I had a congregant send me an e-mail about this book, Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, and to tell you the truth, having googled around and read mostly material by those advocating the views espoused in it, I am quite literally in shock. I want to hear what the local gay and lesbian rights advocates have to say about this. I hope they will draw a line in the sand here. But the problem is, as you will see if you read the advocacy reviews as well as the critiques, our current cultural climate of moral relativism is going to make it increasingly hard to draw such lines in the sand. At the risk of some mail carrier thinking I am a gay pedophile, I think I am going to order the book and read it, just so I can say I did, whenever this really hits the fan with this issue. No, I can’t do that. Then I’d have to give amazon.com my business and right now they make me want to puke.
Here are some links:
From the gaybookworld.com bookstore. I am disgusted.
From Operation Save America. Normally am not a big fan of Falwell but he hit the nail on the head here.
From the Forbes web page. About the business and legal side of the issue.
From some group shfri: Just a lovely add for the book. Click on the article for more insight.
From the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence website. An interesting background.
From Amazon’s site. Read the reviews.
I think what bugs me most is the manner in which Amazon is hiding behind first amendment issues, using all the normal clichés and pat answers. Hey, pedophilia is illegal you morons! If anyone’s child anywhere gets harmed because of this book I hope Amazon gets ground into the dust never to rise again, and Jeff Bezos goes to jail for the rest of his life. They’re being stubborn asses for bad reasons. Did I say I’m pissed?
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
"I want to hear what the local gay and lesbian rights advocates have to say about this."
For Pete's sake, Joel. Why put this on the "local gay and lesbian rights advocates?" It has nothing to do with gay and lesbian rights and makes about as much sense as calling out the local heterosexual community on this and this and this and this and this.
You are right Joel, this is disgusting. There's is no wonder our children are so mixed up with the world we have allowed the media of all kinds to throw at them. In 1979 we got cable tv in our community and the family was all excited about getting HBO. The first evening I popped the pop corn and we all settled down to watch our first movie at home. After ten minutes of rather provocative conversation and "looks" the actors began fornicating in my family room . I jumped up and turned the tv off and the next day had the cable disconnected. I am sure at some point my children went to see movies that I would not approve of, but they weren’t going to do it in my home. And for at least 30 years now I have written letters to product sponsors, tv producers and anyone else that I thought should hear my protest over the immorality of their commercial, show, whatever. Hasn’t done a lot of good as can be seen by the proliferation of sexually suggestive material anywhere you look, but I’ll keep at it.
And the thing is, I am not all that straight laced. And I don’t believe I ever had a head ache. And I don’t condemn homosexuals. I just strongly condemn bringing what should be private out and flouting it to our children before they are emotionally mature enough to handle it. Brenda Bowers
Roch101, All of those adult female pedophiles are now in prison. And as far as I know there are no books advocating the practice, let alone giving how's and why's of the disgusting acts. This book is NOT about homosexuality, it is about pedophilia! As far as I am concerned ADULT lesbians and gays can do anything they want in the privacy of their home. I am also sure that a moral gay person is as disgusted with pedophilia as Joel and I are. BB
"This book is NOT about homosexuality, it is about pedophilia!" -- anonymous
Precisely.
Sorry Roch, the logic doesn't work the other way. It’s a nice debate tactic, but it is a red herring. There are in fact homosexual groups defending this book and its premise. I cited one or two in my post - and read others I didn't cite. I know of no heterosexual group advocating for heterosexual sex with minors, and if they exist, then heterosexuals need to make clear their rejection of such. And especially with the groups advertising locally (remember the Graffiti debacle), and going into our schools, I think we need to hear an unequivocal rejection of this book and its premise. The world of adult male sex with minor boys is a dark and ugly one, but a real one. Pedophilia is too easily associated with homosexuality, rightly or wrongly, and books like this don’t help. The more significant problem for the homosexual rights movement is that by taking away the moral ground that has long prohibited homosexuality, we have shaken the moral ground that has long prohibited pedophilia. Ultimately some one is going to ask the very good question, as regards sex with minors, “why not?” “Who says?” And since the only answer is going to be one grounded in moral morally neutrality or relativism, it will depend on some scientific analysis made by psychiatrists and doctors and child development experts that children having sex with adults is bad for children. And that is what this book is about – about a shift within a portion of that community as regards that view.
The bigger question to me is, should amazon.com be legally allowed to sell this book. I am going to have to figure out a way to read the book to build my own argument about that, a prospect which makes me a little sick, but it’s part of due diligence.
Roch and Brenda,
No, actually, it's about homosexual pedophilia. Hence the title.
Joe,
Check out http://www.nambla.org/.
Joel
Someone mentioned offline that heterosexual pedophilia abounds, so what’s the difference. There is a difference between heterosexual pedophilia and the sort of homosexual pedophilia being written about in this book and advocated in parts of the gay community.
Heterosexual pedophiles abound. We have a name for them - statutory rapists, criminals. There are powerful men all over the world kidnapping young girls, using then as sex slaves, putting their pictures online. We have a name for them - mafia bosses, thugs, criminals. There are fathers sexually abusing their daughters. We have a name for them - perverts, criminals. I know of no heterosexual group advocating for sexual relationships between grown men and minor girls. Do any of you? I know of no group of doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists saying that man to young girl relationships not only don't do as much harm as once thought, but may actually do good. But that is what this book is about. Read the links. Read the editorial blurb on amazon.com. So, that is the difference. Part of the gay community, men who like boys, are advocating for normalcy of male to male pedophilia. I don't see that in the heterosexual world. I may hear, "She looked 18 to me." But I know of no such advocacy. Maybe it’s there. This is what is different and scary. Once the external moral framework is removed, well in time, as is said, if God is dead then all things are permitted.
Joel
Joel, for what it's worth, I've pasted below the letter I wrote Amazon, their response, and my follow-up. No follow-up to the follow-up yet. I should say, that the writing on my part is meant to be more than a little contentious.
Good evening. I've just been informed that you sell a book entitled:
"Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers"
Needless to say, making this book available for sale causes serious doubts about your company's integrity and the value of continuing any business with you. I am familiar with some of the responses that you have offered in defense of this particular item:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_03_09_archive.html#90689331
I therefore wish to dispense with them as unconvincing and thereby save time and space while clearing the way for a non-platitudinous response from you:
You argue that Amazon does not restrict itself to sales of books that you agree with and will even sell books that you might strenuously disagree with. I assume that this argument is premised on the notion that, if you start drawing lines in some places, there is nothing to stop you from drawing lines in other places, so you don't even want to enter the business of such line drawing, lest your views of what is and is not repugnant control what merchandise you sell. This argument is familiar to the First Amendment, but I cannot imagine its relevance to a corporation. Do you really think proscribing books advocating pedophilia is the signal first step on some meritless road? As a corporation, you have no particular duty to support the dissemination of ideas nor do you have any real ability to prevent that dissemination. You are therefore distinct from the government and as a result you are unable to take refuge behind the various arguments marshaled to restrict the government from censorship. Needless to say, qua corporation, you cannot "censor" anything in any meaningful sense. You are a distributor, you have no coercive power, and your economic power is not nearly of sufficient strength to rise to the level of true censorship. Your goal of supporting freedom of expression is a perhaps admirable policy, but it is irrevocably only that: you have a choice in every item you sell and only a self-generated, voluntary policy says otherwise.
I see no practical way that adopting a policy of not selling books unambiguously advocating pedophilia as a worthwhile practice could feasibly become a policy restricting the sale of a book on any given other issue. There is no meaningful national debate on this issue, nor should there be, nor are you obliged to foment such a debate. To make this absolutely clear, even if, as you say, people have a right to choose their own reading material, you are under no legal or moral obligation to enforce this right, a right which you have seemingly generated from thin air and wishful thinking. That you do not supply pedophiles with child pornography, is, I suppose, a legal requirement imposed upon you rather than a policy that has your moral approval.
Finally, let me point to an inconsistency, lest you think that naive relativism about supporting free expression without regard to content is still convincing. There are surely books that you do not sell. Manuals on building bombs, becoming a hitman, etc. are presumably (and from what I can discover) proscribed. The specific merits of an analogy between those books and the book in question here is irrelevant because the larger point is clear: you do not have an absolute policy. You have made value choices for one reason or another and have limited the extent to which you will support free expression (you have "censored" yourself, if you like). Therefore, there can be only one conclusion. You, as a matter of corporate policy, value the advocacy of pedophilia more than you value how-tos on endangering lives. I hope this rather shocking formulation is as distasteful to you as it is to me, just as I hope you are able to see that it is an accurate statement of your position and that there is no meaningful distinction between either of these choices. That selling the book is to your economic benefit, however slight, is, of course, a serious exacerbation of the matter, to say nothing of the empowerment such a book is meant to offer, regardless of its failure to reach the level of "how-to."
I have not yet decided whether to cease doing business with you and advocate that those I know do the same. That will in large measure depend on your response and ability to give a reason that you, Amazon, selling this book ought to be seen as a good by me. Please do not rehash the tiresome arguments I've revisited above. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for writing to Amazon.com with your concerns about "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers".
It is always important for us to hear how customers react to all aspects of shopping at Amazon.com. Strong customer feedback like yours helps us continue to improve the selection and service we provide, and we appreciate the time you took to write to us.
As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any item they might be seeking. That selection includes some items which many people may find objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on
our web site represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of
topics.
Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable. Therefore, we will continue to make controversial works available in the United States and everywhere else, except where they are prohibited by law. We also allow readers, authors, and publishers to express their views freely about these titles and other products we offer on our web site. However, Amazon.com does not endorse any opinions expressed by individual authors, musical artists, or filmmakers.
We value all feedback from our customers, and I thank you again for
taking the time to send us your comments about this issue. We hope
you will allow us to continue to serve you.
Best regards,
Ujjwal
Amazon.com Customer Service
Ujjwal, I appreciate you replying to me, though I cannot say that I appreciate the response itself. I had asked for an email responsive to my questions and concerns, but instead, you sent me the same argument that you have sent others, the same argument that I explicitly rejected as banal. You have not given reasons why I am wrong but have rather taken refuge in inapposite platitudes about "censorship" (something that you are not capable of doing in any meaningful way, as you are not the government) and not "endorsing" these views (something that is pretty to think, but is belied by your selling this book. Unlike the government, you have to and get to exercise choice. No one requires you to sell this book).
Due to the convenience of your service, I will regret to some extent ceasing business with you. Due to the poverty of your values and the astounding sententiousness with which you trumpet that poverty as strength, I doubt my regret will last very long.
"I know of no heterosexual group advocating for sexual relationships between grown men and minor girls. Do any of you? I know of no group of doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists saying that man to young girl relationships not only don't do as much harm as once thought, but may actually do good.
Yeah, they are out there, Joel. The scholars and the advocates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816640068/104-7572235-7648767?v=glance&n=283155
http://sns.puellula.com/ [Warning: This site promotes adult "love" to girls.]
Homosexuality is not the cause of pedophilia. The practitioners and advocates of pedophilia are homosexual and heterosexual.
Implicating homosexuals because homosexual perophilia is written about and promoted makes no more sense that implicating heterosexuals because heterosexual pedophelia is written about and promoted.
Roch,
I never said or intimated that homosexuality is the cause of pedophilia. Never. Ever.
The links you have provided actually contribut positively to my argument.
The amazon.com book advertised really isn’t the same sort book at all as Understanding Loved Boys and Boy Lovers. It’s more about the evils of abstinence education, the fact that the suppression of teenage sexuality can be counter productive, etc.
The puellulla.com site is obviously some sort of perverse entrapment site, more along the lines of a porn site, or maybe a pre-porn site. There is no high falootin’ rationalizations by doctors and researchers about the virtues to young women of sex with men – it’s a cheap porno site.
And the Wikipedia article on Pedophile Activism, which is fascinating, really just establishes my case. I think everyone should read it. Most of the stuff talked about refers to The Netherlands, which is even more wierd and liberal than California, and the bit of heterosexual advocacy referred to here a few decades ago got smacked down pretty from the sounds of it. It is interesting the first section of the article ends:
“The primary medium for pedophile advocacy turned in the mid-90s to the Internet. In 1995, BoyChat, a message board for "boylovers", was established. In 1997, participants on BoyChat and other online resources formed Free Spirits, an umbrella organization with the mission of raising money and providing secure Internet hosting services. The Montreal Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal by Free Spirits members in 1998 as a forum for "boylovers" to meet in the real world. In early 2001, the first "boylove" broadcast media source, Sure Quality Internet Radio, was founded by Jeffrey Gold in Florida, USA.”
They could add some groups currently active.
The Wikipedia article should alert us all to the dangers of all attempts to normalize sex with minors, heterosexual or homosexual. But it does not, and should not, take our attention away from the book in question which was the reason for this post. That book builds a case, based in psychological and psychiatric research, for the normalization of man-boy relationships, and argues, that such are not only as bad as may have thought, but in many ways good.. It is deeply homosexual and deeply pedophiliac in nature. It brings the two together. And it is being promoted by homosexual advocacy groups.
Is heterosexual pedophilia about heterosexuality or about pedophilia? It’s about the intersection of both. It is to be condemned at every turn. As a heterosexual, I condemn it, my church would condemn it, everyone I have ever known in my life would condemn it.
I think gay activist groups need to condemn Understanding Loved Boys and Boy Lovers.
I would like to order it so as to go after it even more thoroughly, but fear having the fact that I ordered it on my record, given the historic issues in other traditions with people in my job area and boys.
Joel
Joel, you still haven't explained why "local gay and lesbbian rights advocates" should be asked to account for this book. I fear that the only answer you have is because they are gay.
"but fear having the fact that I ordered it on my record
And isn't that a damn sad commentary? That buying a book is going to go on your "record."
Roch,
I said, "I want to hear what the local gay and lesbian rights advocates have to say about this."
I do. Well, in all fairness I should have left out "lesbian." This is a male/male issue.
The book, once again, isn't "just" about pedphilia; it's very much about grown male/minor boy relationships, and how and why they are not so bad, and maybe good. There are homosexual groups who sell the book and tout it. That does not mean every one does or would. I for one would like to hear our local gay rights groups denounce it. I just would. They don't have to just because I want them to. Churches and Christians have to denounce wierd and crazy crap all the time, just so people know, we don't do or advocate "that," whatever wierd thing that some so called Christian religious group is doing. We just do. It's life. And in terms of ordering the book. Yeah, it really is a sorry state of affairs, but down the road some emotionally freaked out male kid says, "Joel Gillespie did bad things to me," and there is no deniability other than, you know, "no I didn't," I don't want it on my credit card record that I ordered this book.
I see Joel has been the subject of some critique for wanting gay and lesbian groups to "say" something about this. The critique, it seems to me, proceeds from the feeling that Joel is in some attenuated but nevertheless important sense requiring accountability of these groups for pedophilia writ large. This is unfair, the critique goes, since it is hardly the case that hetereosexuals qua hetereosexuals have any sort of accountability for those heterosexual crimes involving young children.
My own impression is that this critique is missing the point to some extent. The difficulty posed by this book, among others, is that it represents an attempt by pedophiles to become an identity group using much of the same philosophical grounding as did homosexual groups. This is not to say that the philosophical grounding is identical; it clearly is not. But, much of the argument surrounding the entrance of homosexual groups into the political and "rights" arena (and here I should make absolutely clear that I am distinguishing between groups constructed around homosexual identity and advocacy rather than individual homosexuals) has been exactly along the lines of how sexual identity is on the one hand a definitive characteristic of humanity and can therefore form the basis for a coherent political identity that deserves governmental and social accomodation.
roch101, the key question to me (and perhaps to Joel) is how gay and lesbian groups will operate to prevent this extension of what has been an animating philosophy of theirs for some time. As I understand this philosophy--and I have tried to do good faith research on it--the dominant idea is that sexual preferences of any kind cannot in themselves be called good or bad as such. So, if pedophiles can claim this ideology for themselves, then the only thing, it seems to me, undergirding a gay and lesbian objection would have to be a claim that the preference itself is not "bad" but rather the effects of the preference are bad, viz. its effects on children. A utilitarian argument of this kind is not necessarily without value, but it should be clear that it is not a particularly firm argument precisely because it is utilitarian and therefore proceeds from arbitrary valuations.
Summarily, then, Roch101, you ask why gay and lesbians should be called to account for this book when hetereosexuals are not expected to be called to account for books advocating heterosexual child molestation, if such exist. My answer is simply that this books is built on the foundation of the sexual identity philosophy introduced by homosexuals as they entered the political sphere. The question, then, is whether there is any definitive way for gay and lesbians to claim that the sexual identity claimed by the author of this book and others is in itself deserving of opprobrium.
A,
And from all I've read, which has been a fair bit actually, it is exactly the utlitarian argument that this book is making. In other words, "for the good of the children" is being brought into question.
Joel
From what I've seen as of today the book has been pulled from the Amazon Site... Just to let ya know an update!
Post a Comment