What do you think?
Rate this book
Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity
Challenging widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors—often referred to as "pedophiles"—are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs). There is little research into non-offending MAPs, a group whose experiences offer valuable insights into the prevention of child abuse. Navigating guilt, shame, and fear, this universally maligned group demonstrates remarkable resilience and commitment to living without offending and to supporting and educating others. Using data from interview-based research, A Long, Dark Shadow offers a crucial account of the lived experiences of this hidden population.
- GenresPsychologyNonfiction
236 pages, Paperback
Published June 22, 2021
19 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
April 23, 2022
I don’t think I’ve ever read something more disturbing or disgusting. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, but I truly believe this goes far deeper than anyone can even imagine. The author, Allyn Walker, attempts to make a compelling case against the “stigmatization” of pedophiles, yet at the same time offers an awfully naive and extremely dangerous premise as to WHY. Why is this necessary? Why is this good? Why must society destigmatize a group of people who sexualize children, whether or not they choose to? Why must parents, siblings, friends accept pedophilia as nothing more than a sexuality? The explanation this
WACKJOB
gives can briefly be summarized as: "pedophiles' feelings are hurt, and they actually want to help children, so we should really just refer to them as MAPs instead :(".
My response, as I'm sure is the same for normal human beings in our society, is the following: I don't give a flying F*CK if pedophilia is or isn't a choice - I will NOT destigmatize pedophilia or pedophiles, and I will ALWAYS fight against any sexualization of children and minors.
Walker claims she is not facilitating the sexualization of children - in fact, she is finding ways of keeping children safe by going right to the source. This would only be true if she did not want to destigmatize pedophilia. Whether she admits it or not, whether she is aware or not, what she is doing is creating a path for pedophiles to be accepted in society, which will lead to an increase in child abuse. Criticize the slippery slope fallacy all you want - if you can't see what's been happening in the past 10-20 years and how it led to academics publishing literature like this, you are in denial.
My issue with academics like Walker is their attitude toward the general public. That is to say, people like Walker think that we are just so much dumber than her useless cesspool of sociology/gender studies/ABCD humanities colleagues. This goes for all of the professors at ODU who defended this as "academic freedom". You know who else used "academic freedom" as a way to justify defending pedophilia? John Money. John Money was a pedophile who encourage a young man's parents to raise their son as a girl due to a botched circumcision. He had this young man and his brother perform sexual acts in front of him as children. Both boys committed suicide before the age of 40. This young man and his brother were called David and Brian Reimer.
What I find so alarming are the parallels between John Money and Allyn Walker's premise. John Money argued there are different "types" of pedophilia: the first is "love"-based attraction to children and the second is "sadistic" pedophilia. Do you see how sneaky this is? Money was essentially trying to humanize pedophiles who just simply love children; these pedophiles aren't sadistic like the others. Allyn Walker attempts a similar tactic: the pedophiles in this book claim they just want to help authorities catch offending pedophiles. They care about children. That's why they, and Walker, want to destigmatize pedophilia, convince the public that it is nothing more than a sexuality, and change the identifying phrase to Minor Attracted Person. That makes sense, right?
So, if we just come back to reality for a second, I just want to clarify that the general public is not stupid the way Walker and her colleagues think that we are. We know that the state of being a pedophile doesn't mean they've abused a child or accessed/consumed child pornography. We know that pedophiles are not legally considered sexual predators until they are convicted. Not every pedophile may hurt a child in their lifetime. At the same time, most of the people who are convicted of committing these crimes are usually pedophiles, or at the very least, extremely mentally ill.
Creeps like Walker are the reason why certain academic fields are poisoned. History repeats itself. We've come full circle, haven't we? This stretches long before John Money, but if we use him as an example, there is an obvious bread trail leading to people like Walker, who think they are doing something monumental, going against the grain, by trying to "unpack" pedophilia into being nothing but a sexuality. How fucking stunning and brave of this absolute hack.
The “dismantling” of the “stigma” of pedophilia ONLY helps pedophiles, who would probably hurt children if there weren’t laws in place against it. It does not help any other community, including the LGBT community, nor does it help the one group of people most vulnerable and important to the discussion — children. And as a side note, I hope Walker NEVER has any access to children. She is absolutely a danger to them.
*edited lol*
My response, as I'm sure is the same for normal human beings in our society, is the following: I don't give a flying F*CK if pedophilia is or isn't a choice - I will NOT destigmatize pedophilia or pedophiles, and I will ALWAYS fight against any sexualization of children and minors.
Walker claims she is not facilitating the sexualization of children - in fact, she is finding ways of keeping children safe by going right to the source. This would only be true if she did not want to destigmatize pedophilia. Whether she admits it or not, whether she is aware or not, what she is doing is creating a path for pedophiles to be accepted in society, which will lead to an increase in child abuse. Criticize the slippery slope fallacy all you want - if you can't see what's been happening in the past 10-20 years and how it led to academics publishing literature like this, you are in denial.
My issue with academics like Walker is their attitude toward the general public. That is to say, people like Walker think that we are just so much dumber than her useless cesspool of sociology/gender studies/ABCD humanities colleagues. This goes for all of the professors at ODU who defended this as "academic freedom". You know who else used "academic freedom" as a way to justify defending pedophilia? John Money. John Money was a pedophile who encourage a young man's parents to raise their son as a girl due to a botched circumcision. He had this young man and his brother perform sexual acts in front of him as children. Both boys committed suicide before the age of 40. This young man and his brother were called David and Brian Reimer.
What I find so alarming are the parallels between John Money and Allyn Walker's premise. John Money argued there are different "types" of pedophilia: the first is "love"-based attraction to children and the second is "sadistic" pedophilia. Do you see how sneaky this is? Money was essentially trying to humanize pedophiles who just simply love children; these pedophiles aren't sadistic like the others. Allyn Walker attempts a similar tactic: the pedophiles in this book claim they just want to help authorities catch offending pedophiles. They care about children. That's why they, and Walker, want to destigmatize pedophilia, convince the public that it is nothing more than a sexuality, and change the identifying phrase to Minor Attracted Person. That makes sense, right?
So, if we just come back to reality for a second, I just want to clarify that the general public is not stupid the way Walker and her colleagues think that we are. We know that the state of being a pedophile doesn't mean they've abused a child or accessed/consumed child pornography. We know that pedophiles are not legally considered sexual predators until they are convicted. Not every pedophile may hurt a child in their lifetime. At the same time, most of the people who are convicted of committing these crimes are usually pedophiles, or at the very least, extremely mentally ill.
Creeps like Walker are the reason why certain academic fields are poisoned. History repeats itself. We've come full circle, haven't we? This stretches long before John Money, but if we use him as an example, there is an obvious bread trail leading to people like Walker, who think they are doing something monumental, going against the grain, by trying to "unpack" pedophilia into being nothing but a sexuality. How fucking stunning and brave of this absolute hack.
The “dismantling” of the “stigma” of pedophilia ONLY helps pedophiles, who would probably hurt children if there weren’t laws in place against it. It does not help any other community, including the LGBT community, nor does it help the one group of people most vulnerable and important to the discussion — children. And as a side note, I hope Walker NEVER has any access to children. She is absolutely a danger to them.
*edited lol*
November 25, 2021
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse the fact that this book was even allowed to be published is like a punch in the guts. Be in no doubt - this is part of an ongoing agenda to normalise paedophilia. Look back to PIE in the UK and NAMBLA in the US, recent TED talks on why we should support paedophiles and have sympathy for them, and recent hate crime legislation that criminalises saying something that might hurt someone's feelings. The author made a video specifically saying that he thinks we shouldn't hurt the feelings of paedophiles, so how long is it before they and their crimes are placed under the protection of the law? Did you know that in Scotland paedophiles were one of the groups suggested for inclusion under the recent hate crime act? Look back to their consultation paper, from 2018. What about the feelings of the children they abuse? I cannot believe I am living in a world where this book is actually garnering praise.
There is no place in society for this. Monsters like this took my childhood and led to an adulthood wracked with depression, and god knows how many lost years due to the mental health impact of being raped by adults before I had any understanding of what sex was. It will never be acceptable, and it will never be tagged on to the LGBTQ line as a sexual 'preference'. It is an abomination, and I will fight this until my last breath.
There is no place in society for this. Monsters like this took my childhood and led to an adulthood wracked with depression, and god knows how many lost years due to the mental health impact of being raped by adults before I had any understanding of what sex was. It will never be acceptable, and it will never be tagged on to the LGBTQ line as a sexual 'preference'. It is an abomination, and I will fight this until my last breath.
November 13, 2021
This is a book adamantly trying to normalise pedophilia, it’s trying to humanise and distinguish that there’s a difference between a map and a pedophile, trying to insinuate its a sexual attraction instead of a severe mental illness. I would not recommend it’s garbage
November 16, 2021
A good book with a solid focus on the human experience of people living with a terrible condition, without laboring the point of condemning them or indulging in moralistic grandstanding by the author. I work in the mental health space, and feel I now have a solid understanding of the challenges a potential client may face, which can inform treatment. This is helped tremendously by the writers continued returns to relating the experience of their subjects with their own experience as an LGBT person, making an otherwise alien concept more accessible to the average reader by framing it in a more socially accessible context.
Moreover, I write my own review for the first time as the reviews here (which I expect where written by people who have never read more than the available sample at best) highlight the need for more discourse on this matter and the general ignorance toward this condition in society at large which, I would argue, places both children and innocent adults at great risk of harm as public hatred and vitriol drives the vulnerable into the shadows where help cannot reach them
I feel like there are a lot of MAP's who will likely be seeking out books like these, to learn about themselves as much as others seek to learn about them. If you are one of those people, this message is for you;
You are valued and you are loved.
You can find help, and you can find peace.
Even if it doesn't seem like it right now, reach out.
Someone will take you hand.
Have faith.
Moreover, I write my own review for the first time as the reviews here (which I expect where written by people who have never read more than the available sample at best) highlight the need for more discourse on this matter and the general ignorance toward this condition in society at large which, I would argue, places both children and innocent adults at great risk of harm as public hatred and vitriol drives the vulnerable into the shadows where help cannot reach them
I feel like there are a lot of MAP's who will likely be seeking out books like these, to learn about themselves as much as others seek to learn about them. If you are one of those people, this message is for you;
You are valued and you are loved.
You can find help, and you can find peace.
Even if it doesn't seem like it right now, reach out.
Someone will take you hand.
Have faith.
November 14, 2021
Save our children from Allyn Walker
This book is WRONG on every level.
This book is WRONG on every level.
November 14, 2021
This author should be in prison should even suggesting to normalise pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong and is a crime against the most innocent. This book is horrible, nasty, gross, disturbing and criminal in itself for its existence.
January 23, 2022
This book takes a rational, evidence-based review of an emotive subject. It is well researched and written.
99% of those who are leaving negative reviews have never read the book, this is blatantly clear from the negative reviews themselves which show a gross misunderstanding of the basic points that the author addresses in their work.
The author's research and publication is a tremendous effort towards reducing the cases of child sexual abuse, something that the author is vehemently opposed to.
The unfortunate thing is that the senseless, emotive and ignorant comments left in the negative reviews highlight a common narrative that is not conducive to reducing the rates of child sexual abuse, and unfortunately promotes stigma, shame and secrecy, all of which contribute to creating an environment where abuse occurs.
99% of those who are leaving negative reviews have never read the book, this is blatantly clear from the negative reviews themselves which show a gross misunderstanding of the basic points that the author addresses in their work.
The author's research and publication is a tremendous effort towards reducing the cases of child sexual abuse, something that the author is vehemently opposed to.
The unfortunate thing is that the senseless, emotive and ignorant comments left in the negative reviews highlight a common narrative that is not conducive to reducing the rates of child sexual abuse, and unfortunately promotes stigma, shame and secrecy, all of which contribute to creating an environment where abuse occurs.
November 14, 2021
Grotesque. This book is a crime in itself. Child abuse is wrong. Allyn Walker is a pedophile/pedophile supporter and teaches st a university. Needs to be fired and kept away from children.
June 20, 2021
As a Jewish reader, I found this book most intriguing. For centuries our idea of pedophiles has been skewed by the horrible atrocities they have committed, and permanent long term damage it has done of millions of children world wide. Fortunately now we have new and modern perspectives, straight from the smartest minds in California. At last, the Monsters can come out of the closet.
Definitely a must read along with classics such as, “ Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis.”.
Definitely a must read along with classics such as, “ Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis.”.
November 14, 2021
Disgusting book. Written by a disgusting person who supports pedophiles and is trying to normalise is so it becomes legal for these sick psychos to hurt children. This book should be illegal!.
November 16, 2021
Worst book ever. The author should be in prison for writing such a grotesque book. Allyn Walkers next book will likely be normalising the murder of children.
Child abuse is criminal.
Child abuse is criminal.
May 16, 2022
Very disturbing yet interesting research here. Something I think most people with an academic psychology background would be curious about. There’s just always going to be a huge stigma around this subject, but I appreciated the author’s candor and admittance of various pitfalls and obstacles to even writing about something like this.
November 14, 2021
One of the worst books ever written. Save our children from monsters like Allyn Walker and the rest of the pedophiles roaming around.
January 13, 2022
A really good and well conducted study.
The author is truly doing this because they want to find a real way for less children to be harmed.
It's a shame so many are unwilling to face the uncomfortable reality that sometimes things exist that aren't good but that can be prevented from turning truly horrible.
A bit too medical journal at times but that's to be expected in this type of dissertation.
The author is truly doing this because they want to find a real way for less children to be harmed.
It's a shame so many are unwilling to face the uncomfortable reality that sometimes things exist that aren't good but that can be prevented from turning truly horrible.
A bit too medical journal at times but that's to be expected in this type of dissertation.
March 1, 2023
Walker is a bit before her time. There's a great deal of people screaming in the reviews about normalizing pedophilia. That's a bit funny to me, since for most of human history, pedophilia has been normal. We fought long and hard for eighteen to be our age of consent; and in fact, it's still sixteen in more than half of the states, and younger, if the girl is getting married with parental consent. No one can convince me that pedophilia was less common than it is now in earlier ages, such as 1800s France, when the age of consent was twelve, and Degas spent his time painting the ballet, also known as a child brothel for rich patrons. The entire concept of childhood as an ideal age of innocence, instead of children being miniature adults, only got invented in the nineteenth century. If anything, the problem of child sexual abuse is most visible at our current time in human history. The first big CSA scandals appeared in American news only around the nineties; CSA as a front for activism emerged after feminism. This is the information age, and everyone has access to information about pedophilia. That doesn't mean we like to talk about it. So kudos to Walker for taking on a brave topic.
Being young, I grew up in this digital age. I know just how widespread pedophilia is in our culture. Everyone wants to be young, and everyone wants young girls. It's important to address this problem in our society, and in order to do so, of course we have to look at the psychology of the offenders. Of course we have to realize that they are human beings; child molesters are human, as are rapists and murderers and everyone else we dehumanize, and of course the pedophiles Walker talks about are human. I always thought it was a noble struggle they carried on, in fact—holding back their desires.
I don't think the offended folks actually want to work towards a better society. They seem to want to stick to the status quo. Or rather, they want to stick pedophiles into a nice black area in the heart of evil, where they're well cut-off from the rest of society, and no one has to think much about them, much less empathize with them.
All in all, the book didn't contain too much information I didn't already know, though there was some interesting rationale behind viewing child pornography. You really see how the mind twists itself around. But it's a good foray into one of the new frontiers we must tackle as a society.
Being young, I grew up in this digital age. I know just how widespread pedophilia is in our culture. Everyone wants to be young, and everyone wants young girls. It's important to address this problem in our society, and in order to do so, of course we have to look at the psychology of the offenders. Of course we have to realize that they are human beings; child molesters are human, as are rapists and murderers and everyone else we dehumanize, and of course the pedophiles Walker talks about are human. I always thought it was a noble struggle they carried on, in fact—holding back their desires.
I don't think the offended folks actually want to work towards a better society. They seem to want to stick to the status quo. Or rather, they want to stick pedophiles into a nice black area in the heart of evil, where they're well cut-off from the rest of society, and no one has to think much about them, much less empathize with them.
All in all, the book didn't contain too much information I didn't already know, though there was some interesting rationale behind viewing child pornography. You really see how the mind twists itself around. But it's a good foray into one of the new frontiers we must tackle as a society.
November 20, 2021
Stop trying to legalize raping CHILDREN!!! You dumb broad
February 9, 2026
EDIT: I have more to say because this has made me so upset. I'm also going to change my references to "child sexually exploitative material" or something similar. Clunky as it is, it makes it much more clear what "child porn" is. I do not change direct quotes.
Some of what I quote and talk about is also going to be extremely disturbing and sickening. Be warned.
I've been letting AI slop do most of the irritating for me when it comes to books, so I thought it was about time to make my skin crawl instead.
I read some of this because it supposedly had an alarming section about "tasteful child porn". It turned out to be pedophiles discussing how they use it to deter themselves from directly hurting children. I didn't find those parts alarming in and of itself, but the conclusion the author reached really repulsed me:
"Legalizing simulated pornography that does not cause harm to children would create a sexual outlet for people with no other nonharmful options, and when having a sexual outlet can prevent the sexual abuse of children, this may be a practical (if uncomfortable) solution."
I'm curious. What defines non-harmful? How do you create something that is non-harmful? These materials don't come out of thin air, and don't live in a bubble. So pray tell, why didn't we get examples of how this material can come about?
I guess we have real examples. Look at Japan, a shining beacon of destigmatization of pedophiles.* They have a massive problem with sexual exploitation of children. The country didn't raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 until 2023 ffs. Per Wikpedia:
"In 2023, the two articles were amended to raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 years old. An exception was included for sexual acts involving persons aged 13 to 15, by which the older partner is only subject to penalty if five or more years older."
Oh cool, an eighteen-year-old being with a fourteen-year-old is still okay.
They also didn't make child sexually exploitative material partially illegal until 2014. Per the book:
"Japan outlawed child pornography (videos or images depicting children’s “naked genitals, buttocks, or chest”) in 2014, but depictions of chaku ero—or “erotically clothed” children—are considered legal throughout the country."
There are several reasons I say they only partially banned it. First, try saying "erotically clothed children" out loud. If you're like me, your skin should've crawled. Those are not words that should ever be strung together, nor have its own unique terminology. But Japan does. Please ask yourself if they've truly outlawed it if you can still legally have "chaku ero", and one of the book's interviewees uses it as... material.
"Floyd, who lived in Japan and had access to legal images of what he described as “child models,” used this legal material as a way to keep himself from offending, as he explained during this exchange:"
There is a BBC article titled "Is Japan turning a blind eye to paedophilia?" that goes into some detail about this. One example given is of a six-year-old girl in a "chaku ero". Thinking of it as I write this makes me want to scream. In brief: the child's mother participated in production, and the producer made a lot of money off of it.
The direct quote is here. I want to hammer it home how much this illustrates enabling and destigmatizing a culture of pedophilia and child exploitation:
UGH.
This isn't even getting into "JK Cafes". Quote the same article:
"Japan is also home to 300 "JK cafes", where adult men pay to hang out with underage girls (the age of consent in Japan is 18)."
The good news, if you can call it that, is it's been amended so they all gotta be of legal age now, but the fact this was even allowed in the first place for so long reinforces my belief Japan is pedo haven.
So is it any surprise you play Russian Roulette on whether or not you'll be shot with a "child abuse material" bullet consuming Japanese media? Because cartoon depictions of this is totally legal. Producers of this shit pushed back against the government trying to ban it by claiming "free speech". You can be as sexually explicit as you want with it, as long as you censor the genitals (because that's totally the problem here).
As a result, this shit proliferates. I hate finding a manga I think has an interesting story or premise, only to discover they had to pedoify it. Great. No one should kid themselves into thinking this hasn't been normalized, nor that this is harmless. We'll let the book speak for itself:
"Those who viewed only drawn or nonsuggestive images were less concerned with the morality of their behavior."
"Charlotte told me of lolicon: “I don’t personally think it’s immoral.” Cody even referred to such images as “art.”"
"For instance, Avery believed that looking at lolicon had an effect on his attractions, noting he thought they increased them. ... Charlotte felt she had brought her attractions on herself with her consumption of lolicon materials."
I know I'm preaching to the choir here for the most part, but how can you come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as non-harmful sexually exploitative material of children when your interview participants demonstrate otherwise?
That's not even getting to the swarms of pedos they've attracted as a result... but let's sidestep from Japan to another online community that also destigmatized and normalized this shit not long ago: Reddit.
Reddit had its own massive problem with sexually abusive material back in the early 2010's. They had a subreddit called "jailbait" (amongst many other offshoots with more reprehensible content) where "chaku ero" of children were posted. Reddit's founders and their userbase argued this was free speech, just as Japan did with drawn/depicted shit. The site and its founders normalized it so much, that /r/jailbait got a subreddit of the year award. The creep who made this (along with others, e.g. dead children, dead babies, rape, misogyny, incel, antisemitism) even got a gold-plated award from Reddit itself for creating /r/jailbait .
You have to ask yourself how proliferant pedo culture and acceptance had to be for enough people to vote a pedofest as subreddit of the year, and award the guy who made it prizes. They only backed down of course, after CNN did an expose on Reddit embracing pedophilia. Then the creeps got angry. Not because of the blow it made against child exploitation, but because oflosing their source of exploitative content free speech.
Back to Japan. Their drawn depictions of children being sexualized get plenty of defense from pedos. Free speech being one. "It's not harming anyone" another. It's "kink shaming an entire country" or "cultural ignorance". Seriously, go search for any thread out there debating the legality and morality of this crap, and you'll see what it is the author is trying to defend and destigmatize. I think that's the root of what I'm getting at here: WHY DO YOU THINK THIS NEEDS UNDERSTANDING? Who cares what a couple of pedos willing to be interviewed think, we have plenty of real examples to go off of with a quick search!
Maybe next, the author can stay behind the times and write a book interviewing rapists to try and destigmatize them and understand their side too, just like the Reddit thread that did that, where the rapists posting their stories were treated as being so ~brave~! No, I'm not making this up.
Also fuck off with this MAPs shit. I associate MAPS with the Yeah Yeah Yeahs song, we do NOT need to convert pedophile into "person's first" bullshit. Pedophiles are pedophiles. What, are we going to call rapists "nonconsent attracted persons" now?
So mad. Yes, I'm mad. Even the author said at times in their interviews, they were uncomfortable and angry at what the pedos told them, which I feel says something??
tl;dr: This book is supposed to be about talking to pedos who haven't directly harmed a child to learn how to prevent child abuse. What we learn is that destigmatizing and normalizing pedo shit is not the answer.
* I am NOT saying ALL of Japan supports pedophilia or sexually exploitative material of children, but that its issue is significant enough that pro pedo in a nutshell.
Some of what I quote and talk about is also going to be extremely disturbing and sickening. Be warned.
I've been letting AI slop do most of the irritating for me when it comes to books, so I thought it was about time to make my skin crawl instead.
I read some of this because it supposedly had an alarming section about "tasteful child porn". It turned out to be pedophiles discussing how they use it to deter themselves from directly hurting children. I didn't find those parts alarming in and of itself, but the conclusion the author reached really repulsed me:
"Legalizing simulated pornography that does not cause harm to children would create a sexual outlet for people with no other nonharmful options, and when having a sexual outlet can prevent the sexual abuse of children, this may be a practical (if uncomfortable) solution."
I'm curious. What defines non-harmful? How do you create something that is non-harmful? These materials don't come out of thin air, and don't live in a bubble. So pray tell, why didn't we get examples of how this material can come about?
I guess we have real examples. Look at Japan, a shining beacon of destigmatization of pedophiles.* They have a massive problem with sexual exploitation of children. The country didn't raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 until 2023 ffs. Per Wikpedia:
"In 2023, the two articles were amended to raise the age of consent from 13 to 16 years old. An exception was included for sexual acts involving persons aged 13 to 15, by which the older partner is only subject to penalty if five or more years older."
Oh cool, an eighteen-year-old being with a fourteen-year-old is still okay.
They also didn't make child sexually exploitative material partially illegal until 2014. Per the book:
"Japan outlawed child pornography (videos or images depicting children’s “naked genitals, buttocks, or chest”) in 2014, but depictions of chaku ero—or “erotically clothed” children—are considered legal throughout the country."
There are several reasons I say they only partially banned it. First, try saying "erotically clothed children" out loud. If you're like me, your skin should've crawled. Those are not words that should ever be strung together, nor have its own unique terminology. But Japan does. Please ask yourself if they've truly outlawed it if you can still legally have "chaku ero", and one of the book's interviewees uses it as... material.
"Floyd, who lived in Japan and had access to legal images of what he described as “child models,” used this legal material as a way to keep himself from offending, as he explained during this exchange:"
There is a BBC article titled "Is Japan turning a blind eye to paedophilia?" that goes into some detail about this. One example given is of a six-year-old girl in a "chaku ero". Thinking of it as I write this makes me want to scream. In brief: the child's mother participated in production, and the producer made a lot of money off of it.
The direct quote is here. I want to hammer it home how much this illustrates enabling and destigmatizing a culture of pedophilia and child exploitation:
UGH.
This isn't even getting into "JK Cafes". Quote the same article:
"Japan is also home to 300 "JK cafes", where adult men pay to hang out with underage girls (the age of consent in Japan is 18)."
The good news, if you can call it that, is it's been amended so they all gotta be of legal age now, but the fact this was even allowed in the first place for so long reinforces my belief Japan is pedo haven.
So is it any surprise you play Russian Roulette on whether or not you'll be shot with a "child abuse material" bullet consuming Japanese media? Because cartoon depictions of this is totally legal. Producers of this shit pushed back against the government trying to ban it by claiming "free speech". You can be as sexually explicit as you want with it, as long as you censor the genitals (because that's totally the problem here).
As a result, this shit proliferates. I hate finding a manga I think has an interesting story or premise, only to discover they had to pedoify it. Great. No one should kid themselves into thinking this hasn't been normalized, nor that this is harmless. We'll let the book speak for itself:
"Those who viewed only drawn or nonsuggestive images were less concerned with the morality of their behavior."
"Charlotte told me of lolicon: “I don’t personally think it’s immoral.” Cody even referred to such images as “art.”"
"For instance, Avery believed that looking at lolicon had an effect on his attractions, noting he thought they increased them. ... Charlotte felt she had brought her attractions on herself with her consumption of lolicon materials."
I know I'm preaching to the choir here for the most part, but how can you come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as non-harmful sexually exploitative material of children when your interview participants demonstrate otherwise?
That's not even getting to the swarms of pedos they've attracted as a result... but let's sidestep from Japan to another online community that also destigmatized and normalized this shit not long ago: Reddit.
Reddit had its own massive problem with sexually abusive material back in the early 2010's. They had a subreddit called "jailbait" (amongst many other offshoots with more reprehensible content) where "chaku ero" of children were posted. Reddit's founders and their userbase argued this was free speech, just as Japan did with drawn/depicted shit. The site and its founders normalized it so much, that /r/jailbait got a subreddit of the year award. The creep who made this (along with others, e.g. dead children, dead babies, rape, misogyny, incel, antisemitism) even got a gold-plated award from Reddit itself for creating /r/jailbait .
You have to ask yourself how proliferant pedo culture and acceptance had to be for enough people to vote a pedofest as subreddit of the year, and award the guy who made it prizes. They only backed down of course, after CNN did an expose on Reddit embracing pedophilia. Then the creeps got angry. Not because of the blow it made against child exploitation, but because of
Back to Japan. Their drawn depictions of children being sexualized get plenty of defense from pedos. Free speech being one. "It's not harming anyone" another. It's "kink shaming an entire country" or "cultural ignorance". Seriously, go search for any thread out there debating the legality and morality of this crap, and you'll see what it is the author is trying to defend and destigmatize. I think that's the root of what I'm getting at here: WHY DO YOU THINK THIS NEEDS UNDERSTANDING? Who cares what a couple of pedos willing to be interviewed think, we have plenty of real examples to go off of with a quick search!
Maybe next, the author can stay behind the times and write a book interviewing rapists to try and destigmatize them and understand their side too, just like the Reddit thread that did that, where the rapists posting their stories were treated as being so ~brave~! No, I'm not making this up.
Also fuck off with this MAPs shit. I associate MAPS with the Yeah Yeah Yeahs song, we do NOT need to convert pedophile into "person's first" bullshit. Pedophiles are pedophiles. What, are we going to call rapists "nonconsent attracted persons" now?
So mad. Yes, I'm mad. Even the author said at times in their interviews, they were uncomfortable and angry at what the pedos told them, which I feel says something??
tl;dr: This book is supposed to be about talking to pedos who haven't directly harmed a child to learn how to prevent child abuse. What we learn is that destigmatizing and normalizing pedo shit is not the answer.
* I am NOT saying ALL of Japan supports pedophilia or sexually exploitative material of children, but that its issue is significant enough that pro pedo in a nutshell.
June 24, 2023
Contrary to what many other reviews here are saying, this book does not promote sexual abuse of children. It actually does the opposite: it takes a critical look at how our society treats pedophiles (and in particular non-offending pedophiles, i.e. people with an attraction to minors who do not act on these attractions) and asks the question whether it achieves its intended goals. It does so through interviews with minor-attracted people, investigating what they struggle with and how they manage to avoid acting on their feelings. I found the book gives a surprisingly level-headed view on a very touchy topic and manages to show empathy for a much maligned group of people without attempting to justify actual abuse. If you can put aside your prejudices, this book is very much worth reading in full.
November 16, 2021
Pedophile author trying to get everyone to believe that being a child abuser is okay.. it is not and should be in prison for writing such a thing. Pedophilia is not okay Allyn Walker. Leave the children alone.
November 16, 2021
Only people who would like this book or rate it higher than 1star are pedophiles. Good way for everyone know that you sexually abuse children.
November 16, 2021
Only people who would like this book or rate it higher than 1 star are pedophiles. Good way to let everyone know you sexually abuse children!. This book is the worst thing I have ever seen. Period.
August 20, 2022
I don't think many of these people reviewing actually read the book; guess I won't either. 5 stars :)
November 29, 2021
DESTIGMATIZATION LEADS TO NORMALIZATION. This is something that has happened time and time again - removing stigma from something will inevitably lead to it becoming normalized. That’s how humans are, how humans will always be, and there are many humans who love taking advantage of that fact.
Walker naively believes that removing stigma from pedophiles will result in pedophiles seeking help more often, but that is NOT what will happen. We all know this. That’s why so many of us are speaking out against it. There are times when some things are better left untouched and stigma is necessary and good, and this is one of them. This has nothing to do with the author’s claims of research - it has to do, for example, with her/him/whatever calling pedophiles MAPs, or Minor Attracted Person. Because feelings, right? It has to do with her wanting to rewrite the way society views these people, as people who don’t “choose” to be attracted to children. And yknow what we, as a society, need to say? WHO. CARES. No one CARES about people who sexualize children, and our priority should be to continue stigmatizing pedophilia to the Nth degree.
If laws were not in place to protect children from pedophiles, they would be at risk for being sexually abused EVERY DAY. None of the pedophiles in this research would even consider giving advice on how to “protect” kids because they would be able to do what they want without any repercussions. If they want to get help, they can, but that does NOT mean society needs to accept them or coddle their perversion.
We’ve seen little kids and teenagers be sexualized progressively over the past few decades. Teen stars in music groups and children’s TV channels have been sexually abused for years, we have insanely powerful people like Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sexually traffic underage girls to high profile celebrities and politicians and even royalty, and even Netflix has allowed little girls to be sexualized in disgusting documentaries like the program Cuties.
THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. ITS NOT AN ACCIDENT. It is happening for a reason. Academics such as Walker are only adding fuel to the fire. There are MANY institutions that have been pushing for normalization of pedophilia and adults sexually abusing teenagers for YEARS. We cannot like academia take shelter under the guise of “research”. They know it as much as we do - destigmatizing pedophiles and pedophilia will lead to the normalization of pedophilia which will lead to more children being abused and in this process, laws will most likely be put in place to lower the age of consent and society as a whole may start to adopt a supportive attitude toward this. We need to spread the word that people like Walker, as well as different institutions, are a danger to children that will not be met without a fight.
Walker naively believes that removing stigma from pedophiles will result in pedophiles seeking help more often, but that is NOT what will happen. We all know this. That’s why so many of us are speaking out against it. There are times when some things are better left untouched and stigma is necessary and good, and this is one of them. This has nothing to do with the author’s claims of research - it has to do, for example, with her/him/whatever calling pedophiles MAPs, or Minor Attracted Person. Because feelings, right? It has to do with her wanting to rewrite the way society views these people, as people who don’t “choose” to be attracted to children. And yknow what we, as a society, need to say? WHO. CARES. No one CARES about people who sexualize children, and our priority should be to continue stigmatizing pedophilia to the Nth degree.
If laws were not in place to protect children from pedophiles, they would be at risk for being sexually abused EVERY DAY. None of the pedophiles in this research would even consider giving advice on how to “protect” kids because they would be able to do what they want without any repercussions. If they want to get help, they can, but that does NOT mean society needs to accept them or coddle their perversion.
We’ve seen little kids and teenagers be sexualized progressively over the past few decades. Teen stars in music groups and children’s TV channels have been sexually abused for years, we have insanely powerful people like Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sexually traffic underage girls to high profile celebrities and politicians and even royalty, and even Netflix has allowed little girls to be sexualized in disgusting documentaries like the program Cuties.
THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. ITS NOT AN ACCIDENT. It is happening for a reason. Academics such as Walker are only adding fuel to the fire. There are MANY institutions that have been pushing for normalization of pedophilia and adults sexually abusing teenagers for YEARS. We cannot like academia take shelter under the guise of “research”. They know it as much as we do - destigmatizing pedophiles and pedophilia will lead to the normalization of pedophilia which will lead to more children being abused and in this process, laws will most likely be put in place to lower the age of consent and society as a whole may start to adopt a supportive attitude toward this. We need to spread the word that people like Walker, as well as different institutions, are a danger to children that will not be met without a fight.
September 10, 2023
The subject matter is extremely uncomfortable. But Walker's treatment is respectful and maintains the dignity of those who are definitely the most hated demographic in history. Christians, you would call them "the least of these." Seeking to understand minor-attracted people in no way undermines those who suffer abuse as children. Brave book on a critically needed topic.
March 5, 2023
A very thorough, compassionate book about non-offending minor attracted people from the perspective of a professional researcher and human being trying to give dignity to an underrepresented population of other human beings. It is very well written, researched, and carefully considered.
November 28, 2021
we don't support MAPs here.
November 16, 2021
A pedophile trying to make everyone think it's okay to abuse children. Pathetic and sick. Should be in prison for writing this.
June 17, 2023
Chciałam przeczytać tę książkę żeby zobaczyć czy na serio jest tak źle jak tiktok mi powiedział i tak, jest tak źle.
TW: PEDOFILIA
Autor próbuje znormalizować pedofilię i nazywa ich tutaj MAPS - osoby, którym podobają się dzieci (na prośbę pedofilów) i jeszcze ma czelność uważać, że to źle, że pedofile są najbardziej stygmatyzowaną grupą w społeczeństwie.
Jestem w stanie zgodzić się z tym, że pedofilom trzeba pomagać i zachęcać ich stale do terapii (oglądałam kiedyś dokument, który pokazał historię takiego pedofila, który stale ze sobą walczył i nie uległ pokusie), ale zaakceptowanie w rangi LGBT+ pedofilii i próby zmniejszenia stygmatyzacji to nie jest dobry sposób na załatwienie tego problemu.
Rozpoczynając od najważniejszego problemu - dzieci nie mogą dać consentu (a ja kłóciłabym się nawet, że 16 lat to dalej nie jest odpowiedni wiek na kontakty seksualne, a co dopiero jeszcze niżej).
Jestem absolutnie zdegustowana, że coś takiego w ogóle powstało i, że autor oraz jego koledzy po fachu bronili ich i krzyczeli o AKADEMICKIEJ WOLNOŚCI (autor ma doktorat)
TW: PEDOFILIA
Autor próbuje znormalizować pedofilię i nazywa ich tutaj MAPS - osoby, którym podobają się dzieci (na prośbę pedofilów) i jeszcze ma czelność uważać, że to źle, że pedofile są najbardziej stygmatyzowaną grupą w społeczeństwie.
Jestem w stanie zgodzić się z tym, że pedofilom trzeba pomagać i zachęcać ich stale do terapii (oglądałam kiedyś dokument, który pokazał historię takiego pedofila, który stale ze sobą walczył i nie uległ pokusie), ale zaakceptowanie w rangi LGBT+ pedofilii i próby zmniejszenia stygmatyzacji to nie jest dobry sposób na załatwienie tego problemu.
Rozpoczynając od najważniejszego problemu - dzieci nie mogą dać consentu (a ja kłóciłabym się nawet, że 16 lat to dalej nie jest odpowiedni wiek na kontakty seksualne, a co dopiero jeszcze niżej).
Jestem absolutnie zdegustowana, że coś takiego w ogóle powstało i, że autor oraz jego koledzy po fachu bronili ich i krzyczeli o AKADEMICKIEJ WOLNOŚCI (autor ma doktorat)
March 11, 2025
Scared to write this & I think that’s important to say. A bit ago, I would’ve been one of the reviewers saying that this excused pedophilic sexual assault. But that’s not what’s happening here to a verbally-said degree? Walker’s questioning a distinction between people that are pedophiles & people who move forward in ACTING on pedophilic attraction, which is an important investigation to preventative action &, as Walker prioritizes, no more offenses. Haven’t you ever wanted to know what pedophiles think about themselves, even if it grosses you out? Especially if it could keep children safe?
I think sometimes research will make you deeply uncomfortable & yet that is how we learn things. That being said, there are many things here I want to contest, like use of “Minor-Attracted Persons,” use of “stigmatization” when talking about pedophiles, & so on. Glad I read it, even when it made me uncomfortable or I disagreed.
I think sometimes research will make you deeply uncomfortable & yet that is how we learn things. That being said, there are many things here I want to contest, like use of “Minor-Attracted Persons,” use of “stigmatization” when talking about pedophiles, & so on. Glad I read it, even when it made me uncomfortable or I disagreed.
March 25, 2022
This is not about rape or force. In the comments you make are redundant redone done and most of you look at children as your property as your slaves built around this capitalist Fascism
What we do is secret
Hail to TEENBOY LOVE
As ever, Master magus head of
ORDER OV THEE MASTER YOUTH
What we do is secret
Hail to TEENBOY LOVE
As ever, Master magus head of
ORDER OV THEE MASTER YOUTH
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews