I haven't persoanly been directly affected by this disgraful side of human and Watchtower behaviour and have tended not to give it a great deal of attention, and this was the first time I'd read of this new book.
I must admit that when I read the scans I saw nothing I thought to be suprising or objectionable in it even after reading the therapists comments above. It didn't reflect what I'd have said or thought on the topic, but I thought it was OK given who wrote it and who woud read it...
Then it hit me that I was reading it from my (still) built in JW filters that accepts this sort of language on some unconcious level (at least on topics I haven't been reeducated in properly...). I realised that the responsible section of society won't accept the sort of bad advice or poor expression or built in guilt/shame biases that JW's have seemingly learned to accept (as I did momenterally) on such topics.
When I read WT wrtings on creation/evolution; existance of God etc and I bristle with the obvious (to me now) falseness of what they write. I hope I'll be better attunded to the built in narrowness and uglyness and wrongness of the conservitive religionists, including the Watchtower, on abuse and rape matters.
What paragraph 3 of p.170 says is that the problem with peodophillia is that it may lead the victim to practice sodomy consentually in the future. Is that a voyeristic outlook on child sex under the guise of religious guidence?
I wonder if there's grounds (outside the US of course) for seeking an injunction on the distribution of pp.170-171 on the grounds that it is offensive to standards of public morality and is obscene and is harmful to children? A reflexive stretch on my part perhaps...
Thank you for the post and the thought you've given this. Forgive my ignorance and pervious lack of attention.
MD