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.'"

Re:Selective Comments

[dryeo]

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.

Re:He also states that ...

[veganboyjosh]

Search for "reaction videos 2 girls 1 cup" on youtube, and you'll get some pretty funny clips, one is someone's grandmother they coerced into watching.

Re:Not really supported...

[Anonymous Coward]

This poster is correct, which is why people like my FBI friend who worked kiddie-porn enforcement (before he had to get out of it because it was too disturbing even for him) told me they always monitor, but when they see new content appear they go after everyone involved like crazy.

13 and 10 not pedophilia

[davidwr]

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:Selective Comments

[randyest]

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:Selective Comments

[ta bu shi da yu]

P.S. DOCS is the Dept of Community Services. Do your own research before spouting off in future.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion