John Grisham's twisted views

[Stressing]

So fuming about John Grisham airing his twisted views on child porn. /www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/10624453/John-Grisham-child-porn-argument-wrong

Especially this part, whilst referring to his friend who had the book thrown at him apparently: "So he went there (to the site), downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.

"He shouldn't have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys."

WTF? So it's okay apparently to get pissed and wank off over images of young teenagers who may or may not be around the age of consent, so long as they look 30. And, more importantly, it's okay to do this so long as they are not male.

The fact that we live in a world where there is any kind of grey area surrounding child porn depresses me. How the male need to be sexually gratified is SOOOO important that it presides over the innocence and well-being of a child makes me utterly sick to my stomach.

JG has the arrogance and self importance to put the US justice system on trial due to his version of what he thinks is acceptable and not acceptable - of who is worthy of law enforcement based on age and gender.

You can bet your life that his mate didn't just view a site depicting consenting age females. He went there because he was drawn to the borderline element of the site, obviously, and probably went elsewhere - which is why he had the FBI knocking on his door.

But, according to JG, the fact he wasn't looking at boys means he wasn't really doing anything wrong.

It incenses me.

But actually, re Stressing's point, it is vital to differentiate between people who are attracted to children and those that act on that attraction. It's vital for society to take steps to ensure abuse doesn't happen in the first place. There is no such thing as consent - as stated elsewhere. There is no child porn, only child abuse.

JG was wrong and his example an appalling one. Not relevant to my point.

Damsilli - his friend did act though, he didn't bury his impulses and hit the off button did he?

I worry that by acknowledging an attraction to children as 'normal' to many men (as has been reported) it will create a silo whereby potential perpetrators feel protected. It gives them an identity and a belonging - shared support, with other 'victims' of nature.

I would not be surprised if MANY humans could - under certain circumstances - feel excited by the thought of sex with a child. However humans are captains of ourselves - mind, body and soul. We have to be responsible for our choices.

I cannot understand how a person would justify letting themselves get to the point where they are seeking out these images. How can they think it is okay? We need to be completely black and white and say: 'as a species, human beings do not tolerate sexualising its young - ever'. So that there are no excuses/reasons/ifs, buts, maybes. That's why when it comes to protecting our children there are no grey areas - you cross the line, and you're going to get the book thrown at you.

Stressing, I understand your point better now. Yes, I think I agree up to a point. But I do wonder if, with a view to overall protection it is better to weed out people at lower level for a more 'rehabilitation' package than retribution one. Are children less at risk if a low level online abuser becomes a prison convict with a new social circle of other more direct abusers? I don't know.

Calling online viewing 'lower level' condones nothing btw. I am wary of calling all activity the same - but yes, I see your point.

The fact that JG minimised this SO much makes me wonder what HE gets up to in his spare time.

If this was my friend, I would NOT be minimising the shit out of it, writing them a reference or publicity stating that too many men go to prison for 'accidentally' accessing this material.

Unless I had a vested interest in doing so...

If he wanted to make a point about the extremely high rates of imprisonment in the US - OK

If he wanted to talk about the terrifying fact of the % of black men in the US in prison (I forget the stat now but it's just so awfully high) and flag up why that might be and what needs to be done - alright

If he wants to talk about people being imprisoned when it's not appropriate in his view - he could have used examples like people with mental health problems, people in poverty for minor drugs offences (I'm guessing here, not about to research US prison stuff but with so many people in prison there must be ones with a valid argument for a different approach) - well fine

To use the example of a man who had downloaded and shared multiple images of child abuse including child rape and young children - WTAF?

It seems to me the other way around. He was using the first few points in order to try to minimise and justify why people like his friend shouldn't be in prison. Using a "nicey compassionate" argument to try and get people like his mate out of prison which is absolutely where they should be.

Good grief.

Hope this man doesn't recover from this one and TBH I'd be wondering what he's been up to if he doesn't really see any problem with what his friend has done past a little bit of poor judgement that could happen to anyone the poor chap.

"The fact that JG minimised this SO much makes me wonder what HE gets up to in his spare time." My exact thoughts different.

Hi - I know I am resurrecting a Zombie thread but I see that John Grisham has a new book out and is being fawned over by the press.

I have read and enjoyed many John Grisham novels over the years

I remembered that he was a paedophile apologist and thought how can he suddenly be Mr Nice Guy. Do people have such short memories.

Not really sure why I am posting except that I am angry. Thanks for reading

Sorry meant to say although I have enjoyed his books in the past I refuse to read another one.