Slashdot Mirror
NYT On The Internet And Child Molestation
prostoalex writes "In a long and disturbing story on child molesters, the New York Times Magazine among other issues researches the impact of the Internet on the child molesters. While officially the number of child molestations did not change significantly, Dr. Fred Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, considers the Internet to be a new vehicle for child molestation: 'There are three areas of concern. First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked -- leads to disinhibition. Second, there's a blurring of fantasy and reality. There's someone at the other end of the Internet conversation, but it's not quite a real person; there's a feeling of playing a game that can lead to actually doing what one otherwise wouldn't. Third, the easy accessibility can facilitate moving over boundaries.'"
Doesn't the "virtualization" scenario he's describing apply as accurately to news reporting and bad events? We've got a lot more data about the increase in bad events than the apparent nonincrease in child molestation, now that so much oversight it virtual, through the media, rather than in-person with direct accountability. Now that the NYT has top-of-the-line media products specializing in "self examination" every few months, they should try this model on their own problems first.
--
make install -not war
Of course, anyone can get a child of their own without any vetting at all by the state - assuming they can find a willing partner. I wonder if we will see articles worried that this provide an easy way for a paedophile to gain access to a child? NYT to call for licensing of parents?
Mind you, "internet enables child abuse" makes for a good scare story. I don't suppose the headline "Families enable child abuse" is going to sell so many newspapers.
This site provides unbiased, free discussion and support on the topic, including the ways that governments and police forces manipulate this very sensitive issue in order to further stifle our freedoms of speech:
http://www.madbadorsad.org/sadbbs/
My name is Austin and I am 14. this whole thing sort of freeks me out a bit. I was bored so i did some thinking on this, and this is the gereral direction my thoughts went. I'm 14, that means its normal for me to like girls around that age, find them atractive, ect. Now, we asume as people age, the mature mentaly as well, but this asumption can not always be entirely correct. As my 22 year old friend once said, "If at 16 I found a girl in my class hot, what has changed to make me NOT find a 16 year old hot?"
To break this down, simply, there was no major change in his atraction to girls between 16 and 22, but unlike when he was 16, it is no loger 'right' for him to find a 16 year old atractive, now, the youngest he 'should' find atractive is more like 20.
Im no shrink or anything, but i guess its sorta the same thing with the guy in the artical...
Whenever the NYTimes writes a piece bitching about how the Internet is such a horrible place, remember that they have been struggling like a lot of newspapers to grapple with their online competition. They don't want the Internet to look good, their business gets worse as the Internet looks better.
I'm not saying that they may not have some points, but always be skeptical about "old media" coming out with the latest horror story about the Internet. We've known about this problem for years now, but they keep beating this horse over and over. Ever notice how rarely they mention the sting operations that go down very successfully against online kiddie porn sites? Stings that get people in like 10 countries at once?
Well who'd want to hear the cops might actually be winning on something here? Certainly not the NYTimes and other publications because that might mean the Internet is still the "wild west" but the west ain't so wild anymore.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Likewise, a psychologist friend of mine was pointing out recently that the Internet has made it easier than ever before to catch child molesters without making any significent increase in the numbers of them. In other words: the Internet is the single greatest anti-child-molestation system ever invented.
But that's not such an interesting story and needs a little tiny bit of lateral thought, so it's not going to be in the mainstream press any day soon.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That's really interesting. I'd like to take the Abel Assessment test to see what it shows about me (afaik I am not going to be a sex offender, nor am I one now, but I'd sure like too see what they'd say.) A website says that you look at a series of pictures twice, once to measure the time spent looking at the images ance once again to rate them in terms of attraction/revulsion. Seems to me it would be easy enough to implement something like this as a webpage with a little javascript, if only you had their data.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I was thinking along similar lines, but kind of backwards.
... and if that's what's creeping you out, I just don't think it's true.
If I was 13 years old, and somebody offered to show me a copy of Playboy magazine, I'd probably say hell yes. On the other hand, if somebody's 45 year old mom were to "accidentally" wander into the room stark naked, I'd probably go "Yuuuucccchh" and tell all my friends what happened, and we'd all laugh at what a wrinkled, saggy old lady she was. (Maybe some of you were more advanced than I was at that age, but that's the simple fact for me.)
Nowadays I'm 32, and I've dated at least one woman in her 40s. Moreover, this particular woman I'm thinking of seemed cute to me -- not "attractive" in a sort of "she's a warm body and she's basically good-looking enough" way, but actually in an "I'd rather date her than anybody else in this room" kind of way. And when I talked to her and went out to do things with her, she didn't seem like an old lady at all. So something about my mind has changed there, as I've gotten older.
On the other hand, I doubt I'll ever date a 19 year old again. Those chicks are nuts!! Give 'em some time to sort their brains out, I say.
So something's definitely changed. When I was in high school, I was definitely attracted to 16 year old girls. Nowadays I just see them as little girls. When I see them dressing sexy, or making sexual comments or performing sexualized behaviors, body language etc., I think it looks like they're posing, imitating things they learned in the movies or something. To my mind, they're just not very good at it, and as a result it's not particularly flattering on them.
That's just me. I have other friends who see a young girl and go, "Hey hey heyy!" But part of the way this article was written seemed to have an undercurrent of, "any one of us could be a child molester, we're only steps away"
If you showed me a sexy photograph of a 16 year old girl, could I be turned on by that? It's possible -- but that's a posed photograph, designed by a photographer who knows how to manipulate an image to get the desired result. Am I attracted to real-life, living and moving 16 year old girls? No sir, I believe I am telling you the god's honest truth when I say that I am just not. I somehow doubt you or your friend are two steps away from being child molesters either.
Breakfast served all day!
Reading some of the comments got me wondering just what the age of consent is in different states currently.
I found this site http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm to be quite informative.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
I am assuming that you do not have any children -
These people in general - and this animal Roy in particular have no business walking the street.
Animal?
RTFA: He came on to her and touched her hips, all the way down to the elastic band of her underware.
He did a little prison, he's on probation for 35 years. Part of his probation is to never be anywhere with young girls.
Aside from a sadistic desire to see him suffer as much as possible, how could his punishment be more effective if he were in prison?
You can't take the sky from me...
Read what he's writing. If you walked up to the average 13-year old boy and asked him if he wanted to go to the opera, he probably say no, regardless that it's considered a more mature activity. He'd likewise probably say no to going to a museum of fine art, or writing a 5-10 page paper on logic as a voluntary act.
Now, go up to that same 13-year old boy and ask him if he would, right now, like to have sex with the Miss January 2005 from Playboy. The average (no, not you, the average) 13-year old boy would probably say yes. Scoring with a hot babe? Shit yes! You couldn't bring her into the room fast enough for him.
Most males over the age of 13, not 30, would have difficulty turning down sex with an attractive women. The 30-year old is more likely (note, more likely, not always going to happen) to consider the consequences.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
You say, "boychat.org would have an easier time in the world if it was run by a mental health group." I find myself wondering... would Slashdot have an easier time in the world if it were run by a mental health group? Or any other group of freely associating people: should we put mental health professionals in charge of communities?
The dissonance in that argument stems from the assumption that boylovers must, by definition, be suffering from a mental disorder. Of course Slashdot shouldn't be run by mental health professionals, because there's no assumption that Slashdot posters are suffering from psychological disorders. Well, the idea of BoyChat being run by a mental health group sounds just as ridiculous to me. I have no mental disorder, and I have neither need for nor interest in "treatment." Now, I am aware that some BoyChat posters do seem to have some issues that need professional attention. For example, clinical depression is not as uncommon as I wish it were on our board. However, those problems are problems which exist just as much in the "ordinary" world as among boylovers, and those are the disorders which should be treated. Being a boylover is not a disorder. Neither is being homosexual. Neither is being heterosexual.
Are there pedophiles who rape and otherwise harm children? Yes. Are there heterosexuals who rape and otherwise harm women? Yes. And the conclusion that all pedophiles are child molesters is as fallacious as the conclusion that all heterosexuals are rapists. Even Catherine MacKinnon bristles at the fact that the quote "All sex is rape" was erroneously attributed to her because not only do such ludicrous universals undermine their own credibility, but the consequence of such an idea is darker still: when everything is rape, nothing is.
A claim that "pedophiles can be cured" is equally based on the fallacy that pedophilia is a disease. No, pedophilia cannot be cured, any more than heterosexuality can. And anyone who recalls the great amount of harm done by quasi-cult efforts to "cure" or "reprogram" homosexuals during the seventies and eighties should be suitably horrified at such a concept. I do not question your right to be heterosexual (if indeed you are) and I wonder why people in what appears to be a technology-based forum would find it suddenly appropriate to question my right to be a boylover. Of course, I reserve the right to condemn you if you rape or harm a woman, just as I respect your right to condemn me if I rape or harm a boy.
So, as long as I'm webmaster of BoyChat, the idea of turning over control to a mental health group is simply silly. Mental health professionals are more needed where there are people with actual mental problems. Suggesting therapy? I don't need therapy because I prefer swing to grunge, or because I think the Brian Setzer Orchestra is better than Eminem. Those are my preferences, and anyone who tries to "therapize" me over them is taking a very unwelcome step into something that does not concern him. Prohibit contact between adult users? I'll make a deal: as soon as Slashdot prohibits contact between its posters off the forum, BoyChat will consider doing the same (that's not a challenge, by the way; it's simply to point out that aside from the fact that the idea is plainly ridiculous, it's also patently unenforceable.)
I realize I may seem to be coming off rather dogmatic; you'll have to forgive me for that, as this is a discussion I've had altogether too many times and I know how most of the lines go by now. Really, I'm happy to debate these issues on a philosophical, moral or just plain technical level with anyone who desires, but somehow, this seems like a very strange forum for this question to be arising in. BoyChat, at any rate, is open to the public; registration is normally not required (except when we come unde
What he wants is more important that what I want. What he wants is also more important that what you want.