Peter Sotos

What is he trying to say/ what is his end game, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=M-3qVqM4VBM
youtube.com/watch?v=WpJVnQMk1RQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Dudes my favorite. I was in Chicago for one of his book releases and found myself at a party with him and Boyd Rice.
He's a total libertine.

good luck getting a clear answer. He's obsessed with pedophilia and crimes against women & children to a seriously autistic degree, but I don't think the entire purpose is to shock people. To some extent there's a critique of the media going on for parading the parents of dead children around on talk shows and providing jerk-off material for sadists, as well as a redefinition of what makes material "pornography". That's mixed with semi(?)-autobiographical accounts of his exploits with prostitutes and gays. I've only read a little bit of his work and to be honest it's too disgusting for me to persevere through. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who is a dedicated read of his. Everytime a thread about Sotos comes up here, there's someone yelling "you just don't get it!" without explaining what "it" is.

>Everytime a thread about Sotos comes up here, there's someone yelling "you just don't get it!" without explaining what "it" is.
There is no "it." Lots of noise bros like to parade their expensive Sotos books around like a badge but at heart they're just leftist liberals who believe in 'free speech' or whatever. Sotos himself admits a bunch of times that he writes books to make money to buy more child pornography.

He's autistic as fuck, but his work is mainly about how the press response to sexual crimes is actually a bad thing.

seems like a narrow topic to focus on for 30 years but I guess getting busted for child pornography will fuck you up.

It's not that he's saying media coverage of child rape and murder is "bad" because he's some kind of prude. He thinks it's another form of pornography. Because what is or isn't porn is defined by the user; if you jerk off to it, it's pornography. You can imagine a child rapist and murderer would get off on seeing weepy parents on the evening news and pictures of their victim on posters.

I'm pretty sure it was only child porn as art work. That is, the cover of "Pure" #2 was a photocopy of child porn because the issue was about child serial rape-murderers.

Pure is intensely fucked. Having read the three issues, I have to agree with as to the level of sheer disgust elicited by his work. On the other hand, it's vaguely refreshing to see written work ostensibly written for and by the "truly lustful," i.e. sexual sadists. Preponderant moralizing sensationalist justifications (the excuses the media uses to show what amounts to violence porn on a daily basis) go to pot when confronted with someone (who seems like a legitimate loony toon) extolling the beauty and virtue of Ken Bianchi raping and strangling twelve year old girls to death.

His works are fun, if you find it fun to be feel superhumanly subhuman. Although, if you want a more academic analysis of glorified violence in media that has some serious historical clout, I'd recommend "Crime and Culture in Early Modern Germany" by Joy Wiltenburg.

Violence porn has been around since the earliest proliferation of the printing press.

>I'm pretty sure it was only child porn as art work.
Even if that was the main purpose for its acquisition, I don't think it's out of the question to acknowledge that Sotos is a pedophile. That doesn't mean he has acted on his urges or that he has committed a crime (other than the possession obviously) but I think some people (not you or anyone in this thread directly) are being a little naive in assuming that all this writing of his is him keeping some safe distance from the material he covers. Someone can feel free to call me out on this as I don't want to pretend to be an authority on the guy because I've barely read shit, but his afterword to that abysmal Ian Brady book kind of tipped me off to the idea that he is a pedophile that's disgusted by himself. With a lot of his other work you can argue that writing in first person doesn't imply that the writing is autobiographical, but the Ian Brady afterword is surprisingly lucid and straight to the point for Sotos. Pic-related is what I'm referring to, the part I boxed is an interview with the publisher (Adam Parfrey / AP) where it is explicitly stated that Sotos is talking about himself here. I think this is why he writes all this horrific shit - it's inescapable because it has been a part of him since he realized his sexuality. He has a unique look at this whole redefinition of pornography thing because he knows it firsthand that there are people out there who masturbate with the cut-out images of missing children. He's one of them.

also thanks for mentioning the Wiltenburg book. marked that down to check out in the future.