John Grisham, Best-Smelling Pedophile

What do you call someone into under-age girls? He's 60 years old and likes to drool over shots of some 16 year-old with cupcake tits and downy pubic hair and just the slightest pout of pink slit? I'd say PEDOPHILE. Or, in England, PAEDOPHILE.

John Grisham, best-smelling author of those tedious books boring accountants and lawyers read on airplanes, says this is normal. This is nice. This is good. You know, shrug-shrug, why the kerfuffle? Why hurl poo and send men to jail for something like that? It's silly. My goodness. What should these men do, go to a boot sale, or date someone closer to their own age, or go find a youthful whore?

Amazing.

In an interview, Grisham intentionally decided to get on his soap box and shout about his pet peeve...jailing pedophiles! That is, pedophiles who, in his opinion, are just...oh, dirty old men? He thinks there are shades of gray. That "just looking" isn't bad, and who knows, fucking a 16 year-old is hardly a crime either, right? In some primitive societies, and some idiot parts of the South, you can even marry your 14 year-old cousin.

We already have a thriving magazine and DVD company called "Barely Legal," courtesy of Larry Flynt, publisher of "Hustler." Every issue focuses on baby-faced cuties who ARE over 18, but don't look it. THAT isn't enough for this perverted lunatic Grisham??

We should be protecting 16 year-old girls. And 14 year-old girls. Innocence is being robbed earlier and earlier, and "childhood" is no longer the lovely time it once was. Thanks to the Internet, school kids know more about crime, perversity, gore and violence than Richard Speck or Sweeney Todd. Does that mean they should be cynically exploited by 60 year-old men??

Grisham is pissed off that some pervy friend of his got sent to jail for a few years. Canned for deliberately seeking out porn involving 16 year-old girls. Face it, with prison overcrowding here in America, it takes a LOT for a judge to sentence anyone to jail, especially when the crime doesn't involve violence, and the perp's skin is white. But John moans that it's just...oh, so SILLY and BACKWARD to care about the innocence of a 16 year-old girl. Why, oh why, he asks, are some foolish judges ruining everyone's fun?

This guy's an author. He should know better. He wants to make a distinction that a 60 year-old lusting after a 16 year-old girl is ok, but oh, if it's a 10 year-old boy, no. What an arbiter of taste! Where do you draw the line, Grish? 15? 14? If a girl is 14 but looks older it's ok? Judges and the police and the FBI should ponder every photo and factor in whether the girl was abused since the age of 8, so it's not much of a stretch, physically, for her to be posing at 14?

That's sort of like saying the highway patrol shouldn't pull over a guy speeding at 80 mph if the road looked clear.

Grisham is one of many Ivory Tower nutjobs who thinks there's a big difference between "looking" and "touching." Pedophilia isn't pedophilia if you wank to a child but don't fuck the child? Really? What's your view on rape, Johnny-boy? It isn't rape if the girl's drunk or drugged? If it's oral sex? How about if you strip her and just come all over her face?

It's astounding to me that Grisham, in promoting his latest grind-'em-out read-alike piece of shit, has the nerve to say that "looking" at porn is ok. No, it's not. First off, you can't "look" if the girl wasn't solicited to pose. Somebody, usually someone in organized crime, got to that girl and persuaded her to pose. How? Money? Drugs? Threats?

And who is to say that the pictures Johnny-boy saw are the ONLY ones from that session? Maybe worse ones were taken and sold privately. What about the website that hosts this shit? Think they're run by some little old lady trying to make tea money...or by organized crime, Russian mafia types, or some violent drug lord looking to invade another illegal area of profit?

Again, it's easy enough to get a magazine boldly called "BARELY LEGAL." That should be enough...except for the true pedophile weasel who gets his kicks only if the girl actually IS under age.

Accidentally looking at porn...does not happen. You don't just find yourself on a porn site. You don't click on pictures and download them without realizing it. Grisham's pal did nothing wrong? Or didn't do that much wrong? And was Grisham there looking over his shoulder or is he taking the word of a perv who is now, like Pete Townshend did, claiming something to save face?

We don't have much morality in this world anymore. Everyone's "entitled" to do as they please in every way possible. Can't ONE thing be off-limits? The abuse of the innocent?

All I can do is quote Dennis Miller. If you're a perv who wants to see provocative pictures (as opposed to nudist studies, fer Chrissake) or worse, actual pedophile material, then "take one for the team." Off yourself. There are people on this planet who are pretty goddam worthless...and I think that list includes pedophiles, and people who read John Grisham books.