Book that tells you where is it legal to have sex with children

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Consent-Tourists-Guide-ebook/dp/B005S18YGS/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1343945440&sr=8-7

Hi Amazon are selling a book that tells you what counties you can visit and legally have sex with children. I am totally disgusted at this.

So the book is exactly the same as the Wikipedia page you linked to, ecclesvet? And contains same info, worded exactly the same, as links?
Are you sure about this?

It looks like its been pulled, neither the address in the OP or the link in frothy's blog go to the book, just a ''The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.''

The point, Schroedingers, is that sex with a child where the child was not under the age of consent would automatically not be statutory rape.

*not automatically be...

Yes, LastMango. The page has been removed, but the Google cache of it shows it has one, one-star review saying that "this book simply consists of a list of ages of consent for pretty much every country of the world. This information appears to be taken straight from the 'Age of Consent' page from Wikipedia, so quite why anyone would want to pay nearly £3 for a list that is available for free is beyond me."

A book may advocate criminal activities but being aware of how to/where to do things that are illegal in your home country doesn't mean you're actually going to go and do them just because you read about them in a book.

But why search for age of consent if you are going to rape them, that could be done without the expense of travelling.

That sounds grim but it's true.

This, along with the fact that Amazon openly sold a paedophile guide, is why I will never purchase from them again.

No, it doesn't, SGB. But if someone wishes to do those things and a book helps to enable them to do so, then that's pretty bad, isn't it?
If the primary purpose of the book is to enable paedophiles to rape children, then what is the point of protecting this book?
It's very obvious that no sort of speech will automatically and infallibly result in physical action, but still where the likelihood of serious harm being incited or enabled by speech is high enough and isn't outweighed by benefits of that 'speech', it isn't automatically protected. Which is how it should be - at least WRT to this book, IMO.

Look, calling for censorship and banning things is not just stupid, it's lazy. Encouraging your mates to go beserk on Twitter about a nasty but unimportant little book self-published by a nasty but unimportant little individual (which no one would have heard of without this sort of OMG Share This On Your Status flapping might make everyone feel a bit smug, but it doesn't actually achieve very much. It would be a far better use of the energy that can be mobilised by having a big scream of 'Ban This Sort Of Thing' over the internet to start a campaign against low ages of consent. Concerted pressure on specific countries to change specific laws regarded by the rest of the world as harmful and wrong has been known to have some positive effect, whereas censorship invariably has unwanted negative effects on freedom, human rights and women's rights.

''Why would someone look for a book on ages of consent if they were going to rape someone? Surely it is consensual (according to the countries laws)?''

That's an interesting point of view. Consent is presumed in the absence of laws which prohibit. Does that mean that prior to rape in marriage being made illegal, all women who were raped by their husbands weren't' actually raped?

Schroedingers, I think the point is that the wannabe rapist doesn't wannabe charged with rape. If the victim of a rape is below the age of consent, then rape charges are (theoretically) automatic, regardless of the victim's 'consent'. If the child the paedophile has raped is not below the age of consent (e.g. because there isn't a minimum age of consent), then a rape charge won't be automatic - i.e. it would have to be proved that the child had not consented, not just that intercourse had taken place for charges of rape to be brought successfully. Of course, a rape charge should/would be possible, but it wouldn't be automatic. Thereby making life easier for paedophile rapists.

LastMango: the point of protecting one nasty little book is being able to protect other books that other people find offensive. When Dworkin and MacKinnon got their fucking stupid procensorship law onto the books in one state, the first things that got busted were gay, lesbian, feminist and women's health books; the authorities used an allegedly feminist-inspired new law to go after every kind of 'indecent' ie challenging-the-patriarchy or anti-heteronormative material they could find.

SGB. What negative effects on freedom, human rights and women's rights do you see happening now that Amazon have bowed to pressure and removed the offending book?

SLTS: In law, no, they weren't raped. Up until 1990 in the UK, the law was that a woman gave a man consent in perpetuity to fuck her by marrying him. (This is why some of my friends always refused to marry, even when they were living with men they loved and trusted who would never have raped them - they didn't want to sign away their entitlement to refuse sex.)

So SGB, if one child was raped because some unimportant little shitbag had got hold of this book, gone off on his hols and managed to rape a child, that would be unimportant, yes?

SGB, as I'm sure you know, Dworkin and MacKinnon joined forces with the Christian right.Those laws were then implemented by the Christian right.
That is why they impacted in the way they did.
Have you seen the ways in which e.g. Paul Little and other abusive shitheads have used liberal anti-censorship arguments to protect themselves. It's incredible how easily taken in by those arguments so many people were and are.

LastMango: Ah, the classic pro-censorship bullshit argument. People get raped because rapists decide to rape them, not because people who read books all of a sudden turn into rapists.

LastMango But then you can't automatically assume that these people actually do want to rape kids. They might not be looking for places with no age of consent, say an age of consent of 13? If this person went to that country and had sex with a 13 year old, with that person's consent then that would not be rape.

Yes, we would consider it wrong because it is below our age of consent but that doesn't automatically mean that a 13 year old would not be able to give consent.

SmellsLike Good point, I understand where you're coming from but technically different from where I am coming from. I do believe consent has to be given.

Good point by SGB too, if it was known that your right to give or refuse consent was signed away by marriage then if you are against that you shouldn't marry.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

SGB - it's only you who've even suggested on this thread that anyone would 'all of a sudden' turn into a rapist.
The fact is that this book appeared to have no other purpose than to enable rapists.
And, no, I'm not - as you seem to think I am - advocating censorship of all pornography. But the idea that 'free speech' in itself is by its very nature harmless is as lazy as the idea that all pornography is evil.

Yup, the feminist pro-censorship movement has always been very happy to hold hands with the Christian Right. Both groups have very narrow, prescriptive views on other people's behaviour, use underhand tactics and like to paint themselves as beleagured victims while stamping all over other people's rights.

It's a bit like middle-class left-wing men who are revoltingly misogynistic in the name of supporting the working classes...

Or liberal left wing men who are revoltingly misogynistic in 'supporting' 'free speech'

LastMango: That the book offers advice to rapists still isn't a good enough reason to impose censorship. Censorship is never the answer.

... 'liberal' men and sometimes a few women who are taken in by them, in fact, I suppose.