Slashdot Mirror
Internet "Creates Pedophiles" According to "Expert"
Brian Ribbon writes "In the latest sensationalist article about pedophiles on the internet, the director of a Spanish vigilante organization has claimed that the internet 'creates pedophiles'. While conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse, the 'expert' quoted in the article incorrectly states that 'studies show that some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age, but the majority of them develop the tendency later on'; he then claims that 'the internet can become a catalyst for people belonging to the latter group.'"
Couldn't this very likely be true? And, more importantly, if it is, so what?
The internet is an enabling technology for an awful lot of things, and the information easily available via the internet has, I'm sure, acted as a catalyst or even an initiator for all sorts of interests, even interests some may consider distasteful or even illegal. Fortunately, the positive aspects of this information tool are viewed by the vast majority of people to outweigh its negatives.
This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate; namely, that the internet can catalyze or even create an interest in a predisposed person, who might not have had the opportunity, inclination, will, or knowledge to pursue it otherwise, absent this tool. Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
The internet is a tool for access to information. That tool allows someone who may not have explored their pedophilia 50 years ago to do it now, simply because of the privacy and ease, and may even catalyze it or allow it to grow. That is, essentially, creating -- or at least solidifying -- "pedophiles", and I am not making any value judgment whatsoever. Just as the internet "creates" people who enjoy online games, or who have discovered and embraced any of a number of other topics they otherwise might not have without the unique and easy exposure the internet can provide in the comforts and privacy of one's home 24 hours a day, it is so for this as well.
And why can't it follow that however small an increased number of people -- however small -- may act on those feelings of "pedophilia" who wouldn't ever have gotten to that point before because of their own inhibitions or any number of other reasons, jumping the gap to what the rule of law in many societies currently defines as illegal in the form of either child pornography or child sexual abuse, regardless of consent? (Whether pedophilia does not always equal child sexual abuse and vice versa is irrelevant.)
The internet makes a great deal of things much easier. As such, it is going to support much easier access to information -- text, images, video -- and like-minded individuals that can undoubtedly support or encourage interest in just about any topic one can imagine.
What is so hard to believe about that?
He also states that 4chan creates child molesters with a penchant for fur and funny cats.
GOATSE.CX
Provide your own link.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
and fraudsters, scammers, murderers, pedos, thiefs, robbers the internet creates nothing, its just a communications tool dont hate the game, hate the players
Perhaps "gives an opportunity for people with such inclinations to learn more" I suppose...but really, you may as well say that public libraries, with their chemistry and physics books, their copies of the communist manifesto and other 'inflammatory' tracts, create bomb-firing terrorists.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
This is the same logic as TVs causing fat people. Yes, if you watch a lot of TV you're likely to become fat... but it's not the TVs fault. It's peoples' behavior and tendencies.
i heard that ideological motivation can destroy a person's ability to reason
and that some people called "experts" mistake indoctrination into an agenda for actual education
ban ideology!
ban "experts"!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i see it as the internet allows pedophiles to have easier access to porn with people of questionable age in it, revealing the pedophile in some more easily.
then, 4chan isn't helping.
Thats exactly what I thought, and no I am not joking.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
And here I was thinking that computers turned people into homicidal maniacs ready to climb the clock tower with a high powered rifle. Glad this guy turned me straight...
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
If there's anything leading to Pedophilia being activated later in life it's the over-sexualization of our kids, not the internets. It's all around us all the time...but the key here is "activating" them. None of this "creates" Pedophiles, but some of it might push someone on the edge over the brink.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
He's head of an internet based organization entitled "Save the Children."
I found it odd that the whole article goes on talking about how pedophiles use the internet to get photos and contact other pedophiles. But he never once talks about how it has empowered his organization to receive tips, track these people, pose as children to catch them, pose as other pedophiles to gain evidence, etc.
So odd how we were only selectively told the bad things the internet allows the criminals to do. And yet in the article, they remind us that they are not criticizing the internet.
Perhaps I would have taken this man more seriously had he looked at it with a neutral and objective point of view.
My work here is dung.
What about it has a 'pro-pedophilia' slant? I can't really find anything like that.
...lets me play violent games on the Internet, yet I haven't become a sociopath. I think it is more likely that the Internet "creates" sensationalist vigilante groups by giving them an outlet and a high-profile target simultaneously.
Militant Agnostic: "I don't know, and damn it, neither do you!"
everybody that peruses porn will become rapists.
There will undoubtedly be cases that will trigger bad stuff but generalizations are rarely (never) a good thing.
So whats the next step? Any man that is over a certain weight and uses the net more than X amount of hours is now profiled to be something that they are not?
Big brother I request kindly that you go and play hide and seek and go eff yourself.
/b/
Most people have latent downloading tendencies that go back to our hunter-gatherer roots. Most people don't normally download until they get on the internet. I propose that we create legislation that mandates upload-only connections.
...film at 11. C'mon, if you removed all the ill-informed people offering speculation and unfounded personal opinion as fact from the Internet, there'd be very little left apart from busty substances and badger paws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children.
You were not an adult, so no, you were not a paedo. If you are now an adult, and that six year old is still your sexual ideal, then yes.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Fucking creates morons...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Let's start with his statement: "Once a man has become accustomed to child pornography or had sex with a 13-year-old, his perception of children changes," Canovas says. "He begins to see them as sex objects instead of children." This means that a man will always consider a woman a sex object. Why would their be a disconnect on how someone feels towards one thing they may have sex with but not another. AL so though the article states that most pedophiles develop later in life, following that same logic, what about underage teenagers that engage in sex? Do these individuals have a predisposition to be pedophiles? Everyone likes to build up the hype of pedophiles on the internet - but most studies support that it is more likely to come from a family member or someone the child knows in real life. Internet cases are still the exception and not the rule. While it is true the Internet may have found a "bonding" communal ground for these to people to meet, it's no different then the e-mail chains or snail mail groups that operated in the past. Technology has always enabled communication and if there is something invented after the Internet, then that will be blamed for it during that time period. I'm sure, photography, the movie camera, the camcorder, and the VCR had their own vilification that they shared from this in their own time period.
It doesn't matter what you believe or are feeling, the Internet is big enough that you can find a group of people just like you. The "I am not alone" feeling in combination with the protection of anonymity dissolves the taboo in the individual, which is the psychological wall that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable. After that point, nothing is preventing you from examining and exploring your thoughts, which naturally can cause them to grow, especially when you have others legitimizing them. You can't rationalize it until the taboo is broken. On the extreme end, this acceptance INSIDE the group leads the group to feel that there really is nothing wrong with what they believe, and they start working on legitimizing themselves. You can see this happening online today. there are already activists for such causes. They are explicitly using the civil rights and gay rights movements as templates for creating social acceptance. Keep an eye out for it.
I'm not entirely sure I like people who try to blame sexual assault against minors on anything but the assailants.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
/c/
Anyone with an agenda can push any "theory" they like.
Example? Water is dangerous and deadly... we should ban that, right? After all:
It causes death due to accidental inhalation, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to water in solid form causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
It's is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous water can cause severe burns.
It contributes to soil erosion.
It leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in it are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
And on, and on and on...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Pedophiles are the modern equivalent of witches, used to rile up the mob. Even if they never touch a child, they are often treated like depraved criminals and imprisoned or murdered.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Using his logic, the internet creates retards. I've seen plenty of evidence in various web forums and "comments" to support this claim!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
And how exactly is one supposed to become a pedophile? The internet can certainly help you in many ways, but it's not going to create pedophiles because of explicit content or whatnot. Much like television doesn't make people become serial killers.
I haven't got the faintest idea why pedophilia exists, but my guess is early child abuse, abnormal levels of serotonin or a DNA flaw.
Full Tilt
Is that you, Jack Thompson?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8
I fail to see any slant, unless you meant the implication that pedophilia (wanting to fuck little kids) and child sexual abuse (fucking little kids) are not the same thing, which is of course correct, as one means desire and the other action.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
...by the criminal statistics I've seen. Yes, the number of child pornography charges have exploded but the number of child molestation charges have not. All that's happened is that thousands of pedos have pooled all their pictures and videos made over decades and copied them around the internet. I guess it's something like the Drake equation, even if you assume this few are pedophiles, this few molest children, this few produce video, this few share it with anyone, this few leak to pedos in general - when you start out with billions of people spread over decades it hardly takes much for that to add up to quite a lot.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This comment pretty much sums it up. That's not good or bad; it just "is".
And your Bible analogy is remarkably spot on: the contents of the Bible (or the text of any other religion) has created a lot of ill, and a lot of good, depending on your perspective, that may not otherwise have existed.
The point is that information in its many forms influences people. That the extensive and more comprehensive access to information of all kinds provided by the internet can act as an even greater/broader influence should come as no surprise.
"... some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age ..."
Well, sure. I was attracted to a few twelve-year-olds when I was their age. Hope that doesn't make me a paedophile.
Expert - noun - a has-been drip
All those Sunday paper inserts for Sears, Penney's, etc. with photos of children...
People will _always_ find something to fantasize about. The question is: must everyone be constrained by what might set off a tiny minority?
Most definitions of pedophilia require that the pedophile themselves not be a child.
(Not that I think it's 'wrong'. If you wanna masturbate to the little girl across the street, go ahead. As long as you don't touch, I don't give a fuck.)
What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma."
"conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse"
ScuttleMonkey, do you have something you'd like to disclose? Because generally I've seen the only people who don't conflate pedophiles and child abusers are rather enamored of boyflesh.
I haven't read the article, but I remember a story in PHX AZ where a police officer lost his job because kiddie porn was found on his home computer. His explanation? "I got bored"
I've looked at TONS of porn via newsgroups and I can empathize with the 'bored' part. If you look at enough body parts, they all start to look the same. Just imagine, if you've downloaded even ONE complete news group like 'alt.binaries.erotica.pictures' you've probably seen more vaginas than a gynecologist would in a month or more.
I think seeking new things is natural, in this-case though, the effects can be 'unhealthy'... primarily for the person viewing the material. As they become accustomed to extreme bsdm, kiddie porn, or whatever their unusual flavor of the week/month/year they become less adjusted to what is available and acceptable in real life.
What would be really cool would be to run a positive jpg campaign, one free of criticism, but with information about alternate activities, how to socialize, be healthy... these people often need help, and usually know it.
A couple of years more using the internet and you too will be a foaming at the mouth pedo!
I'm not sure I see the slant in the submission. It states sexual abuse of children and pedophilia are different and that is factually correct. Which do you disagree with more, submitters appeal to fact or the position in the article?
Disclaimer: I myself have not RTFA, nor do I plan to.
I think the OP's point was too many people are thinking of the children.
... that's why we invented protocols like PPP (Pedophilia Propagation Protocol), TCP (To Contaminate with Pedophilia) and BGP (Background Generation of Pedophiles).
In this case, I think my sig says it all.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
From TFS:
"studies show that some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age, "
6 is an early age.
If 6 is excludable because of the definition of paedophillia, then the qualification in that quote is redundant and misleading.
If it isn't then a lot of kids are in trouble...
Pedophilia is the sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children. There is no specific act associated with pedophilia, outside the mind of the pedophile. You are advocating thought crime.
Creation/possession/distribution of child pornography and child molestation are not the same thing as pedophilia.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
The guy asserting that the internet causes pedophiles is probably taking things a little too far, but a lot of people here are dismissing this notion entirely. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) There are probably many factors which go into a person becoming so imbalanced that he becomes a pedophile. Genetics probably play a role, social development definitely plays a role, and there are a bunch of other factors which most likely contribute to the behavior. Among them is most likely the relative ease and lack of punitive measures that potential pedophiles face in committing their crimes. For instance, if there a group of police watching their own children at a playground, it is unlikely a pedophile will come in and solicit one of the children. However, if our potential pedophile is introduced to child pornography in his own home without repercussion, he or she is more likely to not only view it, but to develop a further need for it and become deeper entrenched in it. (I'm sure I can dig up three or four journal articles on how pornography can be a developing process as well as addictive.) I think the assertions are a bit broad as well, but it is equally broad to dismiss all of it. Something ought to be done in order to prevent that type of material from becoming so easily available to any person with a high-speed connection.
"Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers." - If anything, it's sexual repression that causes sexual deviance.
Pedophilia is hardly a new aspect of society. Anyone here ever read Vladimir Nabokov? How can any honest, informed person make this kind of assertion?
=Smidge=
Pedo's are like homosexulas; they are BORN that way. Therefore we should accept them the way they are. Pedos should be a "protected minority", obviously.
> It doesn't matter what you believe or are feeling, the Internet is big enough that you can find a group of people just like you
Stop there for a minute: would that not imply that the person is *already* a pedafile?
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the article seems to state that the internet *creates* pedafiles.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I would define real pedophilia as being attracted to pre-pubescent girls. I don't think it is particularly strange that a man might be attracted to someone the law would define as a child. For most of our history sending off a women for marriage at the first sign of pubescence would be considered quite normal even at 12 or 13 years of age.
I'm not arguing we should change the laws. Adults have an unfair advantage over youth and there are valid reason why we might want to pick an age of consent that was higher than a biological expression of pubescense. But this doesn't mean it is immoral for a man to internally lust after a lolita from a biological perspective. And we shouldn't be surprised if we hooked a majority a men to lie dectectors and found that a majority might be attracted to women that the law defined as children.
And on the pedophila being blamed on a girl wearing "juicy" on her butt just reeks of a "blame the victim" mentality the belongs under sharia law. It is sad to see such a concept get 5 karma.
The same thinking can be applied to the idea that spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat...
I wish I was clever!
No, actually, I don't think we can agree that it's wrong for an adult to sexually desire a child.
We can surely agree that it's:
1 - Not common, thus socially unacceptable.
2 - Not exactly the best way to be happy, especially in a society where it's not acceptable.
Other than that, if there is actual sexual assault, it's called rape. If there is wanted sex, it seems to depend on the country but it's either rape or abuse of authority. Of course, I'm talking about countries where a child is not considered to be a whole person with emotions and desires, but something made out of porcelain until 21.
Bah.
I have been wondering about the legality of computer generated images. Since our graphics cards can render photo realistic images in real time, have the pedophiles taken up CGI?
Without digging into the gutter, google came up with a couple of hits.
In the US, apparently you have to prove the images are of real children that are under age. Not sure how to do that, especially with better faster computers. Also not sure how they did that in the past either with "barely legal" models, must track down the model and show the pics were illegal when taken?
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1653
In the UK (where first amendment does not play) they apparently allow possession of images but not distribution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm
Even though the legal system may disagree, the last time I checked, there wasn't a "thought crime" exception to the Bill of Rights.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The "Internet" is a network and a tool.
It is not the volitional agenda-based anthropomorphically-intentioned snake handing Eve an apple and fostering narcissism and reassurance to her it is all ok.
It is a fancy TOOL. Nothing more. Zeros and Ones encoded.
Communication mediums that lead to increases of stimulatory sensory perceptions, given enough contact by the controlling recipient (the tool user), will lead to some sensory desensitization to the original stimuli.
This is the nature of SOME (but not all) humans. (how else could humans be possibly interested in some of the 'kinks' out there?)
People exposed to some stimulatory data later lost that same initial psychological experience as when first introduced to the same stimuli, so obviously some people use their "tools" to seek out a *more* stimulating data set. (based on what they then crave). This can become a slippery-slope (and often does).
I bet people also use the Internet to seek information on Automobile Engine repair (as well as all of those sorted automobile autopsy images with their instructive qualities). After all, they are "art"....
-It could be also argued that the "Internet" Creates "Auto Mechanics" according to "Me".
Personification of the "Internet" seemingly removes accountability and responsibility from the parties who choose to use this great new global communications TOOL for purposes not approved by society, religion, law, etc...
It could just as reasonably be argued that there are not more pedophiles, but in fact, more awareness to them because of their use of the Internet.
Pedophilia, (albeit extremely repugnant, unacceptable, cruel, and criminal to me as well as something I do not understand) does exist in this world. It existed in the world before the invention of this Interweb "tubes" tool.
I hate it when excuses are made for actual human decisions and choices and are thence blamed on some "tool". This is akin to stating that Ouija Boards... cause devil worship!
In order to watch pedophilia pictures and clips, they must be made with ... children! A friend of mine used to watch S/M clips, some really sadistic and real; I made him wonder if the "victims" could indeed be real victims obtained by kidnapping which would be found dead later...
Could be an even finer point, as it's theoretically possible that someone could be aroused by images or depictions of something, without actually wishing to do that same thing themselves. I'm not sure if in practice that's true though. Any psychology majors ever heard of someone being turned on by something that they didn't actually wish to partake in themselves?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
"For a reason we do not know," child molesters tend to be better educated and to have a higher social status than men who rape adult women, Canovas said in a telephone interview with Deutsche Presse- Agentur dpa.
But then:
Suspects detained in Spain have included people from all social classes, ranging from taxi drivers and construction workers to lawyers and physicians.
Canovas tells us pedophiles "tend to be" well-to-do and the article follows by telling us that as far as education and status are concerned, pedophiles seem to be pretty evenly distributed. So which one is it?
The article contians no mention of any research to back up Save the Children's claims. There are estimates of more 30,000 Spaniards traveling abroad to have sex and an estimate of four million "internet zones" that host child pornography. Its just talk to stir up a moral panic in people and make his little club relevant.
This trend of classifying anyone attracted to teenagers as a "pedophile" or "sex predator" isn't helping.
Someone sexually attracted to 5 year-olds and someone attracted to 15 year-olds is not the same thing. Not the same thing at all. Yet the "sex predator" hysteria in western countries has all but eliminated this distinction. Throughout most of human history, it would be perfectly natural for a someone to be attracted to a post-pubescent teenage male or female, but today many people arrested for sex offenses involving teenagers are mistakenly classified as pedophiles by the media, the public, and often even the arresting officers and the court system.
For an adult male/female to have sexual contact with a teenage girl/boy demonstrates a bad sense of judgment, yes, and very likely they should be punished. However, classifying them as some sort of mentally-deranged freak isn't helping anything. It is natural for a male to be attracted to a fertile teenage girl with wide hips and large breasts. No amount of legislation or public hysteria will change that.
Whether or not either group is "born that way" there is a distinct difference between a legally consensual act between two adults (if they choose to act on their sexual impulses) and an illegal act, even if the child "consents" between an adult and a child (if the pedophile chooses to act on their sexual impulses).
I think we're kind of talking past each other, here. If you want to do mental gymnastics to claim that information doesn't influence people (or shouldn't be considered as such) simply to prevent any censorship arguments based on that premise, be my guest. Information having influence also does not preclude the concept or notion of personal responsibility. But information, and access to it, will only become more influential as the "information revolution" continues to take hold. That's why governments and businesses are investing increasing amounts of time into managing, manipulating, controlling, and analyzing information. Information is an undeniable influence. That some will use this fundamental truth to argue for censorship is misguided, and is another issue altogether. There is no need to use sophistry or intellectual dishonesty in terms of information's influential capacity simply to argue against censorship. There are many honest and logical means to achieve that goal.
at an early age. Back when I was 7 I had a crush on a girl who was also 7. Does that make me a pedophile?
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
Internet creates experts according to pedophiles.
Actually, I've said that "viewing media of children being sexually abused" is a crime, and I've asked what, in the current context, is the definition of "pedophilia". I agree that if pedophilia is actionless, then it is not a crime.
Hmm... I think we need a new term for posts like this, troll just doesn't cut it. I hereby dub this guy a Neanderthal. And please, can we skip the insensitive clod meme.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
However, carrying out paedophilic fantasies in real life is a crime, as is using material such as child pornography that has involved real children being abused. Fake child porn is an interesting grey area -- I believe it's now illegal in many places, even though it does not directly involve child abuse.That is not paedophilia as such: it is "using child pornography", which is a very specific crime. Look at your country's laws: you will not find a law saying "it is illegal to be a paedophile", but you will certainly find a lawy saying "it is illegal to view media of children being sexually abused".
The vast majority of people who use child pornography are indeed paedophiles, but it is the use of child pornography that is the crime, not the paedophilia itself.
The sad thing is that many people will now be assuming that I am sympathetic towards child abusers, simply because I am pointing out that paedophilia is distinct from child abuse. There seems to be a kind of mental block some people have where they view any statement that is not absolute condemnation as advocation: their so-called logic appears to run along the lines of "he said paedophilia is not a crime, but paedophiles abuse children, therefore he believes child abuse is good". (For an example of a similar phenomenon, look at any copyright-related discussion, where you will invariably discover that some people are unable to understand that it is possible to believe that copyright infringement is distinct from theft without being pro-copyright-infringement. I wonder if there's a name for this effect?)
For offending male sensibilities. Or for any women in caught in public without a burka for enraging male sexuality.
I'd subscribe to your newsletter, but you are full of crap.
I love how the the slashdot crowd will respond to an unfair blaming of technology with an equally idiotic response.
That's like saying that while the Internet was made for pedophiles, but it doesn't have to be used this way.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Of course.
There was a study, in Denmark I believe, after that gorilla movie with Sigourney Weaver, that showed that some significant group of women fantasized about being raped by a silverback gorilla.
How many of those do you think would actually do it? Probably zero. The fantasy is a complete fiction that is arousing on a symbolic and emotional level, as long as there are no mental disorders in the equation people can actually tell the difference between a fantasy and reality.
Picard here, what is the nature of your emergency?
ah yes, those deviant National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alike members, I sure wish it was the old days when they just stayed in the closet
If I download an essay on the joys of smoking dope does that make me the same as a drug pusher? If you say yes then please hit your head against the wall until that thought goes away.
Also, pedophilia laws legally include kids who could be only one month apart having sex. Kiddie porn laws also nab kids who naively take pictures of themselves flashing and they get sent around to friends. You have sex offenders forced to live on the street because they are banned by hysteria driven laws restricting where they can live. Since they are homeless they are impossible to keep track of, was that the goal? They are well intentioned laws that get taken to an extreme and then run amuck as they usually do.
The author may be referring to 17 year olds molesting 1 yr olds, not to a horny couple both aged 16. It could have been clarified a bit more. Anyway this article reads like a high school term paper. Grabs some info from sources, and slap together a quick article.
A 14 year old who has the hots for her 5-year-old babysitting client discovers she's a pedophile "at a young age."
Ditto the 18 year old who finds he likes the 10-year-old girl next door.
The 35 year old who realizes his 8 year old son turns him on more than his wife, not so much.
What the article is saying is there may be some people out there who are "predisposed" to such thoughts but who haven't been "catalyzed" into thinking about kids that way until they get exposed to the idea later in life. 50 years ago "later in life" might have been "never." The 35 year old father in this example might look at his son, get turned on, and think "this is just wrong." These days with all the stories in the press and access to child porn and pedophile-affirming web sites supposedly available to anyone who cares to search the Internet Underbrush[TM], this catalyzation may happen in the middle- or later-adult years. The father may say "Look at Michael Jackson. I'm not the only one who feels this way."
As one of the first responders said, "so what." This is an inherent side-effect of freedom of information.
The solution is not to hide the information, but rather to
1) fight information with information by making it clear to would-be perps that such behavior is unacceptable and providing a safe way for them to see a shrink without jeapordizing their family life, their livelihood, and their freedom, or other negative consequences,
and
2) providing parents, youth, and children with the physical and emotional tools they need to recognize when they are being abused and the tools they need to report such abuse,
and
3) providing safe environments for our children that limit the opportunity for would-be offenders to offend.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It is not intellectually dishonest to say that information is not responsible for peoples behavior. It is not intellectually dishonest to say that people are responsible for their behavior, and not the information they have consumed. Those are the statements I have made and I stand by them. You say that it is fair to say that information 'influences' people. Use of the term influence almost necessarily implies that information has some degree of responsibility for peoples behavior. Look the term up in the dictionary and tell me that it doesn't infer exactly that:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/influence
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.
2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother's influence made her stay.
3. a person or thing that exerts influence: He is an influence for the good.
I do not deny that people will make decisions based upon the information that they have available to them. However, saying that information 'influences' people is a very loaded statement - one that I cannot support if use of that term also confers responsibility for peoples behavior to the information they consume. People are responsible for their actions, not what they read, not what they hear and not what they see.
I believe that your position reduces to saying that information is at least partially responsible for peoples behavior. Are you denying that?
I scratch my head at all those teenage girls that dress like hookers, but if you think that that's all it takes to turn men on, you have a pretty narrow perception of what male sexuality can be like. I would bet that most child molesters are turned on by the children's perceived *innocence*, and as such I'd sooner expect someone like that to go after a girl in a modest, flowery dress, than one in hip huggers with a tongue piercing. A lot of guys are turned *off* by that kind of overt sexuality, and deviants (no judgement here) probably even more so than others.
If I ever catch my neighbor hitting or otherwise terrorizing his kids because his boy wants to look like a hippie or his girl wants to bare her midriff, I'm calling social services on the bastard.
Pedophilia is whatever the psychiatric community says it is.
Child porn and child abuse are whatever the lawmakers and courts say it is.
The two are not the same.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I am "turned on" in a broader psychological sense by watching James Bond movies (elevated heart rate, galvanic skin response, increased brain activity, breathing rate, all the standard measurable things), but I would never consider leaving my cube to blow up Russians, jump from airplanes, sink submarines with me inside, etc.
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
"Using quotes" described as "lamest editorial mechanism ever" by "everyone" with an "IQ" over 100.
It may be the medium...
Or it may be the idiots going around trying to entrap out of a sense of outraged righteousness.
There's a reason why cops aren't allowed to go up to guys on the street, hit on them, take an otherwise disinterested person and pretty much seduce him, drop in that it'll cost him, then prompty arrest him for solicitation. It's called entrapment. You're not catching criminals, you're making them where they didn't otherwise exist.
Unfortunately, as To Catch A Predator has demonstrated, vigilante groups set up, hide their own law breaking, then self congratulate whe they manage to catch people who may well never have been an issue save for their aggressive response.
Who's the real criminal here? The person who was minding their own business but slipped up when pressure sold? Or the person who does every last thing they can to inspire the crime and then self congratulates themselves for catching it?
Yes, the internet breeds paedophiles. The question is whether it's anything inherrent in the net... or if it's the by product of righteous but misguided idiots who do everything they can to entrap people.
> I wonder if there's a name for this effect?
Yes, it's commonly called "stupidity".
Which would make child pornography...evidence of a crime. So evidently, watching child pornography when you're a member of a jury is your civic duty?
And let's set aside that strange black hole in the law where you can have sex with 16 year olds but not take pictures.
I'm not for child porn as I would probably find it rather revolting (interestingly, I've never seen it) but still, possession of evidence should only be a crime when you refuse to turn it over to a criminal investigation.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
What's the next asinine suggestion for eliminating the problem? It can't occur without children so lets eliminate the children???
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. 13 and 10, no. 16 and 10, yes.
The point isn't so much "is it pedophilia" but "is it a violation of your society's morals AND is there a minor involved" OR "is it a violation of your society's morals AND is either party realistically incapable of consent?" Arguing over pedophilia becomes an argument over semantics.
In America, a 20 year old who has sex with a mature 14 year old who is clearly capable of consenting is still violation of society's morals in most cases. This is not the case in some other countries.
In America, anyone having sex with someone stone-cold drunk is also considered a moral violation, and that person is clearly incapable of consenting.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What does the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with this?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The argument that I put for is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't automatically extend to other areas the law, and perhaps I should say "possesing" rather than simply "viewing." However, if viewing/possesing media of a different sort-- train wrecks for example-- provided the impetus for people to go out and cause more train wrecks, then it would be prudent to takes steps to reduce the demand for train wreck photos. Obviously there could be free speech implications, but that's a dirrerent argument. I think an apt metaphor would be the limits that are placed on owning dangerous weapons, or toxic materials. Even if a person hasn't actually committed any malfeasance by owning, let's say, a pipe bomb, the risk that is posed that some harm could come elevates his act of possesion to a crime. In the case of "possesion of pedophilia," the "future crime" would not be the risk that the owner would commit some abuse, but that the vendor of the material would, in order to advance in whatever market in which he/she operates.
But this is getting diluted in the digital age, some courts have declared fully synthetic child porn illegal; the argument being that they didn't want to leave a loop hole to make real child porn and use it as a template for the synthetic one.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
You know, its funny, but its likely that we'll discover that jeez, if you bombard people with a message, they'll believe it. I mean, if showing people a million commercials about a car being cool to drive causes people to buy that car, then, why wouldn't showing people violence provoke violence, sex, provoke sex, and even pedophilia causes pedophia, gay stuff, gayness, and all the way up and down the board?
This is my sig.
Christian history is filled people and organizations using the Bible to justify all sorts of evil, and those people had the benefit of a society telling them "no, you are reading it wrong." Imagine how it would be if you just handed people a book without any guidance.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
internet pedophile experts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Fallacy
I agree that pedophilia, as defined as "a disorder involving sexual attration to children" is not (and should not be) a crime. My point was that if you define pedophilia as an act of possesing or viewing children being abused, then it is (and should be) a crime.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Since even according to the first poster this was an ignorant statement by a clueless person, why is it even worthy of discussion?
If you are going to argue against censorship, you must acknowledge the facts that the pro-censorship side has and attack their argument some other way. You can argue that some of the things they say are fact aren't, but you better be right. You can argue that the conclusions they draw are incorrect, but you better be right.
I prefer to argue that yes, some of their facts are right, and yes, some of their conclusions are right, but that the cost of censorship far outweighs the cost of freedom of information. I would then go on to list those costs side-by-side. If information influences peoples behavior, then it is clearly responsible in some way for those peoples behavior. In this case, you can argue that the conclusion is wrong. The free availability of information is not clearly responsible for any such thing. In America at least, mentally competent adults are deemed responsible for their own decisions even in the face of pressure to make the wrong/unacceptable/illegal decision. To a lesser degree, teens, children, and the mentally incompetent are held to the same ideal but to a degree that matches their knowledge and decision-making ability.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Nobody knows the scope of the problem, because it's doubtful the majority advertise their presence. Possible, but doubtful. You only hear about those who are caught, almost by definition. This number has increased with the Internet, but is that a smaller fraction of the total? A larger fraction? Exactly the same? Since the total is unknown and unknowable, I don't see how we can even begin to guess at whether something has altered it. How could you possibly tell? Besides, look at the scandal on the Pitcairn Islands, or the scandal in the Catholic church. Less as illustrations of how abuse can remain hidden in plain sight for decades - even generations - and more as counterpoints. Can you name a single colony that turned into a gigantic abuse facility by means of the Internet? Then, what of Cambodia? Thailand? Eastern Europe? Saudi Arabia? All regions in which human trafficking is commonplace, especially involving the underage. Not exactly countries known for a strong Internet presence. Italy, Germany and France are well-known as gateway countries in which such modern-day slavery is alive and well, but terrorizing and controlling the poor and desperate hardly needs high technology. America is well-known as a recipient country for all kinds of traffic, including human. Slaves, if found by the authorities, face prison and deportation. Slave owners rarely get a slap on the wrist unless, like that couple in New York, the problem is no longer ignorable. Yes, find online abusers. That's good. So long as you treat them as far as is possible. Punish the crime, fine, but treat the sickness or you accomplish nothing. It'd be helpful if they found more of the victims, but my guess is that you'll find them with the probably larger abuser population that's ignored. (If you don't find the victims, then you're not finding the real abusers at all, merely vicarious ones, and I'd be far more concerned with people capable of great evil rather than merely dreaming of it.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are some kind of crimes where it's not that big a deal if you catch them after the fact - fraud, theft, robbery and so on. Insurance companies can deal with that and it's only money. Other times justice can't really be served - catching a murderer will never bring the victim back. Catching a child molester woill never "unmolest" the child. There was a guy in my class, seemed normal enough that was convicted of killing someone with 18 stab wounds. If I'd known about those predispositions, I'd be terrified to be anywhere near him even though he hadn't actually stabbed anyone at that time. If I knew nothing more about a guy than the one word description pedophile, I'd be terrified to have any kids around him as well. Certainly he could be the non-practising pedophile who has bonded his own attractions, but he could also be the latent child rapist that just hasn't been exposed to the right opportunity and temptation. So could anyone else, but I know something that makes it far more probable than otherwise.
It's the trouble with all kinds of profiling, it deals with probabilities and is vastly unfair for those that go against the statistics. So a lot of the time we're being asked to ignore the probabilities we know, which makes us less likely to check the guilty but makes the innocent be checked equally often. Not being convicted of anything means "Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The converse of that is that you're innocent under the law, but that doesn't make you innocent to everyone else. If people outside the black-white world of the law think that you probably are or will be a child molester, how do you expect people to act? That they don't know what they know? That they should happily let your kids play with you and leave them in your custody just like any other man innocent under the law? There's no excuse for vigilantism, at the same time don't expect to be treated like everyone else. Don't expect the world to be so naive as the law has to be until every last shred of doubt is gone. Hell, for many a male babysitter is too much against the odds, it's profiling all the way...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
FYI to anyone using the new comment system, it seems to break the threading a bit so replies often look like they're attached to the wrong message. For the correct context of my post click the parent link, as right now it looks like I'm responding to the guy who posted something about paedobear but I'm not.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
It worked with homosexuals. What was previously classified as sodomy is now accepted and even glorified. If you continue to think that homosexuality is a sin (meaning against God's laws, not man's), then you are now classified as a homophobe.
The man-boy love association has already been formed, and I guarantee that over the next ten years, we'll see this sexual aberration (along with beastiality and multiple-partner marriage) normalized.
I don't defend TFA in this case. As others have said, video games, movies, internet, etc. are not the causes of such behaviors. As a Christian, I simply blame the natural depravity of man. FUD like this is published because someone wants to be the center of attention. It's not the InTERweBz fault, it just happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Can you substantiate either of the implied claims in your post? Specifically (1) viewing images of train wrecks does not provide any impetus for any people to cause more train wrecks or (2) viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children?
everything in moderation
Child abuse is about as low an act as it gets, and I am certainly not defending it... but we're getting carried away. Parents being taken to task for having holiday snaps of their own little Billy playing by the pool, Mary being warned not to sit on uncle Joe's lap because "that's inappropriate", that sort of thing.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
As arguable as your claim is (can you provide evidence to support a a causative link between possessing or viewing children being abused and actual child abuse?) -- no one defines pedophilia that way. So it isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime.
everything in moderation
...with the perspective that the definition of a pedophile is very broad. The internet makes images available to the curious as well as the sickos. One may look at those pictures not in the light that they are children, but rather they are atractive.
Not to mention that children, most specifically girls, are made to look older by the media and older actors are are play the parts of teenagers. Perceived age is radically blurred.
Be careful when visiting legit foreign pr0n sites, because America's laws don't apply to the rest of the world. America's "child porn" might just happen to overlap with some of the thumbnails on that gallery page from Europe you were browsing, and if you live in the States, you'll be nailed if your computer is seized and such images are found in a cache somewhere.
There is at lease 1 state in the US that recognizes both common-law & statutory weddings. Under the statutory process there is a minimum of 16, there is none for the common-law process. So, you can get married under common law, but be denied an application for a marriage license to have it documented for out of state travel.
In some states, violent criminal convictions against children or even adults CAN get you put on an offender's registry, but it's usually not automatic. The court gets to decide.
In the vast majority of child-beating cases, it's either a parent, step-parent, or parent's boy/girlfriend. In the cases of parents and step-parents, the police and courts usually have the priority of 1) rescuing the child and 2) giving the offender therapy and reuniting the family when it is safe to do so. IMHO this is the right thing to do. In some states incest is treated the same way, with the exception that reuniting the family under the same roof may wait until the youngest child is past the target age for the offender AND that the offender will likely be on a registration list for many years or life.
By the way, just under half of sex-with-kids cases are family members or members of the household. A near-equal number are people who know the child well, including neighbors, family friends, youth workers, school employees or volunteers, etc. Only a tiny fraction are unknown to the child and a minuscule fraction - under 1000 a year in America - are classic stranger kidnappings.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
then it is clearly responsible in some way for those peoples behavior
And anything faintly resembling free will goes straight out the window, because in your worldview a person is nothing more than the sum of their inputs: I kicked the cat yesterday because on January 13th, 1982 it rained during my little league game and that particular input just built up with the rest of the inputs to produce that output.
At least in this worldview strong AI is possible, or at least an AI that is as "strong" as a human is capable of.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Dysfunction grows to consume all the money made available to combat it. -- Theodore Dalrymple
Yes, but so does everyone else funny guy.
If you want to look at the *real* cause, you should look at DHMO:
http://www.dhmo.org/
It's a chemical that's linked to several other criminal consequences besides pedophilia, the environment is still being polluted by it. There have been huge number of petitions and the brave Newzealand MP, Hon JIM ANDERTON of Newzealand tried to have it banded, but the lobbyists were just too strong and his motion was defeated.
If you want to stop this madness, you need to get all US presidential candidates to declare that they'll ban DHMO. For god's sake, think of the children!
I believe that your position reduces to saying that information is at least partially responsible for peoples behavior. Are you denying that?
Yes, I am denying that. Information is not "responsible" for peoples' actions. I never said it was. Information does influence peoples' actions, by every definition of the word. It is intellectually dishonest to say that information does not influence peoples' actions. If you perceive that provides censorship arguments with ammunition, so be it. We're splitting semantic hairs, here. Information DOES influence peoples' actions; it is NOT responsible for those actions. The two are mutually exclusive, and does not imply that information is somehow "responsible" for those actions. Information exists. The nature and context in which it is presented can influence and inform peoples' actions. It is not responsible for those actions. Might someone take a certain action in absence of, or because of, certain information? Absolutely. But that still does not mean the information is responsible for the action; the individual is responsible for the action. Even if a case can be made that a particular individual wouldn't have done X without information Y, the information is still not "responsible" for the action.
ROFLMAO! ...but really, leave Marlon Brando out of this!
it's theoretically possible that someone could be aroused by images or depictions of something, without actually wishing to do that same thing themselves.
I think that's very common with incest. Incest stories are one of the most popular categories if you look at any sex story website or newsgroup, but I don't think many people ready those stories have any interest in even fantasizing about their own family members, much less acting on it.
The fault of this lies completely in the hands of the parents.
Frontline recently airid an episode called Growing up Online. I'm not sure parents are in control any more at least when it comes to the Internet.
I'm pretty sure I, as a techie, could monitor my kid if I wanted to...but if they knew, as the episode points out, they'll just go to someone's else's house or a library, or an internet cafe to surf, post, & chat.
I think about the best a parent can do today is guide their children....good luck guiding a teenager too as they'll most likely not interpret your guidance in the way you desire.
On the plus side, the DOJ did a study, which Frontline talks about in the Growing Up Online, that kids don't fall for predators normally. That the vast majority of cases where a child has been lured online, the kid knew what s/he was getting into or the age difference between the two was small (the classic 2 year stuff.)
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Once again it is shown that excessive consumption of alcohol by pregnant women creates Internet-enabled 'Experts."
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Anything can be blamed for anything with the help of "experts".
People are saying publicly oversexualizing children is a bad idea, not that they are an excuse for physical abuse of children.
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it this way until you mentioned it. If I had mod points, and you weren't already at a 5, I'd give you more.
How the hell is that a troll?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Since that date you've been wrong :(.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Next week, MADD will release their latest study that confirms that even a BAC of 0.000000000001% could directly cause a fatality. If you use mouthwash and get behind the wheel of your car, expect a hasty trip to prison!
Out of interest, where do you think they get the images? If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested. Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images. Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
...before we ask so what?
The only real substance in TFA is the quoted statistics for an increase in pedophilia-related arrests.
Thing is, the internet is a great tool for arrests as well as the spread of pedophilia. IP addresses, idiots posting personal info online, the fact that it is as easy to be a cop pretending to be a child as it is for a pedophile to enter a chatroom and chat up real kids.
Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
Because it may not be the case. No matter how much we may talk about "predisposition" and "catalysts" it's just talking out of our asses unless we know specifics. How many crack-pot psychology theories have been spread around over the years because some yahoos spun a story and everyone just nodded along?
Why don't we get to the real issue here. If we didn't have any children, there wouldn't be any pedophiles.
activestudios web design
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
It's a lot more profitable and less risky to use actors.
Someday when CGI gets good enough you'll see a legal, money-making market for "it looks real but it's legal" virtual KP. They only thing that will slow it down will be lawsuits alleging contributory negligence, which will drive production out of the USA, and federal laws barring US banks from participating in financial transactions for such goods, just as they can't participate in Internet-based gambling transactions now.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So when you were six, you were actively seeking porn? Sheesh.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Such a thing is almost impossible to study since people don't readily volunteer such information and its illegal to force them to volunteer such info. I smell political agendas here.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm sure some people are born hardwired to be gay or straight. I'm also sure some people are born malleable and they eventually gravitate one way or the other depending on their environment.
Still others don't pick one. We call them bisexuals.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The difference between other pictures being legal and child pornography being illegal is that the one taking the pictures is the one committing the illegal act being photographed, primarily for the purpose of profiting from the pictures. The demand for the pictures drives the crime, the abuse of the child and the taking of the pictures are the same act.
With other pictures, you're probably looking at a third party taking pictures of somebody else committing a crime, a crime that they are trying to profit from directly other than through the voyeurism element of having a picture taken. That is, if a carjacker steals a car in broad daylight, he didn't do it so that somebody else could get pictures of the act, he did it purely for the intent of taking the car from the driver. Anybody that got or sold pictures of the event didn't cause the crime, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time to take the picture.
If you didnt know the Government is the biggest holder of Pedophilia content. I always wondered what they do with the evidence that they collect? It has to go on court documents.
which makes we wonder what do they do with all the drugs they seize?
Like a huge Marijuana bust, do they just smoke it all afterwards? or just have it sitting around in some containment vault?
I think the core of the argument against using the word "influence" is that it anthropomorphizes the information. The information is not capable of action, it just is. And since it's not capable of action, and "influencing" is an action, it doesn't directly influence. The AUTHOR and/or PRESENTER of the information influences. The person who put up the child porn website influences. The ancient Greek writers on the subject influence. And the authors of the Bible influence. The information just sits there, doing nothing.
It's a semantic argument, but I think one that is important in assigning responsibility. The reader is responsible for seeking such sources of information, and the author is responsible influencing others. The information, not being sentient, is responsible for nothing.
E pluribus unum
It's McDonalds! SUE!!!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I haven't yet seen it mentioned in this discussion anywhere, but digital photography and internet pornographic exchange of images of children have with a fair degree of certainty increased the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.
To get into many (most?) of the groups that exchange material, you have to supply new material, and that almost certainly means finding someone to victimize and victimizing him or her in some way.
Experts say that, before the internet and digital cameras, the same victims were seen over and over. Now there are who knows how many new images of children posed in provocative or sexual ways.
The practice of collecting or trading those images gives them value and thus encourages further exploitation of children.
In general, I'm opposed to demonization and criminalization of victimless crimes, but, in the case of child pornography on the internet, there almost always is a victim. It's too bad that the connection is rarely made clear.
That takes care of the first example, but what about the second one for things like rape fetish videos?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
(I'm not necessarily saying sex with 15-year-olds is OK, though obviously there are places it's legal, so clearly not everyone thinks it's wrong. I haven't read any of the scientific arguments in favor of the current age of consent, so I can't really comment on whether it's right or not. My point is that there are different kinds of sex-with-minors offences, generally lumped together as "pedophilia", and always emphasising the "little kids" thing plays into the hands of vigilantes by giving the impression that all underage-sex offences are the most serious sort. Kind of like the way anti-abortion campaigners only ever talk about the horrors of late-term abortions, or anti-gun campaigners never mention cases where private gun ownership prevented a crime...)
no child is harmed in the act of possessing or distributing child pornography. The harm is in the *creation* of it.
So we have already legislated the existence of thoughtcrime.
+++ATH0
Your gender is your biological makeup plus visible and invisible sexual organ development: 99%+ of people are XY/unambiguously male or XX/unabiguously female. The remaining 1% either have ambiguous genitalia and/or non-standard sex chromosomes.
Now, as far as sexual identity goes, there are a lot more than 5 if you bother to count:
Do you like males of a certain fixed young age? A certain fixed young-adult age? A certain fixed older-adult age?
Do you like males a certain number of years younger than you? your own age? a certain number older than you? A certain percentage of your current age?
Ditto all of the above with females?
And I'm not even going to get into non-human desires and combinations of the above.
The idea that adult men should date women no younger than "half my age plus 7" didn't come out of a vacuum:
I think it's fair to say that in most cultures, the dominant sexual identity is "attracted to the opposite sex, between the ages of about half my age to about twice my age" or maybe something a bit narrower than that. It's also fair to say that men are generally attracted to younger or slightly-older women and women are generally attracted to older or slightly-younger men: A 40 year old man dating a 30 year old woman isn't uncommon, but a 40 year old woman dating a 30 year old man is.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Or at least were its first adopters. . .
Come to think if it, the same thing causes almost all people.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Maybe they did it when they were drunk and they wake up and feel so much guilt and shame they vow to never be alone with children again.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested.
This supports the notion that child abuse has a causative correlation to availability of child porn. It doesn't supoprt the notion that viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children in any way.
Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
I don't think there's many actually peddling ("selling") child porn on the internet, since the money trail would make it pretty easy to track down and prosecute them. The evidence I've heard shows that most of it is traded/exchanged for free. It is not clear how this can encourage more to be made.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images.
Maybe, but there's no evidence to that effect. And that claim, right or wrong, still does not support the notion that viewing images of child pornography provides impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children.
Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
Can you support with evidence the notion that reduced availability of child pornography images will help to reduce child sexual abuse? Because that's very close to saying that "viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children" which I think you're claiming is true. Yet, despite having said a lot, including repeating this claim in its converse form, you have not provided any evidence either.
I'm opposed to child porn and child abuse, and think both should be illegal, but the logician in me is frustrated by how often these claims are parroted as absolute truth without any evidence to support them.
everything in moderation
Your logic applies a lot more to hate groups, cults, and other toxic ideologies, if only because the number of potential recruits is much larger.
The recruiting pool for pedophilia is basically those people whose brains are predisposed to accepting the idea.
The recruiting pool for cults and hate groups is a decent-sized subset of people who are looking for meaning in life and/or looking for someone to blame for their troubles.
David Koresh managed to recruit a sizable following before going out in a blaze of glory in the early '90s, all without the Internet. Imagine if the Internet as we know it today had come along 10 or 20 years earlier.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and that's why in old greece child abuse was so common - they had too much internet...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Thanks for that bit of information.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How old were the alleged perps, how old were the supposed or actual victims, and what was their age difference?
"30,000 19 year olds travel abroad to have sex with 17 year olds" is a lot less scary than "30,000 39 year olds travel abroad to have sex with 7 year olds."
So, what are the actual numbers?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and homosexsuality is forbidden and punished by death sentence.
/Z
See: Aisha - the Muhammad's wife
Point of view is determined by place where observer is sitting.
"What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma.""
The definition of paedophilia has already been explained, however I feel that it's important to address the issue of child pornography too.
Firstly, in countries such as the UK, it is illegal to view any photograph (or "pseudo-photograph") which "offends the recognised standards of propriety". This means that an image may be judged as illegal even if it does not involve sexual abuse; it simply must offend the "standards" of a jury.
Secondly, the people who create a market for child pornography are those who purchase images, not those who simply view it. On the other hand, I agree that trading, purchasing, producing, requesting, or distributing abusive child pornography is unacceptable.
The child pornography issue is extremely complex. I discussed it in detail here, although the article is based around an analysis of UK law.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
please, feel free to dispute me -- if you are so positive that i am so incorrect i would like to see your point by point explanation as to why i am worthy of being called a neanderthal. that post was not me being a troll to piss people off, i did not post one single word in that post that i do not believe 100%. i understand posting AC is automatically considered a bad thing but my opinions on issues like this are so far away from what society deems 'acceptable' that every account ive ever had goes from having wonderful karma to such bad karma in 1 day of posts like this that it eventually limits me to only being able to post once per day, hence, i post ac.
i do not expect you to actually reply to me at all, as i feel that my words cut deep enough into your personal comfort level for you to reply to me without using a single constructive statement. you only posted to bash me, and well.. i think that shows who is closer to being a troll.
passage3@hotmail.com
Free will has been dead since the discovery of the neural firing mechanism.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Why is pedophilia wanting to have sex with children, but every other -philia is someone who loves something? Bibliophiles aren't interested in having sex with books. Seems to me like the real definition of pedophile is someone who platonically loves children, which doesn't seem like that bad a thing. Maybe the word they are searching for here is pedarasty? No wait, that one also seems to have a definition that doesn't correspond to the roots of the word.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The poor guy who likes girls "half his age" has to wait until he's 36 before he can date...
Poor guy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now you sound like Muslims advocating Sharia law to prevent rape. So what if the little girls dress as sluts. It should not turn you into a pedophile if you are surrounded by provocatively dressed kids all the time.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
I agree that, if TCAP gets even one man who would otherwise never have been able to find a 14 yo eager to have sex with him . Or as attractive as the one the baiters use to override his ethical/moral/survival doubts. Or if there was not a direct invitation to go to an empty house and upon meeting in a public place, either party called it quits. Or if something happened before he did anything spooked him or changed his mind about going through with it. Or even, if he did have sex with a 14 yo, who maybe wasn't a virgin and who might have been fine with it (a significant portion of women lose their virginity on or before that age).
Basically, I'm not sure all the people they're catching would've acted and psychologically/physically harmed an underage teenager, breaking the law in the act.
However, all the people they do catch are doing something morally wrong, in my opinion and that of society, just by showing up. Many knew they were wrong and showed remorse, not just regret for having been busted. The show is based on taking a person who has done something wrong, who was likely to have done something very illegal and probably harmful to a young teen, had the scenario they created been real. Then, they film the reaction of the offenders as their lives and reputation turn to shit, then get locked up, though are not always convicted.
So, the show may or may not be effective as deterring sexual predation and saving children, but it's not doing so ethically. It's also a sensationalistic show that does not educate (most child molestors are family members) and plays on emotion to have broader appeal, which sucks. They could be doing infiltration, investigative reporting, helping convict child abusers.
Yeah...I don't like that show.
> Hang on a second - you're still making the assumption that little kids are involved.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It was common for 12/13 year olds to be married at the turn of the last century, were our ancestors pedophiles? No, because attraction to sexually mature teens is something that's perfectly healthy and natural. What isn't so healthy in modern society is a significant elder having anything socially in common with them. Or taking advantage of naivety and burdening a teen with a child before they can reasonably be expected to support it. It is for reasons such as these that society has developed the concept of a minimum legal age for sexual consent.
...for me!
I don't have time right now to properly reply to you, but I'll get to it at some point. For now I can basically summarize my point by saying you seem to have developed some rather warped and unfounded views on what constitutes a relationship between men and women. A healthy relationship is not a dominate submissive thing as you imply, in which the male shows "love" by dominating the female. It's that opinion that leads me to call you a neanderthal. Relationships are about give and take, they exist for the betterment of the individuals involved to allow them to pool resources and to enjoy each others company. One may argue that holding a door for someone shows respect, however it applies equally no matter the sex. Women do not have relationships because they need some sort of protection and to say as much smacks of locker-room bravado and posturing.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
However, the cops won't prosecute if they can't prove it.
It also depends on the DA.
This change is only in the last 10-20 years.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
/b/ is dead. newfags killed it. The desires of which you speak are now opposed by a large number of 'social activists' on /b/ who have appropriated the name of anonymous and hope to do 'good deeds' in his name for the sake of attention whoring and growing their e-penises.
So there I am innocently opening the comments to see what everyone had to say, when one of the ads that pops up catches my eye..... http://www.directedinsight.com/badAd.aspx Is this content based advertising......?
My hunch tells me this 'expert' is not an internet expert, if he an expert pedophile then?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The vast preponderance of the evidence in the Gospels suggests that Jesus preached love not hate, and that He died for us because He loved us.
Yes, there are sections like "go and smite thine enemy, to the last one" and such, but you have to read those in the context in which they were written.
Even some of the new testament writers wrote things that run counter to Jesus's "love thy neighbor" philosophy.
This is one reason I have problems with people who claim the Bible is inerrent and meant to be literally applied to all peoples throughout all times in history. Divinely inspired, God-Breathed, yes, but not necessarily inerrant and definitely not meant for every verse to apply to everyone throughout all time and space.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
[...]
Little tommy wants to shave 1/2 his head and dress like a pothead? smack the shit out of him.
[...]
Dammit children need to be beaten a LOT more today. You know, there are those that would argue that thuggery is a learned behavior. They might even suggest that thugs learn that violence is how to resolve disagreements, when disagreement with their parents is met with violence...
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
If I had to guess I'd say less than 10%, probably more like 2-3%, of men find flat-chested preteen girls a turn-on.
With gays the number may be higher because the clothed-body difference between an 11 year old and a 14 year old and for that matter a slender non-muscular 18-year-old isn't so prominent.
Now, what is probably more common that I or anyone else would like to admit is "horny father"/"horny stepfather"/"horny older brother" syndrome, where for whatever reason the father or older brother is not getting his needs met and is using his children, regardless of age, simply because they are available and he knows they won't gossip.
By the way, before anyone says I'm blaming the wife for "not putting out" I'm not: The responsibility rests on the father/stepfather/older brother.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Think of the children..." Just not that much. And not in that way. And don't you dare do it on the Internet. In fact, get the hell away from me, pervert.
When is Slashdot going to add a -1 moderation option for people who actually RTFA?
Normally, when you put quote marks around something ("Creates Pedophiles") in reference to an article, the thing you're quoting actually appears in the article.
That doesn't appear to be the case here.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
You're a fucking pervert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-philia
... someone has to come up with a word to define something, and this one was a reasonable choice given the roots involved.
I think it's just one of those things
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yeah, they claim that. And Nancy Luft claims that sputniks traveled back in time to give Jesus superpowers in order to create the Catholic Church.
If you're gonna spell shit wrong, don't hi-light it and draw attention to it.
Sheesh.
That aside, I think you have to realise that the internet makes lots of things easier - including both pedophilia and making people more aware of pedophilia - one negative, the other positive. I don't think you're ever going to get to the stage where the entire internet is "safe for your and my child", You are just gonna have to train your child not to go to certain places - just like in real life.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
When I stated that the article "conflat[ed] pedophilia with child sexual abuse", I was referring to the fact that the term "paedophilia" (a sexuality, not a behvaiour) was used to describe both a sexual attraction to children and the act of child sexual abuse. I was not suggesting that adults having sex with children is acceptable.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
First of all, no "vigilante" behavior happens on TCAP. The participants go into known pedophile chat rooms (which include adults self-identifying as kid-seeking adults, adults impersonating kids, kids self-identifying as such, and kids impersonating adults) and simply troll for idiots.
The idiots self-identify as idiots when they idiotically and irresponsibly agree to meet "a kid" for real live sex, put their idiot selves into their idiot cars, drive their idiot selves to an agreed-upon meeting place, lumber their idiot bodies into said meeting place, and open their idiot mouths, indicting themselves totally and completely.
The show's only charter is to corral the idiots, and they succeed at it. A number of responsible non-idiots frequent the same chat rooms and never forget their responsibility to their fellow human being, part of which involves understanding that having real live sex with a minor is both illegal and idiotic.
Taking idiots off the internet, off the streets, and out of everyone's way is a valuable service to responsible non-idiots everywhere. It's good to know that idiot-removal services like To Catch A Predator exist, although the show's title is a misnomer: it should be To Catch An Idiot.
You are apparently unaware of the fact that paedophilia is not an act. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, and sexual fantasies are not harmful. Furthermore, most people who do sexually abuse children are not paedophiles, so paedophiles are being used as scapegoats (yet again).
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
"my wife pulls this off really well)"
She really does. It's very hot.
That is never a good criteria for judging anything which is (i) subject to uncritisable political positions (and thus biased research funding) and/or (ii) likely to be based on samples drawn from dysfunctional (clinical) populations.
S(ocial s)cience, like democracy, is at best a least bad methodology. It is extremely vulnerable to financial and public relations imperatives, to the systemic maintenance of empire building delusions like the wars on drugs, Muslims, etc. It would make more sense to me if we were "fighting" the absence of quality control and accurate information with the same vigour.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
of the stolen generations methodology since the disbandment of Native Affairs.
Enough said, especially on Sorry eve.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
I keep seeing reports in newspapers and online suggesting the child porn is rife on the 'net and "is everywhere". The strange thing is that even though I'm probably a heavy net user, I have not once seen any child porn online. It just doesn't come up accidentally like some people seem to assume (and get worried about). I'm guessing it's there if you really are into it and know where to get it (and I further assume there's more to it than just doing a google search... yup, no child porn there AFAICS). So what's to be worried about? Those that use this material will find it one way or another, just as they have for decades. Those that are not, which is probably most, will never see it.
What about necrophilia? There is probably some latin name for bestiality as well but that is just something I am not willing to search for on Google! Finally there is also haemophilia which has nothing to do with loving blood at all.
Truth is if you look around and see what studies have actually been done you'll discover its usually those who rape children who feel the need for the child to be a slut or somehow provoking the attack. Paedophiles --those who are attracted to children are the ones who like the innocence. They are also the ones least likely to reoffend, but hey who needs logic in a discussion on the internets about perverts?
Posted anonymously to avoid the witchhunt.
You my friend have just discovered the endgame for these sex repressed fools. This isn't really an attack on perverts so much as it is an attempt to expand perversion until everyone fits the diagnosis.
Yup! And that's why X must be regulated--for your own good of course....
--bornagainpenguin
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
or an Expert Pedophile? I can't help but wonder about the credentials of this expert. Maybe he is an ex Catholic Priest and therefore an expert on sexual aberrations.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"it's not ok for anybody to boink a 13-year-old, no matter what some degenerate non-societies say."
Just asking.
Oh, before you say "the older one should get into trouble" what if they were born on the same day, at the same time?
Then it must be time to shut down the internet.
Sorry, everybody.
"You say that it is fair to say that information 'influences' people."
But... Who can deny that!!!???
Imagine you and I meet with a friend of mine:
Scenario 1:
-Hi, AC, this is my friend Mike.
-Hi, Mike.
Scenario 2:
-Hi, AC, this is my frind Mike that just killed your mum this morning
-Hi, Mike.
Do you think these two scenarios are the same? Do you think the information that Mike killed your mother won't influence you? Of course yes! That's the basic point of the "yeah, but let's hear the other side before making a judgement"
I'd prefer "sex before age 16 gets you mandatory counseling in family court" whether your partner was older or younger and whether you were abused or not. Whether the counseling turns out to be abuse-victim counseling, you-made-an-unwise-decision counseling, or marriage counseling will depend on the circumstances.
Sex after 16 with someone less than 5 years younger AND below 16 gets you mandatory counseling as well. Whether this is you-made-a-bad-decision counseling, perpetrator-diversion counseling, or marriage counseling will depend on the circumstances.
If you are 16 or over and you have sex with someone 5.0-10.0 years younger than you AND that person is between 11 and 16 AND it's your first offense, you get off with a non-sex-crime misdemeanor. Unless you smart off to the judge or there are signs you deserve more, you should get probation, offender-diversion counseling and expungement. I picked 11 because there are a significant number of 11 year olds who are well into puberty.
Otherwise, we are talking a felony here:
9 and 16, 10 and 20, 15 and 25, or a 2nd offense after age 16 with someone more than 5 years your junior, that's all serious stuff. I'm not saying the other stuff isn't sometimes serious, it's just that with rare exceptions these cases are always serious and should be treated as such.
I would seal the registration records of all low-risk offenders and prohibit non-shared housing and job discrimination unless there was a specific reason that applied to the specific offender or the specific job or housing situation. For example, if a person, even a low-risk one, was known for preying on the elderly, allowing him to work directly with patients in a nursing home would be a bad idea. Likewise, a person with a history of going after kids should probably not be allowed to do tutoring in a private setting.
Also, people change. I would limit all registries for low-risk offenders to 5 years after your most recent release from jail that resulted from a sex conviction, 5 years after the date of the conviction, or 5 years after reaching low-risk status, whichever was later, and automatically downgrade the risk of all offenders every 5 years unless there was proof that the risk should not be downgraded.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So under current law, if I were to create a link on my web site that said "click here for child pornography" that linked to a picture of the George W. Bush, I could be found guilty of distributing child pornography. If you were to click that link, you could be found guilty of receiving child pornography.
In a similar manner, any illustrated, animated, or otherwise simulated depictions of children involved in sexual activity is likely to be illegal under current law. No real children are required to be harmed in its production. It is not even required to contain images of people, real or simulated, if it is "advertised" as containing images of children involved in sexual activity.
Support SETI@home
Anything that creates a market for killing should be considered a crime then? Like making guns?
...this jackass would have had his minions out sticking pamphlets under my windshield wipers, decrying vhs tapes for enabling the kiddie pr0n. now he has a bigger pulpit...
do not read this line twice.
Then why should anyone be held responsible for anything? After all, it was a butterfly flapping its wings 9500 years ago in China that put the child pornography on the internet in the first place.
On the face of it, it seems quite outlandish to suggest that having access to a multimedia resource such as the internet can awaken some latent urge to offend in potential child sex offenders.
Even if we narrow our focus to child pornography itself, evidence is at best inconclusive:
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01aug09f_theories.htm
http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm
There is a lot more information pooled on this page as well:
http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm
Unfortunately, since no man alive today knows exactly what was going on at the time a given passage was written AND the entire history of the Jewish and pre-Jewish people as well as the history of other peoples in the world known to the Jews and pre-Jewish people up to that point, the best we can do is approximate it.
Until new information comes along, the best approximation of the proper context comes from studying all known relevant historical information, with the caveat that any responsible scholar will admit that he could be wrong.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Spanish ex-spurt? Now there's the mother of all oxymorons.
How about the Catholic commissionaires of:
The Crusades,
The Jesuit Inquisition and-
The Catholic Church paedo cover-ups - invented necrophilia - then?
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/social_affairs/Church_admits_complicity_in_sex_abuse_case.html?siteSect=201&sid=8648354&cKey=1200989068000&ty=st
Seriously. Accepting the ludicrous notion that "The Internet Creates Pedophiles",
means it's obviously all Al Gore's fault because "he invented the internet".
Any fool can say anything it likes - but that doesn't make it true.
RR
Am I the only one that's getting tired of the fear mongering? When in (insert deity)'s name will people start to understand that the net does not create a damn thing! It's just a way of carrying information. It does not create terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers, transvestites, ornithologists, lawyers...
The latest here: Online suicide clubs! Sweet innocent children without a single problem in the world stumble upon these 'clubs', instantly gets depressed and proceed to kill them self. Sadly it did actually happen a few years back (three young girls tried after chatting on the net, two of them succeeded) but not a single newspaper looked at the girls life, all they wrote was that the big scary Internet killed them.
It's easy to blame 'the net' though. It's big and almost impossible to grasp for most people so it tends to be looked at as this strange living thing who possess great powers. Also, blaming 'the net' removes the societies responsibility for dealing with problems. When a teenager commit suicide because she chatted on the net there is no reason to look further and possibly discover the real and awful truth.
Not that I'm anywhere _near_ a cognitive science expert, but I thought weak emergence could resurrect that old corpse. If I'm wrong, that's alright, I just don't like that you dismissed it out of hand.
I've got two kids, ages 11 and 9.
There's some early stage results that say human brains do not develop their ability to evaluate risk until around age 22.
There's my experience that says two 14 year olds having sex is not a crime, but a 14 year old with a 30 year old is definitely not right for the 14 year old. The 14 year old does not, generally, have equal mental/emotional maturity and cannot stand up to the 30 year old intellecutally as an equal. However, they can with another 14 year old. So there's not a built-in power imbalance.
30-year olds that want to be with 14-year olds instead of others their own age, are also, as a population, not in their right minds. They're not up to a relationship with a person on an equal power-basis. As such, those 30-year-olds ought to restrict all their social interaction to IRC.
As for your granny and her age of consent, well...all I can say is we humans generally once thought the earth was flat, surgeons didn't need to wash their hands and that the sun rotated around the earth. We were wrong in all cases.
Sexy kids
Whether or not either group is "born that way" there is a distinct difference between a legally consensual act between two adults (if they choose to act on their sexual impulses) and an illegal act, even if the child "consents" between an adult and a child (if the pedophile chooses to act on their sexual impulses).
;-)
Partially agree. Being born that way should not mean being free to assault others (children or otherwise).
However - and that's what many people forget - being a pedophile does not mean that one has sex with children. Just as being a non-pedo straight male does not mean that one has sex with women. It only means that they have the desire. But having the desire is not the same as acting on it. For the non-pedo straight males not acting on the desire, we call them "slashdotters"
And just like slashdotters don't have sex with women, there are pedophiles who don't have sex with children. That could be because their love for children is more than just physical, and they don't want to cause the children harm. Or simply because they don't want to go to prison.
At six I was always hanging round the infants school....
It's a little like Schrödinger's Cat though; how can you know someone's a paedophile without them possessing or viewing children being abused (apart from the paedophiles who seek help, which currently isn't illegal)?
It's a conspiracy to avoid the dreaded "Naked Baby Photos" from cropping up at people's 21st birthday parties. As a non-parent fast approaching 21, I support this :)
Agreed. To be honest, he actually said that first, I was parroting that "dizzying about of data" comment back at him because it annoyed me that he claimed he had a lot of data but didn't provide evidence. Probably wasn't the wisest thing for me to have said.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
at a recent conspicuous addition to the front page of my 'Memes' website will make it clear that I have considerable knowledge of stolen generation issues.
Sure DOCS arguably leaves too many white kids at risk with their parents, but they still follow all the old prejudices about aboriginal culture, at least in the states and regions where it matters.
I'm sorry!
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
From the British Journal of Social Work -
From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? -
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
According to this standard formula, you shouldn't be dating below the age of 14, and +/- 3 years is to big a spread for teenagers...
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
In the Scandinavian languages, we use the -phil suffix for sexual orientations: heterofil - think "heterophile" - heterosexual homofil - think "homophile" - homosexual bifil - think "biphile" - bisexual pedofil - pedophile nekrofil - necrophile And so on.
I've never been attracted to women or men; since I was a boy myself, I've only been attracted to boys. In my thirties now, I've never had sex with anyone, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. My love for boys certainly goes well beyond the physical, and in this social climate they'd almost be guaranteed at least some trauma at least in some point in their lives if we acted sexually. And come on, it's just sex, I ask myself how great could it possibly be, especially to be worth the risks to both involved? And finally, I have some trouble imagining why a boy would want sex from me. I haven't yet met one who asked that from me, but then again I've never indicated that I want that either.
Not if they don't *buy* it. If they get it from P2P, if you believe the RIAA and MPAA, the "consumer" is actually "hurting" the pornographer by depriving him of theoretical revenue.
:)
Which I, for one, find utterly hilarious.
Why not only make it illegal to *buy* child porn?
+++ATH0
the harm is on the head of the person who "surfaced" the video or images. We already have laws to deal with people who expose private information against the will of the party whose information it is.
I'm afraid it's *your* argument that holds no water.
+++ATH0
So are you seriously proposing some kind of altruism on the part of the child pornographer? "Gee, so many people want to see this, I should make it and then distribute it for free!"
Come on.
Seems to me this came out of freaking nowhere.
+++ATH0
The Spanish writer must be writing in a sand castle in the air. What rubbish will we hear next. I can see it now on the Outer Limits, all Spanish writer become pedophiles while researching on the Internet. Clip on the local Star News at eleven. How preposterous must some people be to get attention. The facts are that pedophilia is a complex disease with components that are genetically and behaviourally based with some traits inherited and others acquired. It is my expert opinion, inherited traits from both mother and father, leads to a form of pedophilia which is untreatsble without drugs and/or surgery with a poor prognosis. And a single inherited trait from either parent will respond to counseling and have a much better prognosis. Spanish writers might type out the Encyclopedia Britannica, if they have enough time. It would certainly cost us a lot of bananas.
Let's see, I don't know how to say this.
I am, technically, a pedophile, because I have fantasies with little girls. However, it's underage characters from fiction works, and not real girls. I mean, I am not willing to touch a little girl or see photos of real girls being raped. I have a large amount of drawings and other forms of fiction involving the topic. I really fear justice, so I just, even if I wanted to, can't do anything to a girl. Anyhow, the famed "slutty looks" of children nowadays makes me dislike real girls even more, so why bother? I am OK in my fantasy world.
However, I fear to be treated as someone that deals with real photos or actually abuses kids. I know many of you are already condemning me to crucifixion or worse. Still, what damage do I do if I am not going to harm your kids? I don't have any sort of illegal pornography in my disks as well. Yet, any of those vigilantes would hang me or beat me to death for having fictional works that are not related to reality. This kind of news really do send a chill up my spine. I fear to be prosecuted while really dangerous pedophiles are out there doing trips to sex paradises or having videos of a (real) little girl being raped. It's incredibly pressuring, to feel so treatened when I am not doing harm to anyone.
I know this might not be a really interesting post, but I needed to take that out, even as AC. Of course, this is not intended to troll, just exposing my particular case withing this topic for discussion, another point of view (who else is going to say this anyway? If the rest that think like me do think like me, they would really fear to say this). Oh, I am posting from a cibercafé and behind a proxy, so don't bother to track me down (what's how I could get myself to write this here, anyway).
To put it in a simple question: Is it as bad to fantasize with underage girls (without breaking laws or harming girls) than consuming real material (raped girls) or abusing them?
Are you attracted to real girls?
Sadly, you are correct. Most people hate paedophiles because of what we think, not because of what a minority do.
People at Slashdot tend to avoid playing the role of the thought police, however there are a lot of stupid people in the Populist world, where your observation would probably be correct. We need to do something to change such attitudes.
Adults having sex with children is unacceptable in my opinion, as is producing, distributing, purchasing or requesting child pornography; however, people who are arrested for possessing child pornography are also victims of the thought police. Laws against the possession of child pornography do not protect children, as I will explain....
If any abuse occurs during the production of a pornographic image of a child, the abuse occurs before the image is viewed by an unassociated entity who possesses it. Whether or not "Bob" or "Alice" decides to view an image would not affect whether or not the image had been produced. As I explained in an article at my blog, decriminalising the possession of indecent images of children would likely cause the production of child pornography of children to fall, not increase:
The problem with applying the supply and demand theory to people who possess but don't purchase is that said people are not contributing to demand, because the supplier is not interested in producing images for people who are effectively "stealing" them by downloading them for free, for the same reasons that artists don't record music for people downloading it from file sharing networks. Supply and demand is an economic theory which applies to commercial sale, not products being used for free. Producers of any material do not want their material to be used freely, so an increased interest in freely available pornography would harm them. People would be less likely to purchase child pornography if viewing freely available child pornography were legalised, as viewing freely available child pornography would become the safe option. Production of child pornography would therefore fall because of a lack of demand, meaning that less children would be abused by child pornographers.
Please note: I am not suggesting that you should access or possess child pornography; people who are arrested for any child sex offence are usually subjected to extreme social and legal penalties.
Have you found GirlChat yet?
If you wish to preserve your anonymity, download - and configure your browser to use - Tor, and use your own connection.
There is nothing wrong with fantasising about sex with children; you should simply ensure that you don't make your fantasies a reality.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
It is based on a judgment of those who presume power that any resilience in aboriginal culture after generations of occupation must be inherently inferior to our preoccupations with created money and invented fears (including fear of young people and fear of sex) and thereby gives us the right to continue our attrition of aboriginal communities.
And, no, Too Many Tears isn't self-published. As publisher, I'm a "pure" descendant of the invaders, living a continent away from the half-caste author. In the process I have learnt hard lessons that those addicted to a continuity of the lazy lies of the dysfunctional surviving remnant of the once proud Liberal Party will never willingly learn.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.