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.'"

Um

[daveschroeder (516195)]

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?

Selective Comments

[eldavojohn (898314)]

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.

Re:Selective Comments

[esocid (946821)]

The increase of paedophiles is accompanied by their average age going down. Some are minors themselves.

That little nugget caught my eye. How are minors who have consenting sex with minors paedophiles? Am I missing something there? I would like to see the statistics for how many of these paedophiles are people who are +/-3 years apart, and around the legal age in their respective country.

Re:Selective Comments

[dryeo (100693)]

They're making the common mistake of thinking paedophilia includes young adults (people who are physically mature but below the age of consent) when really it means adults being attracted to prepubescent children.
A 15 year old going with a 13 year old is not paedophilia. At that a 50 year old going with a mature 13 year old is not paedophilia. While in our culture it is not right, lots of cultures it is more normal.
A 13 year old going with a 10 year old is paedophilia, just as much as 50 year old going with a 10 year old.
Personally I'm against calling young adults who have sex together paedophilia and even older adults going with very young adults, while not right and often should be illegal, is not the crime of paedophilia.

13 and 10 not pedophilia

[davidwr (791652)]

The current psychiatric definition [behavenet.com] of a pedophile in the USA is:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

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.

Re:13 and 10 not pedophilia

[Wansu (846)]

  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 wasn't always the case. My grandfather was born in 1888 and my grandmother was born in 1894. She was pregnant at age 14, soon after they married. This was not uncommon in those days. A 20 year old man could earn a living wage and support a family and a teenager is in the prime of her life, physically at least, insofar as having babies is concerned.

Attitudes had changed somewhat by the time my parents were becoming adults. The WWII generation generally waited until high school graduation or thereabouts. Younger girls did get married sometimes but only if they "got in trouble".

It was only when I came of age in the 70s that I heard any mention of statutory rape concerning a minor girl and an 18 year old boy. I _never_ heard anyone mention pedophilia or sex crimes or any of that until the 90s. Of course, in grandpa's day, if you "got a girl in trouble" and didn't have no intention of marrying her, you'd have been taken out and shot. ;-)

Re:Selective Comments - Obligatory...

[Trails (629752)]

internet based organization entitled "Save the Children."

or NAMBLA for short.

Re:Selective Comments

[rucs_hack (784150)]

Oh come now. Obviously the hidden paedophile who can practice his trade in secret for decades but doesn't attract the attention of the wider world is far preferable to the easily tracked, yet obviously far worse internet version.

After all, it's not real rape unless its on the internet.

Re:Selective Comments

[zappepcs (820751)]

Better than that, and no, I'm not posting AC... The basis of this business is to criminalize and excoriate one particular sexual proclivity.

Recent and mounting evidence showing genealogical links to sexual behaviors supports the theory that ALL human sexual deviations are simply part and parcel of the wide array of possible human sexual behaviors.

In civilized society, we generally deem pedophilia as abhorrent, aberrant, and evil but that does not mean those who practice it are necessarily evil. If indeed, there are genetic causations for such behaviors (namely ALL human sexual behaviors) then simply criminalizing it, and punishing those affected, and tarring all technologies involved with 'bad' labels is simply a head in the sand reaction to what is not understood, and consequently not tolerated.

I believe that some study of ancient Greek society will show that pederasts were respected men of society, and only thought poorly of if their interests in the children did not benefit the child in an acceptable manner.

So before we all start tarring people with the kristo-fascist brush, perhaps it is better to take a holistic approach to the problem. Punitive prohibition has not worked well for anything that I can think of.

I'm not saying that we should all accept pedophilia as just another part of life, but I AM saying that the point-n-persecute justice system is not the right way to handle things because along the way someone will blame it on the Internet, or full moons, or the use of aspartame or some other crap that the sheeple will believe and vote for.

God forbid that we should have to teach our children about society before they are 35....

Re:Selective Comments

[Profane MuthaFucka (574406)]

That's GOT to be a joke. Really, one of the old classics goes like this:

man: Hey Sister, does the Catholic Church save bad girls?
nun: Why yes sir, the Catholic Church does indeed save bad girls.
man: Well, do you suppose you could save ONE FOR ME?

I wouldn't take the guy seriously either.

Re:Selective Comments

[randyest (589159)]

What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to dismiss any data that they don't believe.

You might have a point if any actual data were presented in the article. Unfortunately none were, so until something more concrete than "says Mr. Smith from Save the Children" or "according to uncited figures claimed by Mr. Jones" arises, we'll have to "circle the wagons" to refute the unsubstantiated FUD.

Re:

[cthulu_mt (1124113)]

The picture isn't that bad. Now, if you contemplate what he had to do to make his anus that elastic...that is grounds for nightmares.

Re:The Internet Creates

[XenoPhage (242134)]

OH GOD! *cowers in corner, rocking back and forth*

See, now you could have avoided the extra stress if you would have noticed the name of the poster who responded to you.. With a name like cthulhu, it should be expected that nightmares will follow suit.

Re:Um

[rucs_hack (784150)]

It is wrong that an adult act upon those desires.

Outside of /b/?

Yes...

"from a young age" may be relative

[davidwr (791652)]

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.

Re:"from a young age" may be relative

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

Not to forget:

4) Destigmatize paedophilia so the afflicted can actually deal with it.

Paedophilia isn't something you can outlaw into oblivion - paraphilias aren't something you decide to have, they're parts of your psyche. Thus, demonizing paedophilia so that the affected don't even dare to seek professional help isn't going to help anyone. Offering them safe, discreet counseling and perhaps ways of satisfying their desires without breaking laws and/or mentally scarring children is much better. One could try to suppress the paraphilia with help of a psychologist, but I don't expect that approach to be very useful.

Paedophilia isn't going to suddenly disappear. We need to accept that it does occur amongst us and find a way to cope with it in a constructive manner. Whether that means mandatory (but discreet!) counselling, giving lolicon hentai to paedophiliacs to divert their attention from real children, psychological treatement or a combination of any of the above, we need to work on this.


The internet can actually help with some of those approaches. Web forums could supplement/act as AA-style self-help groups where the members encourage and police each other to ensure they don't screw up. If Paedophilia wouldn't be treated as "OMG YOU'RE A MONSTER LEAVE MY CHILDREN ALONE AND DIE" by the general public, something like that would be very much possible; until then nobody would join such a forum for fear that some wacko obtains their personal information and lynches them.
And of course it's easy to obtain lolicon on the internet; all porn is easy to obtain on the internet.


Seriously; we need to actually work with these people, not against them. It's not like they're antisocial crimnal masterminds; they just have urges they can't legally fulfill. It's no wonder that they break laws, then (and kill children out of fear that they're discovered).

Re:"from a young age" may be relative

[orclevegam (940336)]

This can be explained using this handy formula: link [xkcd.com]

pedophilia != child abuse/child porn

[davidwr (791652)]

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.

He also states that ...

[PitViper401 (619163)]

He also states that 4chan creates child molesters with a penchant for fur and funny cats.

"Creates"?

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

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.

that's nothing

[circletimessquare (444983)]

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"!

Creating Pedophiles...

[provigilman (1044114)]

Yeah sure, it's internet... I'm guessing that track pants with the words "Juicy" across the ass don't have anything to do with it though? And certainly not the thongs for 12 year olds...no, never!

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.

Re:Creating Pedophiles...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, why doesn this guy have the balls to say,

"hey parents! STOP DRESSING YOUR KIDS LIKE SLUTS! are all of you insane?"

also what nimrod parent allows unfettered and unmonitored internet access for a child?

The fault of this lies completely in the hands of the parents.

Make your fucking kids behave, you know how many delinquents my daughter has to deal with daily at school because the parents out there are useless? I'm talking $150,000 a year and higher income levels.

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.

Stone the rape victims

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hip huggers do not create child molesters.

[Thomasje (709120)]

Dammit children need to be beaten a LOT more today.

Damn, this child beater gets modded "insightful"? Is this the same Slashdot that gave Obama a big nod in a recent poll?

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.

Re:Creating Pedophiles...

[elrous0 (869638)]

Reminds me of those rather disturbing images of Jon Benet Ramsey in those beauty pageants. Seriously, wtf kind of parent does that to a six-year-old kid?

I once saw an interview with Dennis Quaid where he was asked about the idea of letting his kids become child actors. His response was something along the lines of "I think that would be tantamount to child abuse." I mean, can anyone look at the Britney Spears of the world and not see the dangers of pimping their children as some sort of sick commodities? Seriously, I've seen way more screwed-up parents in this world than pedophiles creeping around on the internet. If anything represents a risk to kids, it's terrible parenting more than anyone lurking in some chat room (which the kid wouldn't even be in if their parents were actually paying attention to what they're doing online).

The internet is an easy target to blame. But if a lot of these parents want to spot the REAL problem, they might want to check out the mirror.

My computer...

[Artaxs (1002024)]

...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.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

You're quite close. It's a well-understood phenomenon. A social system like the Internet allows people with extreme views to find others who share them. They can then more easily exclude people with more mainstream opinions and eventually believe the ones they keep encountering to be normal. This is true of pedophiles, sensationalist vigilantes and open source fanatics alike. It's not just the Internet; the mainstream media provides the same feedback loop (people read newspapers that agree with their i

Man talks crap about paedophilia

[imipak (254310)]

...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.

In other news...

[Robber Baron (112304)]

Fucking creates morons...

Canovas is an idiot

[creeva (1021101)]

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.

I believe it

[alan_dershowitz (586542)]

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.

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics

[blcamp (211756)]

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...

Re:Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics

[MightyYar (622222)]

Don't forget that:

Large quantities of water have been found in the bloodstream of EVERY SINGLE KNOWN PEDOPHILE TO DATE!

Blame the roads

[esocid (946821)]

In 2001, for instance, more than 30,000 Spaniards travelled abroad to have sex with minors, the organization Save the Children estimated.

It's the trains, planes, and automobiles' faults.

Not really supported...

[Kjella (173770)]

...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.

Do newspapers create pedophiles?

[jejones (115979)]

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?

Of Course...

[by Anonymous Coward]

... that's why we invented protocols like PPP (Pedophilia Propagation Protocol), TCP (To Contaminate with Pedophilia) and BGP (Background Generation of Pedophiles).

You know what else creates pedophiles?

[QCompson (675963)]

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.

Re:You know what else creates pedophiles?

[QCompson (675963)]

Huh? Why should they be punished, exactly?

Because I can understand the argument that a 13 year-old is not considered emotionally mature enough by society to consent to a sexual act with an adult. However, by no means would I advocate the draconian punishments now meted out by many governments for such an offense.

This just in

[sustik (90111)]

Internet creates experts according to pedophiles.

In other news..

[RightSaidFred99 (874576)]

"Using quotes" described as "lamest editorial mechanism ever" by "everyone" with an "IQ" over 100.

True, but what does it say about him?

[nick_davison (217681)]

The director of a Spanish vigilante organization has claimed that the internet 'creates pedophiles'

In shocking news, vigilantes with little respect for due process, who work their asses off to entrap people via a given medium, find that there are strangely more people in that medium.

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.

next up ... Internet creates...

[3seas (184403)]

internet pedophile experts

Re:I'm a little put off

[Detritus (11846)]

Pedophilia is not a crime. Sexually molesting children is a crime.

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.

Re:I'm a little put off

[JesseL (107722)]

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.

The thing is

[StarKruzr (74642)]

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.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

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."

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with your point, but your argument is a bit flawed. Based on that logic looking at pictures of illegal acts would thus be illegal. It could be argued there's a market for pictures of accidents and death (certainly several sites dedicated to it, that whole train-wreck phenomena), in which the pictures may or may not be of a crime scene, but viewing of those pictures is not considered illegal. There are fetish sites out there that claim to have videos of people being

Re:

[cHiphead (17854)]

That analogy makes no sense, everyone knows its the internet that causes fat people, not tv, ive got firsthand proof!

Cheers.

Re:I remember being attracted to children

[Cerberus7 (66071)]

Your brain contains memories of attraction to a 7-year-old. Please report to the nearest reconditioning center.