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.'"
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Selective Comments (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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 (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:Selective Comments - Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Selective Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, it's not real rape unless its on the internet.
Re:Selective Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you be willing to give up being attracted to big busted lithe and svelt blondes? (as an example) just because joe bloggs believes they are evil, or because mohammed believes they should show no skin of any kind in
Re:Selective Comments (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
The FBI said that in the '80s they thought they had virtually wiped out pedophilia and trafficking in child pornography. Since the rise of the internet, the number of arrests for these crimes has risen dramatically.
One might suggest that the 'net has made these folks higher-profile, not lower... and thereby easier to arrest.
Look at the IRC channels and kiddie chat rooms. If you can see 'em, you can hunt 'em. If you don't know they're there, or believe they've been "virtually wiped out", then ya can't bust 'em.
Re: (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 YO
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children.
You were not an adult, so no, you were not a paedo. If you are now an adult, and that six year old is still your sexual ideal, then yes.
And I Quote: (Score:2, Insightful)
"studies show that some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age, "
6 is an early age.
If 6 is excludable because of the definition of paedophillia, then the qualification in that quote is redundant and misleading.
If it isn't then a lot of kids are in trouble...
"from a young age" may be relative (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"from a young age" may be relative (Score:5, Funny)
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 ma
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
pedophilia != child abuse/child porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Child porn and child abuse are whatever the lawmakers and courts say it is.
The two are not the same.
Disagree...the internet does "enable" many things (Score:2)
And your Bible analogy is remarkably spot on: the contents of the Bible (or the text of any other religion) has created a lot of ill, and a lot of good, depending on your perspective, that may not otherwise have existed.
The point is that information in its many forms influences people. That the extensive and more comprehensive access to information of all kinds provided by the internet can act as an even greater/broader influence shou
Re:Disagree...the internet does "enable" many thin (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Internet Creates (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:4, Funny)
Outside of
Yes...
He also states that ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Creates"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers.
that's nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
and that some people called "experts" mistake indoctrination into an agenda for actual education
ban ideology!
ban "experts"!
Creating Pedophiles... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Creating Pedophiles... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man talks crap about paedophilia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
/ducks
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Canovas is an idiot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... After 20 years on the internets I'm still looking.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Confusing cause and effect? (Score:2)
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.
Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Large quantities of water have been found in the bloodstream of EVERY SINGLE KNOWN PEDOPHILE TO DATE!
well then, that explains a lot (Score:2, Funny)
Blame the roads (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(stolen from fark.com from the terror blast a few years ago.)
Will somebody please think of the children? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Calls for some Doug Stanhope (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really supported... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't we all? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
I could see this (Score:2)
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
Of Course... (Score:5, Funny)
As the saying goes (Score:2)
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=
Personification of man's Tools = Shifting Blame (Score:2)
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
You know what else creates pedophiles? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
This just in (Score:4, Funny)
In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
True, but what does it say about him? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
So where is it then? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a little put off (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Creation/possession/distribution of child pornography and child molestation are not the same thing as pedophilia.
The thing is (Score:5, Insightful)
So we have already legislated the existence of thoughtcrime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Even though the legal system may disagree, the last time I checked, there wasn't a "thought crime" exception to the Bill of Rights.
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: (Score:2)
I fail to see any slant, unless you meant the implication that pedophilia (wanting to fuck little kids) and child sexual abuse (fucking little kids) are not the same thing, which is of course correct, as one means desire and the other action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I remember being attracted to children (Score:4, Funny)