John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles...

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Mantor

Deema sidekick
Jul 31, 2014
177
579
57
Germany
"I have no sympathy for real paedophiles,” he said, "God, please lock those people up. But so many of these guys do not deserve harsh prison sentences, and that's what they're getting,"

...refering to sentenced prisoners doing time in cells with hardline child and porno offenders, and just for accidentally downloading a said video or clicking in once while drunk, as he puts it. He does make a point which, if he would be calm and consider the facts, has a simple explanation he seems to miss. That is, that the last decade or two has seen police and military operations, raids and stings come down in waves on offenders of children, many disguised as doctors or priests, all around the globe. That is the reason for the double or triple in numbers of convicted offenders in U.S. prison populations. Proportionately, there will be a double or triple of those that seem to be treated unfairly or punished too severely. He must realize such people tend to downplay their intentions and actions, especially first time offenders.

He must be one of the fans of the underground swingersex networks in western Europe and Australia that have exploded in popularity and expansion. Much of the western middle class office management and executive departments have joined these networks that are open, in hiding, also to the children of members who are raised with the new cultural lifestyle and entertainment.

Nature signals when our libido blooming phase gets into full gear. In Europe now most all youngsters are encouraged to explore their fantasies and curiosity but without pressure. For example, many guys in puberity are naturally attracted to the 30-40 year old ladies where inhibitions and inexperience is understood and gladly taken away by loving guides of fun chosen with sexual bio-chemistry science and personal preferance done responsibly, or so I am told. I was that way while in puberty. I sometimes prayed that my mom's best 35 year old girlfriend who was a smart and sexy sleaze but not a slutty dirtbag. We got along great but, it never happened and I ended up going through the whole puberity phase, and my teen years, without a single sexual experience mostly due to an extremely sensitive nature which, if not recognized by elders at that point of a youngster's development, continues to hold firm as shyness. The more sensitive, the more shy, usually.

Puberty is a time of finding oneself and developing desires, tastes, goals, talents, sensations, hormones and sexuality. A time to pause from school work, or reduce the hours by at least half, and dedicate that maturing phase to sexual education for those curious, looking to experiment or just looking to get informed of what is available and where. Different strokes form different folks...that includes your parents often.

Over recent years, these connected swingersex networks in western Europe, Australia and elsewhere, have expanded and developed in large numbers. Especially the young ladies, many still a teen and active in the swingersex scenes, who still look teen throughout their 20s+, have become very popular among the wealthy and well to do having reputations for higher passion levels and sexual supremacy plus, encouragement of viagra use is as common to the networks as sex itself. The topic is forbidden in open discussions, though.

The networks were started by the western high society and left to spread uncontrolled in hiding. This has created a new level of society and lifestyle made up of mostly middle to upper class family members in Europe and headed by the high society with promises of potential invites or visits to or by them. Most all top Hollywood and western celebrities have joined their members of royalty in Europe and made their main home, or main home away from home for party, in France or England over recent years with Germany, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Australia, etc, all a part except for the ill or less priveleged folks. The lower class workforce, the supervisoral positions, transport teams, as well as the unemployed, the homeless, and the elderly are banned keeping the street scenes life like.

As high quality recreational drugs like viagra, marijuana, crystal meth, and more became readily available and accepted openly as a part of their swingersex rituals the hiding has become a part of the new lifestyle. That is why England, Germany, Denmark, etc, have all abandoned their projects to legalize commonly used rec drugs like hash and weed and the USA is now attempting to sabotage attempts they started hoping to lead with matured responsibility. The high society heading the swingersex networks now control the drug flow and have decided to disallow public sale.

The point is that Grisham, as many wealthy westerners of fame, enjoy those diverse levels of fun and options made for all desires and extremes but, worry too much about the day it is offered to all folks. I bet Grisham is an active member and one of those worry warts. There are many of them. Hiding breeds shame, worry and paranoia until secrets and hiding are deemed permanent opening the door to criminals and suspicions that grow by the day.

Sorry for ramblin on...I must be horny and lonely´in western Europe.

PS...what will people think when they find out it is all because of one former soldier they stole some of his data and ideas as he began planning ahead of time with military appointed duties when civilian...to form, and offer, new international entertainment arts, as well as open sexual networks with advanced military research results and new scientific methods to improve life for all including sex.

Who knows, maybe they will admit one mistake and throw him a party as an apology...
 
  • Like
Reactions: no bounce no play

morgan

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2010
29,353
104,579
North Dakota
I am very disappointed to hear this. He is one of my favorite writers and he is dead wrong. Allowing access to this kind of stuff is saying that it is okay. It does not matter if it is watched privately in one's own home. You have become part of the catering to pedophilia. There are no degrees to this. If you watch it, you condone it.
Yep-if you "search" for it , watch it ("accidentally" or on purpose) you are part of the problem. Period.
 

Mantor

Deema sidekick
Jul 31, 2014
177
579
57
Germany
It was stupid but it wasn't 10 year old boys.

That's the line that says it all. Because really, 16 year old girls are just as illegal. But, the way he says this....maybe he understands how a grown man could be attracted?

I do agree with you AnnaMarie but, I also feel the need to come to Mr Grisham's defence just a little. He is trying to emphasize that sexually active 16 year olds posing for the camera can turn a man's head without making him a monster which could not be said about 10 year old boys involved in sex turning a man's head in lust.

However, like you state, the wording is worse than poor and puts a bad light (again for me) on the author of so many high powered thrillers of now classic literature. Like, 29 bestseller court thrillers over like 25 years and still going. That is quite a feat from a former low key lawyer doing petty cases for less than five years in the 80s before hitting politics and then court thriller novels. Strange that he first found his awesome writing talent at 30 and found the knack for epic novel writing with his first attempt. I am not getting coy. I am sure an experienced and high profile legal lawyer involved with such extreme cases would prefer to keep his identity hidden and have a formerly unknown lawyer take credit. Main thing is sharing your art. However, he, the true author if he exists, should take the warning alarm of Grisham's words and make sure he is not misusing drugs. Or else his wife Renee and two grown kids should kick his butt!
 

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
I do agree with you AnnaMarie but, I also feel the need to come to Mr Grisham's defence just a little. He is trying to emphasize that sexually active 16 year olds posing for the camera can turn a man's head without making him a monster which could not be said about 10 year old boys involved in sex turning a man's head in lust.

Then he and I disagree. Searching out pictures of 16 year old girls does make you as much a monster.

Many years ago my husband, our youngest son, and I were at a pool with son's best friend and his family. Another neighbour was there with his daughter who was fifteen or sixteen, very pretty, and wearing a bikini. The best friend's dad said something to my husband...something crude about needing to cover himself with a towel (directly referencing the teen). My husband replied "She's the same age as my son....so....a kid." He then walked away.

Our two families pretty much stopped socializing together. It disgusted my husband that much, that a grown man would see a 16 year old child as a sexual object. Yes the girl was pretty, wearing a bikini, and with a shape many people would look twice at. Nothing wrong with looking twice. But the guys comment crossed a line. Searching for pictures and downloading would cross that line too.
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
52,243
157,324
Maine
I don't know (or care) what Mr. Grisham believes, but it was an incredibly stupid and insensitive thing to say, surely he should have at least recognized that.
In hindsight he probably does. I've lost count of the times that Steve has made remarks in interviews or at events that have caused public outcry from various sources that he wishes he could take back because they didn't come out the way he would have liked if he'd had more time to think about it before speaking it.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
In hindsight he probably does. I've lost count of the times that Steve has made remarks in interviews or at events that have caused public outcry from various sources that he wishes he could take back because they didn't come out the way he would have liked if he'd had more time to think about it before speaking it.
to say a dumb thing or two is one thing. To make an incredible insensitive ass of ones own self so that even fans say i'm not gonna read him anymore something else. Don't you think?
 

DiO'Bolic

Not completely obtuse
Nov 14, 2013
22,864
129,998
Poconos, PA
I've lost count of the times that Steve has made remarks in interviews or at events that have caused public outcry from various sources that he wishes he could take back because they didn't come out the way he would have liked if he'd had more time to think about it before speaking it.

I remember some. Unfortunately I doubt he’d consider those occasional forays into politics as gaucheries. :)
 

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
62
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
In hindsight he probably does. I've lost count of the times that Steve has made remarks in interviews or at events that have caused public outcry from various sources that he wishes he could take back because they didn't come out the way he would have liked if he'd had more time to think about it before speaking it.

I have posts I want to take back after the edit button is gone. ;-D I can't imagine what it's like to have the first thing out of my mouth on TV or in print.
 

Sigmund

Waiting in Uber.
Jan 3, 2010
13,979
44,046
In your mirror.
Backtracking and apologizing.

John Grisham apologizes for remarks on child porn - CNN.com

Coming in to defend Grisham:

In defense of John Grisham - The Washington Post

The Washington Post article was ... interesting. An UPDATE read in part:

UPDATE: After this post was published, the Telegraph published another story about this whole affair. Citing media accounts of the prosecution of Grisham’s friend, the Telegraph reports that he was convicted of swapping photos of children, some younger than 12. That’s certainly a different story than what Grisham initially told the reporter. I don’t know why Grisham told an incorrect version of the story, and I suppose if you wanted to speculate, you could come up with a range of explanations from nefarious (Grisham deliberately lied to defend child pornographers) to more understandable (Grisham’s memory of the event, which happened in the 1990s, was distorted by his sympathy for his friend).

Here's the link.

John Grisham's friend swapped pornographic images of children under 12 - Telegraph

An excerpt:

"An undercover agent who asked for some of Holleman's pictures over the Internet earlier this year received 13 images, all of children under 18, some under 12. They depicted children during sexually explicit conduct, including intercourse," said the report from November 1997, quoting a US justice department lawyer, Kathy McLure.

Grisham is a better friend than I may ever be. I would not write a letter of recommendation to the bar asking for this man to get his law license back. But I'm a b*tch that way.

Peace.
 
Last edited:

AnnaMarie

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2012
7,068
29,564
Other
[QUOTE="Sigmund, post: 249071, member: 25176"

Grisham is a better friend than I may ever be. I would not write a letter of recommendation to the bar asking for this man to get his law license back. But I'm a b*tch that way.

[/QUOTE]

You're my kinda b*tch.
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
52,243
157,324
Maine
to say a dumb thing or two is one thing. To make an incredible insensitive ass of ones own self so that even fans say i'm not gonna read him anymore something else. Don't you think?

No, I think it is a result of someone not having the full picture at times and have over the years seen too many occasions of a fan saying for one reason or the other that they would never read his work again. That's certainly their right but sometimes the reasons they've chosen don't make a bit of sense to me.
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
52,243
157,324
Maine
I have posts I want to take back after the edit button is gone. ;-D I can't imagine what it's like to have the first thing out of my mouth on TV or in print.
Exactly. We've all said dumb things that we wish we could take back or once we hear a different perspective that didn't occur to us when we said it, we can change our mind. The difference is that it isn't said in front of millions of people.

Not specifically directed at you, but just to continue on this idea, I'm not supporting the idea that watching child pornography is in any scenario an okay thing to do but I'm not going to judge John Grisham on having said something that he might have intended an entirely different way but did not express as eloquently as he would have liked. I've seen firsthand how that can happen and the consequences of it from those who want to judge. Perhaps the good that will come of this is that Mr. Grisham will consider a different POV that he didn't think of when he made his comments, i.e. how others might not agree with his defense of his friend and the reasons why the pornography itself is indefensible.
 

DiO'Bolic

Not completely obtuse
Nov 14, 2013
22,864
129,998
Poconos, PA
For some of them perhaps but for others he definitely would and wishes he could take them back. I get to hear a side that you don't--sometimes it gets shared publicly but not always.
Do tell... we love getting an occasional tidbit about Stephen that no one else except the faithful here ever hears. :)

(well for 5 minutes anyway until it's picked by his detractors and used against him since it's posted publicly for all the world to see ;)).
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
52,243
157,324
Maine
Do tell... we love getting an occasional tidbit about Steven that no one else except the faithful here ever hears. :)

(well for 5 minutes anyway until it's picked by his detractors and used against him since it's posted publicly for all the world to see ;)).
Just for spelling his name wrong you get a no, but even if you hadn't it would still be :zip_it:. Rule #1 of being a personal assistant, confidentiality. If he wants it to go public, that's entirely up to him but you won't hear it from me otherwise. :wink:
 

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
62
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
Exactly. We've all said dumb things that we wish we could take back or once we hear a different perspective that didn't occur to us when we said it, we can change our mind. The difference is that it isn't said in front of millions of people.

Not specifically directed at you, but just to continue on this idea, I'm not supporting the idea that watching child pornography is in any scenario an okay thing to do but I'm not going to judge John Grisham on having said something that he might have intended an entirely different way but did not express as eloquently as he would have liked. I've seen firsthand how that can happen and the consequences of it from those who want to judge. Perhaps the good that will come of this is that Mr. Grisham will consider a different POV that he didn't think of when he made his comments, i.e. how others might not agree with his defense of his friend and the reasons why the pornography itself is indefensible.

I think he was trying to say that we are getting carried away with tagging people sex offenders and I would agree with him there. We had a case here where some kid mooned some girls at school and they were trying to hang that sex offender tag on him which is really ridiculous. But I think he got carried away trying to defend his friend who obviously did more than just accidentally land on the wrong webpage.