Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online News

Internet "Creates Pedophiles" According to "Expert" 548

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the unbridled-stupidity dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet "Creates Pedophiles" According to "Expert"

Comments Filter:
  • Um (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:47PM (#22381622)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:53PM (#22381726) Journal
      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.
      • by esocid (946821) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:12PM (#22381978) Journal

        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.
        • by dryeo (100693) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:37PM (#22382304)
          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.
          • by davidwr (791652) on Monday February 11, 2008 @03:01PM (#22382606) Homepage Journal
            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.
            • by Wansu (846) on Monday February 11, 2008 @05:11PM (#22384110)

                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. ;-)

      • by Trails (629752) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:26PM (#22382176)

        internet based organization entitled "Save the Children."
        or NAMBLA for short.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by rubycodez (864176)
          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
      • by rucs_hack (784150) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:40PM (#22382348)
        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.
      • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:42PM (#22382366) Journal
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I spoke to someone from Australia's DOCS once. He told me that what happens to the victim of paedophilia is horrendous.

          This "it's genetic so there's nothing I can do about it" is crap. People should learn to take responsibility for their actions. Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

            I wouldn't dream of arguing. Criminal behavior requires punishment as a form of "dis-incentive" for repetition.

            My biggest concern is when people decide that the fullest extent of the law isn't enough. Put them in jail for 10 years, fine. Make psychiatric counseling mandatory, even better - let's try curing the problem instead of just fighting it. All of these things are put into law.

            It's when you have peopl

      • by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:43PM (#22382392) Homepage Journal
        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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by UbuntuDupe (970646)
      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 YO
    • by anorlunda (311253)
      daveschroeder makes a very good point

      In the same manner that the Internet helps create pedophiles, then so do photography, the written word, and the five senses also help create pedophiles.
    • I doubt it. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jd (1658)
      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
  • by PitViper401 (619163) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:48PM (#22381636) Journal
    He also states that 4chan creates child molesters with a penchant for fur and funny cats.
  • "Creates"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KublaiKhan (522918) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:49PM (#22381664) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by katterjohn (726348)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by cHiphead (17854)
      That analogy makes no sense, everyone knows its the internet that causes fat people, not tv, ive got firsthand proof!

      Cheers.
  • that's nothing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:50PM (#22381676) Homepage Journal
    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"!
  • by provigilman (1044114) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:53PM (#22381718) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:05PM (#22381868)
      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:47PM (#22382426)
        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.
      • by Thomasje (709120) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:56PM (#22382538)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          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.
          That's probably true for some, but I don't know about all.

          A big turn-on for me is an innocent or staid outward appearance (schoolgirl, business suit, librarian, etc.) when I know the innocence is an illusion (my wife pulls this off really well). I like the contrast. Someone
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:22PM (#22382122)
      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.

  • by Artaxs (1002024) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:56PM (#22381772)
    ...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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
  • by imipak (254310) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:58PM (#22381792) Journal
    ...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.
  • by Robber Baron (112304) on Monday February 11, 2008 @01:59PM (#22381814) Homepage
    Fucking creates morons...
  • Canovas is an idiot (Score:4, Interesting)

    by creeva (1021101) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:02PM (#22381834) Homepage
    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.
    • "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."
      Wait, he's saying that once someone has sex with children they might be a pedophile? That's... incredible.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm going to reply to this one, anonymously, for reasons that should be clear in a second.

      I lost my virginity at 12 years old, with someone the same age, consensually. Did it mess me up? No. I think I'm a fairly well adjusted person, I just happened to be fairly promiscuous from a young age. But it did give me something to spend a fair bit of time thinking about now that I'm older.

      Being in my mid-twenties, I've spent quite a bit of time thinking and dealing with the idea of seeing young teenage girls as
  • I believe it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:03PM (#22381848)
    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.
    • 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.

      I dunno... After 20 years on the internets I'm still looking. :-(
    • I know somethingawful.com does not count as scientific research, but this is exactly what Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka (founder of somethingawful.com) said in his speech at UIUC back in 05. The talk was meant to be humorous, but there's a lot of truth in it as well. A video of the speech is here:

      http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/lowtax-speaks-at.php [somethingawful.com]

      There is no transcript that I'm aware of, and I don't know the timestamp where he makes that point, but it's in there.

    • > 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.
  • by blcamp (211756) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:05PM (#22381870) Homepage

    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...

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Using his logic, the internet creates retards. I've seen plenty of evidence in various web forums and "comments" to support this claim!
  • by esocid (946821) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:07PM (#22381900) Journal

    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.
    • "the pain in spain is mainly on the train"

      (stolen from fark.com from the terror blast a few years ago.) /got nuthin' else
  • 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.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:12PM (#22381990) Homepage
    ...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.
  • Aren't we all? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by popmaker (570147)
    "... 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.
  • by jejones (115979) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:14PM (#22382016) Journal
    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?
  • 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 m
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:20PM (#22382108)
    ... that's why we invented protocols like PPP (Pedophilia Propagation Protocol), TCP (To Contaminate with Pedophilia) and BGP (Background Generation of Pedophiles).
  • "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=
  • 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
  • by QCompson (675963) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:34PM (#22382278)
    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.
  • by sustik (90111) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:37PM (#22382312)
    Internet creates experts according to pedophiles.
  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:57PM (#22382550)
    "Using quotes" described as "lamest editorial mechanism ever" by "everyone" with an "IQ" over 100.
  • by nick_davison (217681) on Monday February 11, 2008 @02:58PM (#22382556)

    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.
  • by 3seas (184403) on Monday February 11, 2008 @03:12PM (#22382736) Journal
    internet pedophile experts
  • by GrahamCox (741991) on Monday February 11, 2008 @07:24PM (#22385866) Homepage
    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.

"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer." -- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach

Working...