice to limit the books it offers based on public hysteria rather than a fixed, consistent set of criteria.  See, for instances, Good Feed. On that site, I posted a comment about the book (which is reproduced below) and the young woman who had posted a selection from Greaves' text went postal. Here is the exchange in full:

Message from Otto117 to Alana
Hi, I'm wondering if you would possibly send a copy of greaves' text. I'm writing about it and it's not really very interesting if I haven't read it. (I refuse to call it a book, btw.) The little erotic story in it (that you reproduced on the site) is pretty meaningless - what I wanted to get was how is thoughts were laid out and structured. Here are the kind of thoughts I'm having about the text:
- The text isn’t well written or well reasoned;
- That the text contains lies, myths, delusions, and just completely made-up nonsense doesn’t distinguish it from a lot of other books on Amazon. (It probably does have more typos than most ‘books,’ however.)
- Greaves creates more misconceptions than he claims to clears up;
- Many of Greaves' detractors are certainly no better than Greaves in the department of morality. Greaves doesn't actually "advocate" as in "you should go out and do this". (The most I saw was 'if you do this, you should...." and "don't ever do this...") What he does is excuses some illegal acts under some circumstances. Many of his detractors, on the other hand, openly advocate his maiming or murder, which are illegal acts. I don't find the text important in the least. I find it ridiculous. What is important is the controversy over the text.
Just some thoughts.... Regards, Otto117

Answer from Alana to Otto117
take my blog link off of that site. NOW. I posted it AS IS. I asked him for the book, he sent it to me.
If you want it-you look the pedophile up and ask him yourself. You obviously made a xanga JUST to ask me for the book.Which means you obviously searched the internet, and scoured the web for any information on it.
You also JUSTIFIED it, in that comment you made.Again, if you want the book. Do what I did.

Reply from Otto117 to Alana
Ok. Justified it? I don't think so. Criticize it and have an intelligent discussion about it? Sure. Think that one can have a nuanced conversation about the subject matter? Absolutely. (Surely you didn't put it on your blog just to moralize about it. There are hundreds of books you could do that with....) I'm not sure what blog link you are referring to. I don't have a link to your blog from mine. (So calm down.)

Answer from Alana to Otto
 You're not sure?? here's the link, take it off, or I'll have the site moderator do it.
http://goodmenproject.com/2010/11/11/5-reasons-why-i-have-the-right-to-buy-the-pedophiles-guide/#comment-6284
there's the link to the page. obviously your comment is right there, giving my open blog link to tons of pedophiles searching for information. take it off.

Reply from Otto117 to Alana

That's not my site, silly. It's a politically-correct site for men. jeez, you're paranoid. Anyway, if  you're afraid of "pedophiles" accessing your site, you'd better tell google, since a simple search of the title of Greaves' book plus the word "excerpt" turns it up. Take a chill pill. Enjoy life.

Here is my posting at Good Feed over which Alana got her knickers in a twist:

Greaves’ ‘book’ is hardly a book and doesn’t give anyone insight into much of anything. Sure you have the right to buy it, and yes, I agree that Amazon should have some consistent policies. That it contains lies, myths, delusions, and just completely made-up nonsense doesn’t distinguish it from a lot of other books on Amazon. (It probably does have more typos than most ‘books,’ however.) No person attracted to minors is going to guide his/her behavior by the book, feel empowered to have sex with a minor. I’ve only seen part of the text — http://ohletitbe.xanga.com/735619148/quotes-from-a-pedophiles-quide-to-love-and-pleasure-a-child-lovers-code-of-conduct-graphic-co/ — but it’s pretty loopy.

Far more troublesome is the fact that Amazon also removed Tom O’Carroll’s book, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, published by Peter Owen, the British publisher, in 1980. O’Carroll makes a case ‘for’ paedophilia by approaching the topic with utmost philosophical seriousness (but with a paucity of data). Whether or not one agrees with or is disgusted or just bored by what he has to say, the book is is part of the history of sexual politics in Britain. There is simply no reason for Amazon to de-list it.

Alana decided to get into the discussion at Good Feed. She can barely reason by this point:

Your argument stands to reason that of the author of this book THAT YOU HAVE NO READ, AND SHOULDN’T BE POSTING AN ARTICLE ON, ANYWAY. YOU (who haven’t even read the book) have NO opinion on it, because you DO NOT know its context.

The man describes in detail what to use as a condom for boys that are TOO SMALL for regular condoms (even small ones). He says something to the effect of “However, do not make this publicly known, for they will be put behind the counter (for sale).” That tells you that he knows it’s wrong. Event he author of this book repeats several times that it’s wrong. If there is nothing wrong with this book, why is it being banned? If there is nothing wrong with this book, why did Amazon remove THE OTHER books by him? Especially, one that you liked previously ? This leads me to believe that many people that have come to my blog are looking for the context of the book, in which to learn from it. Not to better themselves, to better their pedophilia skills.
Greaves even says as one of the first things in the book, that he wants to make it safer for PEDOPHILES. Not the children.You are CLEARLY MISINFORMED.

Otto117's Reply at Good Feed:

Calm, Alana. Books get “banned” for all sorts of reasons, but the book isn’t illegal. Actually, I’ve read as much of the book as you have. The ‘condom’ excerpt is everywhere. It’s the only excerpt which provides “advice”, while most everything else is his loopy opinion and admonitions. Actually, Greaves says he wants to make sex safer for children (which is pretty stupid. If he did, he would simply tell them to stay away from adults who wanted to have sex with them.)

If you stop acting like an hysteric and answering in all caps, you’ll see that I didn’t like the book. You need to inform yourself a little bit better about the difference between refusing to sell a book on a commercial site (which is what Amazon did) and censoring a book (which governments do). The book hasn’t been censored. Look for the name of Jeffrey Toobin, a nice, respectable lawyer who writes in the New Yorker. As he explained to the major media, Greaves’ book is precisely the kind of book that it protected by the First Amendment, while a book of erotica may not be unless it has “serious artistic value.” (See, e.g., Fanny Hill, which was determined not to be obscene in Massachusetts 1966, but may be obscene in some places today because it describes minors having sex.)

BTW, if pedophiles needed instruction books on how to seduce children (which is a pretty funny notion in iteself), they wouldn’t look to Greaves’ text, which provides nothing but his strange opinions, but to all the non-fiction books out there on the methods that pedophiles use to seduce children, written by psychologists. I guess Amazon should also refuse to sell those, on that basis.

Alana has the last word (so far) at Good Feed:

I don’t appreciate you using my blog link without my consent. Please take it off.

[All typos are as in the original messages/posts, notwithstanding Alana's claim that nobody listens to anyone who has typos. (We both do.)]

Otto117 wonders...

Is there some rule that you can't provide a link to someone's blog without their consent? I missed that rule. Can someone please google that for me?

[BTW, images by Chararin さん.]