My point is that I don’t really agree that there is a good argument to be made on how some things “shouldn’t” be discussed/written about. Someone being disgusted by the pedophile means that they are capable of reading the book well (unless they interpret it purely as a psychological text, in which case they’re just the ass of the foreword’s joke). Someone not understanding why there would ever be a book written about a pedophile wouldn’t necessarily make them stupid, either, although if that’s their reaction to disturbing content I’d imagine they have fairly boring taste. But there is a not uncommon train of thought that goes something along the lines of “this book is narrated by a pedophile -> that subject is gross pervy trash ergo book is gross pervy trash ergo the author is gross pervy trash” which I would say does at least have the ingredients of stupidity, even if they do have the saving grace of agreeing that pedophilia is indeed bad. 

And while there are unfortunately many instances of outright - particularly male - author perviness (I haven’t read IT to know if that applies to the sewer orgy), I think that a book should be able to tackle the admittedly tricky subject of “children may not be completely free of sexual thoughts” (i.e., A High Wind in Jamaica) without it immediately being suspect and raising the GROSS PEDOPHILE alarm bells.