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.'"

Selective Comments

[eldavojohn]

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:Um

[UbuntuDupe]

What is so hard to believe about that?

Because it ignores that it's equally easy to "poison" the internet with "children" who want to meet, but turn out to be Chris Hansen of Dateline NBC.

"Why don't you take a seat, right there? Now, what are you doing here? What did you come here for? Hey, what's in that bag? Now why would you need those if you're just meeting a 13-year-old boy? And this? Isn't he too young to drink that? What's the meaning of all this? GET ON THE GROUND! POLICE!"

(Btw, a big THANK YOU to all the moderators that have reversed my clearly unwarranted vendetta mods and restored my karma to "Bad".)

Canovas is an idiot

[creeva]

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.

Re:Selective Comments

[esocid]

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.

Do newspapers create pedophiles?

[jejones]

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?

Re:Disagree...the internet does "enable" many thin

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that information in its many forms influences people.

That is the starting point of every pro-censorship argument. If information influences peoples behavior, then it is clearly responsible in some way for those peoples behavior. Once that conclusion is made, then it is possible to say that we need to control access to information in order to ensure that people aren't 'encouraged' or 'influenced' into doing things that society doesn't approve of. I deny that information can be blamed for peoples behavior. People are responsible for their behavior, not what they read, hear or see. To say otherwise is to deny the very core of human free agency and make robots out of us all, whose input must be carefully controlled to avoid unwanted outputs. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a society where I am considered a human being with my own will and able to make my own decisions irrespective of what information I may have come into contact with.

Re:"from a young age" may be relative

[Ucklak]

I personally think its a dialog to bring up the discussion about censoring [controlling] the internet.
We know it can't be done and we also know there are big head types that thinks it can be done because their understanding of the noun 'computer' is inclusive of hardware, software, and networking. Moreover, controlling this 'computer' should just be as easy as changing a setting, right?

Probably not kidnap victims

[davidwr]

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.

Re:"from a young age" may be relative

[WilliamSChips]

But not all pedophiles are murderous rapists. If pedophiles are more likely to kill children it is because of the harsh punishment given to pedophiles--when all child kidnapping had the death penalty all child kidnappers were more likely to kill the kids if their demands weren't met.

Re:13 and 10 not pedophilia

[Wansu]

  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:"from a young age" may be relative

[Brian Ribbon]

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."

I understand your argument, but there is no evidence to suggest that someone's sexuality can be determined by whether or not they feel that their urges are moral or immoral.

"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"

Paedophilia is not a behaviour; it is a sexuality (technically a sexual disorder). Are you suggesting that all paedophiles are "would-be perps" and should be sent to therapy, or are you suggesting that offending paedophiles should be sent to therapy?

"providing safe environments for our children that limit the opportunity for would-be offenders to offend."

How do you define "would-be offenders"? You can't tell a whole group of people who are attracted to children - yet are fully able to control themselves around children - that they are prohibited from being around a child simply because of their feelings. I'm a non-offending paedophile, I do volunteer work with children, and I'm fully able to control myself. Although I am sexually attracted to children, I will never make my fantasies a reality.

what do you do with 2 13 year olds?

[davidwr]

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.

Re:"from a young age" may be relative

[mollymoo]

The fact that those "degenerate non-societies" have lower rates of teen pregnancy than the USA suggests kids are going to fuck anyway and being open about it is much healthier than pretending they won't.