Internet "Creates Pedophiles" According to "Expert" 548
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Selective Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Do newspapers create pedophiles? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"from a young age" may be relative (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:13 and 10 not pedophilia (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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?
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)