The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2006, 09:40 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
How big a problem is pedophilia, really?

Not sure if this should go in GQ or GD . . . Mods, move as appropriate . . .

I'm a big fan of the Law & Order shows, especially SVU. These shows are supposed to be very well-researched and realistic -- but, of course, the world viewed through the eyes of a sex-crimes specialty squad might be kind of distorted. One gets the impression that NYC, and by implication the whole world, is simply swarming with pedophiles, lurking in wait to abduct and molest children. They even have their own underground social clubs where they swap stories and porn. I find myself wondering how bad the problem is IRL. Whenever you see a milk carton with a missing child's picture on it, is that probably a pedophile's victim? What's the estimated percentage of pedophiles in the general population? And, of those, how many are aggressive and dangerous (which I guess we should define broadly as any who actually does anything about his/her impulses), and how many are merely more-or-less-harmless passive consumers of kiddy porn? How many children are actually victimized by pedophiles in a given year?

And . . . Are the ephebophiles of NAMBLA, etc., a part of this problem at all? Is there a big difference between a pedophile and an ephebophile? I'm inclined to the view that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon -- a 14-year-old is a very different creature than a 9-year-old -- but I'm not familiar with any expert opinions.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-10-2006, 09:50 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,215
Quote:
Whenever you see a milk carton with a missing child's picture on it, is that probably a pedophile's victim?
Back when the child abduction crisis was at its height, I read a report that the actual statistics were nowhere near as huge as most people believed. The report said that most "missing" children were either runaways or custody abductions. The number of children in the United States who were actually abducted against their will by a stranger was approximately fifty a year - a child is statistically more likely to be killed by a parent than abducted by a stranger - and the rate was pretty steady over the years. Obviously there are genuine cases of child abductions and they are tragedies (as in many cases are the runaway or custody situations). But the problem was never the common occurence that some people thought it was.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2006, 10:03 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Child kidnapping is rare. As Nemo said the number of real child kidnappings is around 50 a year, the rest are runaways and one parent kidnapping the child from another parent.

As for pedophilia, It is my understanding that about 10-25% of children are sexually abused. However what constitutes 'sexual abuse' is never really defined. It could be something serious like serial rape, it could be something minor and isolated like attempted groping once when you were 14.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2006, 11:20 PM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Furthermore, The Authorities can easily inflate statistics to increase panic (and so funding). Can you define pedophilia?

How about an eighteen-year-old-boy who has a fifteen-year-old girlfriend? Maybe a schoolteacher who has photos of all his twelve-year-old female students in their gym togs? And of course the computer techs at Best Buy always seem to find computer files on hard drives that come in for repair.

I am sure there is an Official Definition somewhere, but as you can see, it is easy to inflate the figures.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2006, 11:29 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
I'm sure the alarming nature of child molestation makes people worry about it way out of proportion to how much it really happens. The way in which it's covered in the news also makes it seem more common, I'm sure.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2006, 11:38 PM
Otara Otara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
"Of the 2,873 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse reported during the year for which this information is available, the parent (natural, adoptive, step, de facto or foster) was believed responsible in 994 (34.6%) of the cases and a guardian in 2 cases. A sibling or other relative was believed responsible in a further 656 (22.8%) of the cases, and a friend or neighbour in 794 (27.6%) cases. In only 427 (14.9%) of the cases was the person neither a relative, guardian, friend or neighbour"

http://www.australianparentsformegan...s/paedinoz.tpl

This gives some idea of the classic 'stranger danger' risk for child sexual abuse, its really only a minority of cases. Still, 15% isnt non existent either.

While rare stranger paedophiles can have a fairly disproportionate effect due to how many victims they can sometimes find before they actually get caught. Some of them have victims in the hundreds.

Otara
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2006, 11:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
Child kidnapping is rare.
I have a very vague recollection of hearing something that one of the reasons kidnappings are likely so low to day is the FBI taking such a massive interest when it does happen. I'm not sure when or why the policy started but kidnappings left the realm of minimzl police resources not doing much to a disproportionate weight of federal law enforcement chasing kidnappers. It made the crime of kidnapping and getting away with it a very low success prospect.

Mind you I am glad this is what happens...wish they could so thoroughly discourage other crimes in the same manner.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-11-2006, 01:17 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
The FBI comes down hard on all kidnapping. I have never encountered a media report of a kidnapping-for-ransome case where the crooks got away with it. Or at least in the last century.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-11-2006, 01:30 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi
Furthermore, The Authorities can easily inflate statistics to increase panic (and so funding). Can you define pedophilia?
I think you've got it backward (and pedophilia isn't hard to define, although not everybody has a clear picture of what it is). Politicians like to look tough on crime, but generally I don't think they get tough until they see that people are worried about it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-11-2006, 09:59 AM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
And . . . Are the ephebophiles of NAMBLA, etc., a part of this problem at all? Is there a big difference between a pedophile and an ephebophile? I'm inclined to the view that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon -- a 14-year-old is a very different creature than a 9-year-old -- but I'm not familiar with any expert opinions.
NAMBLA contains pedophiles and ephebophiles both, and supports no age-limit on sexual consent at all.

NAMBLA doesn't have a concrete position on what they feel is the youngest age at which someone can consent to sex; it's my guess they don't have a concrete position because if they set it at puberty, then it would lose them the support of any members who want/engage in sex with pre-pubescent children.

Throughout the last 25 years or so several NAMBLA members have been arrested and convicted of raping pre-pubescent children as young as age six.

NAMBLA as an organization probably doesn't do anything illegal, but it's barely an organization at all. It's extremely decentralized, in recent years it has been heavily infiltrated by the FBI and there are rarely any meetings, etc. But the fact remains several NAMBLA members throughout the last quarter century have been found guilty of sex with extremely young children, so to say NAMBLA is exclusively an organization of ephebophiles is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2006, 10:12 AM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
Not sure if this should go in GQ or GD . . . Mods, move as appropriate . . .

I'm a big fan of the Law & Order shows, especially SVU. These shows are supposed to be very well-researched and realistic -- but, of course, the world viewed through the eyes of a sex-crimes specialty squad might be kind of distorted. One gets the impression that NYC, and by implication the whole world, is simply swarming with pedophiles, lurking in wait to abduct and molest children. They even have their own underground social clubs where they swap stories and porn. I find myself wondering how bad the problem is IRL. Whenever you see a milk carton with a missing child's picture on it, is that probably a pedophile's victim? What's the estimated percentage of pedophiles in the general population? And, of those, how many are aggressive and dangerous (which I guess we should define broadly as any who actually does anything about his/her impulses), and how many are merely more-or-less-harmless passive consumers of kiddy porn? How many children are actually victimized by pedophiles in a given year?

And . . . Are the ephebophiles of NAMBLA, etc., a part of this problem at all? Is there a big difference between a pedophile and an ephebophile? I'm inclined to the view that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon -- a 14-year-old is a very different creature than a 9-year-old -- but I'm not familiar with any expert opinions.
It is kind of interesting. If L&O were to be believed (and I'm a shameless L&O watcher CHUNG! CHUNG!) there are vast communities of pedophiles carting children around the US and having swap meets where they trade slaves like comic books. That was the show about a month ago.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2006, 11:02 AM
Lissa Lissa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
It is kind of interesting. If L&O were to be believed (and I'm a shameless L&O watcher CHUNG! CHUNG!) there are vast communities of pedophiles carting children around the US and having swap meets where they trade slaves like comic books. That was the show about a month ago.
I don't know about vast communities, or their numbers, but I can testify that they do exist, in places you'd never imagine.

We live in a small town in the rural midwest. My husband works in a prison, and works closely with the prosecutor. Not too long ago, they discovered a cache of photograps of several children being molested by a host of different adults. From clues within the pictures themselves, they were able to dicover the perpetrators and make arrests.
__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2006, 11:33 AM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
It is kind of interesting. If L&O were to be believed (and I'm a shameless L&O watcher CHUNG! CHUNG!) there are vast communities of pedophiles carting children around the US and having swap meets where they trade slaves like comic books. That was the show about a month ago.
This goes back to an event that occurred around the time NAMBLA was formed. It was in Boston in the 70s and a pedophilia ring was discovered in which men were sharing children and such.

Nothing actually involving NAMBLA itself has ever been proven, but there has been instances of similar "pedophilia rings" involving individual members of NAMBLA.

And "pedophile trips" overseas has also indeed happened in real life.

Remember that the SVU covers the entire city of New York (iirc they are a special squad that deals with heinous sex crimes across the city) so that's a lot of people. That there's like 22 episodes a year and not even all of them deal with pedophilia, and many of them that do deal with incestuous abuse pedophilia which really is unfortunately widespread enough to justify the number of cases we see on the show.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-11-2006, 10:21 PM
Auntbeast Auntbeast is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
In high school a group of about 10 girls were sitting around talking and 8 of them admitted to having been sexually abused at some point.


Then again, I had a devout christian tell me that the reason my father was able to molest both me and my sister was because God knew that we were strong enough to handle it and it would help make us better people.

Yes, I told him to shove it up his ass, I would prefer the both of us to be lesser people, thankyouverymuch.

With the whole "recovered memories" fiasco a few years ago, it seemed it was the de facto thing to say happened to you. I know that in my family, only my mothers side ever acknowledged it, and my fathers side said that I had made it all up. I was 3 when I told my mom. From what I gather, I was pretty darned explicit and descriptive. Far beyond what a 3 year old "should" know.

I also had a boyfriend that was molested by the neighborhood weirdo, who later went back and beat the crap out of him with a baseball bat, talk about closure, I envy him.

Just my experience, but at least two of my teachers in high school acted way, way, way out of line. I would say that you can inflate all the numbers you want and they won't come close to the number of people that won't/don't/can't talk about it.

The flip side is, there are many men out there who are wonderful with children, who mean them no harm and are afraid of the stigma involved. My daughter is babysat by a man and I am more worried about my mother keeping her than I am him.

OT, but why the hell aren't pedophiles prosecuted more severely? Who is it that stands up and asks for less jail time for these sicko's? We couldn't even get Georgia to go after my father, they completely blew us off. Is there some organization I am not aware of that has all kinds of lobbying power to lessen the jail terms?

Repeat offenders are common. There is no cure. They get out of jail, if they ever see the inside of a jail, and act again.


Auntbeast Really getting my $14.95's worth just this week alone. I am member, hear me roar!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-12-2006, 12:32 PM
kimera kimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
What's the estimated percentage of pedophiles in the general population? And, of those, how many are aggressive and dangerous (which I guess we should define broadly as any who actually does anything about his/her impulses), and how many are merely more-or-less-harmless passive consumers of kiddy porn?
I've never been able to find studies I trust on any of these questions. For one, most people who are pedophiles do not admit to being so. Secondly, there are many pedophilies who claim to be non-active, non-dangerous, but I doubt that some of them really are as harmless as they claim. As for finding out how many children are victimized, again, that depends on how broadly you define pedophelic action. The current view is that the child must be under 12 or pre-pubescent and his molestor has to be 5 years older and post-pubescent. So, an 11 year old engaging in sex acts with a 16 year old is a victim of child hood sex abuse. But that is very different than a 7 year old with a 30 year old. Some studies even include victims of flashers as abused child.

Of the pedophiles that I've met, those who are non-exclusive tend to be less dangerous. While I would not leave my kids alone with any of them, the non-exclusive ones seem less likely to attack small children. Most of the non-exclusive ones I know are in relationships/marriages with fellow above-age people and realize that their attraction is wrong.

The non-exclusive ones I worry about. Most of the pedophiles I've met claim that they have no desire to harm children. I was just engaged in a debate with one who said that he didn't even look at child porn but just pictures of cute young girls. He said that he was harmless, but he also said that he thought pedophelia was completely natural and normal (tried to say it was encouraged in ancient greece/rome which isn't true) and that if pedophelia were legal he would engage in it. He also had a "little girlfriend" that was his 7 year old cousin. I worry more about him than about the pedophiles I've met who've said "It's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I wish I didn't feel this way."

Quote:
Is there a big difference between a pedophile and an ephebophile? I'm inclined to the view that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon -- a 14-year-old is a very different creature than a 9-year-old -- but I'm not familiar with any expert opinions.
Yes, the two are very different. Most ephebophiles I know can not stand pedophiles and look upon it as very wrong. There are cultures where ephebophilia was allowed, encouraged, and even part of rituals were every member of the group was engaged in it. I can not think of any culture where pedophelia was accepted to the level that ephebophilia was.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-12-2006, 01:04 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimera
I was just engaged in a debate with one who said that he didn't even look at child porn but just pictures of cute young girls.
Hey, so did Lewis Carroll!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_C..._of_pedophilia

Yet there was (probably) nothing in his character that should make a responsible parent hesitate to choose him as a babysitter.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-12-2006, 02:57 PM
kelly5078 kelly5078 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
As for pedophilia, It is my understanding that about 10-25% of children are sexually abused.
Cite?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-12-2006, 03:20 PM
alice_in_wonderland alice_in_wonderland is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
In regard to SVU having a lot of child molestation cases...

Sometimes when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I took a human sexuality course (and actually had some techniques demonstrated to the class by the 70ish year old lady prof - the kookiest part is that later when I decided to give them a try - they worked! Ahem - getting off topic here).

So anyhow - human sexuality course. We had a guest speaker who's practice was focused on working with women who had sexual dysfunction. This speaker said that he believed that 95% of women had been sexually molested as children.

Most of the class, as well as the actual prof (who was the visitors wife) disagreed. While it's possible and probable that 95% of this mans clients had been abused, it didn't make any sense to extrapolate that to the general population. I have many very close female friends - VERY few of them were abused as children - less than 25% - which I believe is the most common statistic passed around.

So - on SVU they tend to have a lot of that kind of case because that's their specility. I imagine on the vice squad, it's much less, but they have many more prostitues.

Does that make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-12-2006, 03:33 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by alice_in_wonderland
I took a human sexuality course (and actually had some techniques demonstrated to the class by the 70ish year old lady prof - the kookiest part is that later when I decided to give them a try - they worked! Ahem - getting off topic here).
Heh-heh . . . heh-heh . . . You said "getting off" . . .

I guess maybe Dr. Ruth Westheimer actually might have known what she was talking about . . .

BTW, alice, what can you tell us about ol' Lewis Carroll?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:30 PM
Cat Fight Cat Fight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly5078
Cite?
Does Oprah count (not after the whole Frey thing, I guess)? She said today on her show that 1/4 children were molested.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:46 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly5078
Cite?
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Quote:
The comparative annual rate of child victims:
  • decreased steadily from 15.3 victims per 1,000 children in 1993
  • to 11.8 victims per 1,000 children in 1999;
  • then increased to 12.2 per 1,000 children in 2000.
Whether this is a trend cannot be determined until additional data are collected.

Source: US Dept of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children & Families,
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:50 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,572
Of course, a 15.3 per 1,000 annual rate tells us nothing about the overall percent of kids affected, since we do not know how many of the 15.3 would continue to show up in subsequent years.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-15-2006, 08:32 PM
Otara Otara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb
Of course, a 15.3 per 1,000 annual rate tells us nothing about the overall percent of kids affected, since we do not know how many of the 15.3 would continue to show up in subsequent years.

And its for 'substantiated cases' which is a very different standard of evidence to self report. From a bit lower on that same site:

"In the adult retrosptective study, victimization was reported by 27 percent of the women and 16 percent of the men. The median age for the occurrence of reported abuse was 9.9 for boys and 9.6 for girls. Victimization occurred before age eight for 22 percent of boys and for 23 percent of girls. Most of the abuse of both boys and girls was by offenders 10 or more years older than their victims. Girls were more likely than boys to disclose the abuse. Forty-two percent of the women and thirty-three percent of the men reported never having disclosed the experience to anyone."

Otara
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-15-2006, 08:36 PM
Otara Otara is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Oh and that cite Tomndebb did is for substantiated child abuse in general, not just sexual abuse, ie cases that came to the attention of government services and were confirmed upon investigation.

Otara
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-16-2006, 07:15 AM
FisherQueen FisherQueen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Here's a fun game you can try at home.

Go into any city/region-specific chat room some evening. Create a username that sounds like that of a pre-teen, post a happy face and 'Hi, I'm a 12-year-old girl looking for new friends.'

Then read the Instant Messages that appear.

Of course, some of those people are just looking to talk dirty to a kid, not physically molest her. So chat for a while, play a long, and see if any ask you to call them or meet them.

Then go take a long, scalding-hot shower.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-16-2006, 07:36 AM
Rashak Mani Rashak Mani is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
I guess there isn't much that can be done police wise to avoid child abuse by family members. So I worry more about the commercialization of pedophilia. For someone to buy kiddie porn someone somewhere has to be raped and abused. That certainly raises the numbers that suffer... and eventually you get child "prostitutes" and other nastier aspects. So its not big yet... but I see things getting worse. Imagine if a country legalizes it ? You would have legalized pedophilia tourism. (Just imagining long term wierdo ideas)

I don't know if the greater availability of kiddie porn might induce more pedophiles to go out and do it... or if its a means of satisfying their sick urges. Uncertain about that aspect.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-16-2006, 11:08 AM
DougC DougC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
...The report said that most "missing" children were either runaways or custody abductions. The number of children in the United States who were actually abducted against their will by a stranger was approximately fifty a year... - Little Nemo
- - - There was a magazine article I read (in Reason magazine I'm pretty sure) that analyzes the figures put out one year by Wal-Mart for their store-lobby "missing kids" campaign that went through all this. The figures that Wal-Mart gave were of something like 11,000 kids reported missing per year. The core of the whole inflation was that they were counting reports of anyone who was a minor reported missing--and they don't deduct those that are found. Something like 75%+ of all "kids" missing are late-teenagers who run away on their own for less than five days, and then return on their own. Most of the rest are custody abductions that are eventually tracked down within a couple months. The end result was that (in a nation of 250 mil pop) only about 300 kids at the most could be said to have disappeared with no clues, and to have been gone longer than one year. The conclusion was that while there are kids abducted, the main reason Wal-Mart undertook the effort was because it was an easy "community outreach" project to do and claim some success with.
~
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-16-2006, 02:45 PM
The Blonde Bomber The Blonde Bomber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I've been wondering about this ever since the NBC Dateline program from a few months ago. They set up a sting where someone posed as a 13 year old boy/girl on the internet, and they had something like 25-30 guys show up at the house. One guy even undressed and sat in the kitchen when the Dateline reporter came out. There was a surgeon, rabbi, and some other professionals in the mix (with the freakshows), so it really made me wonder.

Oprah is not a good source on this subject. She was quoted as saying something to the effect that "there are only two answers to the question 'Have you ever been sexually abused?' " The answers according to Oprah are either 1)yes, or 2) I don't know. That's a bit frightening, and I'm not sure it's accurate. I can say unequivocally that I have never been sexually abused. But according to Oprah and her experts, I just don't know for sure. Maybe I have a repressed memory. Uh..... no. (But how can I be sure? )

One thing that bothered me about the first Dateline. They didn't arrest anyone. Apparently, they have another episode coming in March and the cops are involved this time. The show was truly disturbing, and it made me wonder how widespread this problem is.

I'm also baffled as to how pedophiles get "kiddie porn", etc. without raising huge flags. I know the internet is a great tool for these folks, but I would be afraid to even type "kiddie porn" into a google. I half expect my ISP to turn me over to the police, who would knock on my door.

I guess I've been lucky. This is a world that I know very little about. And what I do know, from things like Dateline, frightens me indeed. Kids should be permitted to grow up without this crap. It's sad that it exists at all. I feel badly for any child that has this tragic event in their past.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-16-2006, 03:00 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blonde Bomber
There was a surgeon, rabbi, and some other professionals in the mix (with the freakshows), so it really made me wonder.
...

"A rabbi and a surgeon walk into an underground pedophile club . . . " Doesn't work. There's GOTTA be a way we can get a trite joke out of this! Think, Dopers! THINK!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-16-2006, 06:11 PM
Amblydoper Amblydoper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blonde Bomber
One thing that bothered me about the first Dateline. They didn't arrest anyone. Apparently, they have another episode coming in March and the cops are involved this time. The show was truly disturbing, and it made me wonder how widespread this problem is.
Curious, but, what exactly would they arrest these people for? I have not seen the episode myself, but from your description, no one did anything illegal. You might be able to get the naked dude for something, but thats probebly it.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-16-2006, 06:48 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Some more figures from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Old but likely not too far off from today.
Quote:
BJS estimated that nationwide
about 17,000 girls under age 12 (16% of 109,062)
were raped in 1992. This is a conservative
estimate because it was derived from statistics on
rapes reported to law enforcement officials and did
not include unreported rapes.
<snip>
when the victim was under 12,
the likelihood of a family relationship was
relatively high: 46% of victims and 70% of
imprisoned rapists. Additional detail from the
three-State survey revealed that 20% of victims
under age 12, 11% of victims age 12 to 17, and 1%
of those 18 or older were raped by their fathers.
<snip>
4% of victims under 12 said the rapist was a stranger
So child sexual predators, the thing we parents fear await our children at the parks and walking home from school, the perv aiming to rape our prepubescent child, is uncommon, somewhat less than 700 cases across the country per year. Roughly the same frequency as the number of people struck by lightning in the US each year. (source - http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic299.htm). Family sexual abuse less uncommon. Guess which gets the attention? Amber alerts.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-16-2006, 06:51 PM
Cat Fight Cat Fight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashak Mani
I guess there isn't much that can be done police wise to avoid child abuse by family members. So I worry more about the commercialization of pedophilia. For someone to buy kiddie porn someone somewhere has to be raped and abused. That certainly raises the numbers that suffer... and eventually you get child "prostitutes" and other nastier aspects. So its not big yet... but I see things getting worse. Imagine if a country legalizes it ? You would have legalized pedophilia tourism. (Just imagining long term wierdo ideas)

I don't know if the greater availability of kiddie porn might induce more pedophiles to go out and do it... or if its a means of satisfying their sick urges. Uncertain about that aspect.
I can't tell if you're joking. If not... ever been to Thailand? Illegal but overlooked. And the number of everyday Joes there to sample the wares before heading home to their families is frightening.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-16-2006, 07:12 PM
aruvqan aruvqan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 15,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherQueen
Here's a fun game you can try at home.

Go into any city/region-specific chat room some evening. Create a username that sounds like that of a pre-teen, post a happy face and 'Hi, I'm a 12-year-old girl looking for new friends.'

Then read the Instant Messages that appear.

Of course, some of those people are just looking to talk dirty to a kid, not physically molest her. So chat for a while, play a long, and see if any ask you to call them or meet them.

Then go take a long, scalding-hot shower.

there isn't enough hot water in the world for *that*
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-17-2006, 05:21 AM
FisherQueen FisherQueen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoG888
Curious, but, what exactly would they arrest these people for? I have not seen the episode myself, but from your description, no one did anything illegal. You might be able to get the naked dude for something, but thats probebly it.
Actually, the group that helped Dateline with that show has helped police gather evidence for quite a few arrests and convictions using the same method. The law is written, and the courts have upheld, that the clear and immediate intent to molest a child is the crime, and that it isn't necessary for there to be an actual child.

There have been two Dateline programs (and I think a third is coming in February), and if I remember correctly, there were arrests following the second one.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-17-2006, 10:27 AM
Amazon Floozy Goddess Amazon Floozy Goddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherQueen
Here's a fun game you can try at home.

Go into any city/region-specific chat room some evening. Create a username that sounds like that of a pre-teen, post a happy face and 'Hi, I'm a 12-year-old girl looking for new friends.'

Then read the Instant Messages that appear.

Of course, some of those people are just looking to talk dirty to a kid, not physically molest her. So chat for a while, play a long, and see if any ask you to call them or meet them.

Then go take a long, scalding-hot shower.

Or go to perverted-justice.com. It's an organization that lures chatroom predators in and busts them. After you read the transcripts and see the sickos they catch on there, you will never want your child to use the computer again.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-17-2006, 10:42 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
Or go to perverted-justice.com. It's an organization that lures chatroom predators in and busts them. After you read the transcripts and see the sickos they catch on there, you will never want your child to use the computer again.
But not everybody approves of what they're doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervert....com#Criticism
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-17-2006, 01:16 PM
Amazon Floozy Goddess Amazon Floozy Goddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
But not everybody approves of what they're doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervert....com#Criticism
Well, I've read some of the transcripts there, and from what I've seen they're catching some pretty f'd up people. The decoys don't initiate chats; they're approached by other users. I read one transcript where a guy started a conversation with "a/s/l?" When the decoy responded "13/f/(wherever)", the guy instantly said "13 huh? Have you ever had sex?" Boom - just like that. I've never seen any ambiguity or idle chats where the person could have totally innocent attentions. No, these were people who were getting very explicit with who they believed to be 12-13 year old girls.

Check out the "top 5 most slimy" at the top of the page, and you'll see what I mean.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-17-2006, 05:04 PM
kimera kimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blonde Bomber
I'm also baffled as to how pedophiles get "kiddie porn", etc. without raising huge flags. I know the internet is a great tool for these folks, but I would be afraid to even type "kiddie porn" into a google. I half expect my ISP to turn me over to the police, who would knock on my door.
Peer to Peer file sharing programs. You can look up "child modeling" which is all over the internet. I won't link to the websites, but I know pedophiles who enjoy looking at those websites and trade pics/videos from them.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-18-2006, 12:57 PM
The Blonde Bomber The Blonde Bomber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimera
Peer to Peer file sharing programs. You can look up "child modeling" which is all over the internet. I won't link to the websites, but I know pedophiles who enjoy looking at those websites and trade pics/videos from them.
Don't ISP's track this kind of stuff? Or is the nature of Peer to Peer such that any request, whether it be music or whatever, is invisible to the ISP?

If the answer is it's invisible, then how do they track down people downloading songs, movies, etc?

I don't know. I'm sure this touches on personal privacy. But some things shouldn't be private, IMHO. I guess that's where the argument lies. But if it's illegal, doesn't privacy get a pass?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-18-2006, 03:42 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
Well, I've read some of the transcripts there, and from what I've seen they're catching some pretty f'd up people. The decoys don't initiate chats; they're approached by other users. I

Check out the "top 5 most slimy" at the top of the page, and you'll see what I mean.

I've read them, but I also read the site of people who are protesting their methods (there has been another thread on this very topic a couple month ago, and you could probably find the link there. I don't remember it), and they had some nasty stuff to say about them. Including accusations of having used a couple of *actual* minors to entice the pervs (and apart from that : actually initiating the nasty talks, threats, harassing the perv's grandmothers, making the job of real law enforcement officers harder, etc, etc, etc... and lying all the time about everything, basically).


Personnally, I don't like much vigilantes, and besides I'm not sure I'm fully convinced of the innocent mind of men pretending to be 12 yo girls talking dirty to pervs...
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-18-2006, 03:46 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimera
Peer to Peer file sharing programs. You can look up "child modeling" which is all over the internet. I won't link to the websites, but I know pedophiles who enjoy looking at those websites and trade pics/videos from them.

We've discussed about that in the past. And in these cases, personnally, I blame the parents way more than whoever looks at these sites. I mean, what kind of parents would make money by posting pictures and videos of their kids in bathsuits for whoever enjoys this? Would you do such a thing?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-18-2006, 03:49 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blonde Bomber
Don't ISP's track this kind of stuff? Or is the nature of Peer to Peer such that any request, whether it be music or whatever, is invisible to the ISP?

If the answer is it's invisible, then how do they track down people downloading songs, movies, etc?

Kimera , I believe, isn't talking about child porn but about perfectly legal sites showing/selling pictures of enticing but (slightly) dressed kids. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-18-2006, 08:27 PM
Cat Fight Cat Fight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
Or go to perverted-justice.com. It's an organization that lures chatroom predators in and busts them. After you read the transcripts and see the sickos they catch on there, you will never want your child to use the computer again.
While I have mixed feelings about what those people are doing, I found the site very odd. I took the tour that showed the photos the would-be molesters posted of themselves vs. their mug shots, then commented on the difference

Quote:
Striking difference isn't it? What formerly was normal looking and probably handsome to some females turns into a modern day horror movie upon his arrival. He also lied about his age, stating that he was 34 when he's actually 39. He knew that while a kid might be interested in his first picture, the reality of his face was not something he was willing to share until he walked into view of our cameras and the Riverside Sheriff's department.
Okay, yes, it is important that kids know people use fake or flattering photos, but would it really make a difference if it was an adorable 20-something soliciting sex with your 13-year-old daughter?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-18-2006, 10:40 PM
kimera kimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur
Kimera , I believe, isn't talking about child porn but about perfectly legal sites showing/selling pictures of enticing but (slightly) dressed kids. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Both are shared through that manner. It used to be a lot easier to find hardcore child porn simply by doing a websearch but the authorities have shut down most of the websites. However, you can still find it if you know where to look. There is a lot of traffic on p2ps, and while they can track you down by your ISP, there is too much stuff for someone to sit and watch everything that goes back and forth. Mailing lists, groups, private websites were other ways that the pics/videos were exchanged. For some of the pedophiles I've known, the pictures of the clothed children were just as sexually stimulating as naked pictures of children.

It is not even illegal for a person who admits to being a pedophile to have contact with young children. That's why websites like Butterfly Kisses and NAMBLA can exist on the web. There is a pedophile I've been in contact with who has a "Little Girlfriend." The authorities have said that until the pedophile harms the kid, they have no reason to get involved. As far as I know, the mother of the child does not know what her daughter's "friend" really is.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-18-2006, 10:44 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
Check out the "top 5 most slimy" at the top of the page, and you'll see what I mean.
. . .



OK, this stuff shouldn't be turning me on, should it?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-19-2006, 08:34 PM
Amazon Floozy Goddess Amazon Floozy Goddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimera
It is not even illegal for a person who admits to being a pedophile to have contact with young children. That's why websites like Butterfly Kisses and NAMBLA can exist on the web. There is a pedophile I've been in contact with who has a "Little Girlfriend." The authorities have said that until the pedophile harms the kid, they have no reason to get involved. As far as I know, the mother of the child does not know what her daughter's "friend" really is.
I think I missed something. Why do you know so many pedos? Are you a social worker or therapist or something? If so, that would explain it; if not, there's something very wrong here. And I'm very alarmed at the "Little Girlfriend". Why on earth does it have to wait for this child to get RAPED before the cops step in? Why don't YOU step in? Tell the girl's mother? This girl is in serious danger. If she gets hurt despite the fact that you full well know what company she was in, you could be charged with child endangerment.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-20-2006, 01:06 AM
kimera kimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
I think I missed something. Why do you know so many pedos? Are you a social worker or therapist or something? If so, that would explain it; if not, there's something very wrong here. And I'm very alarmed at the "Little Girlfriend". Why on earth does it have to wait for this child to get RAPED before the cops step in? Why don't YOU step in? Tell the girl's mother? This girl is in serious danger. If she gets hurt despite the fact that you full well know what company she was in, you could be charged with child endangerment.
I find abnormal sexualities interesting so when I come across one that is unusual I ask the person many questions. I don't tell them what I think about their "condition" and most of them are open and honest with me after a while. I pretended that I was accepting of children as young as 12 having sex with adults on another forum and I got many messages from individuals who identified as pedophiles. Several were fake, but others came across as very realistic and I keep in contact with them. I wanted to know more about pedophiles and I figured the best way to learn about them was to talk to them myself.

This one in particular I first came across on a livejournal community. He says that he is a male to female transsexual, but for a variety of reasons, I think he is really male. He later came into a chat room I hang out in and the other chat members were accepting of this individual because they believed that he poses no harm to society. I disagree. This person could be making the whole thing up, but I doubt it. Anyway, he spoofs his ISP and the websites he has registered are not in his legal name. In the diary he writes about his relationship with the girl, he does not use either of their names. All this information has been turned over to the authorities, but as of now, nothing has been done. I don't see what else I can do other than talk to him and try to dig out as much information as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-20-2006, 01:27 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon Floozy Goddess
Check out the "top 5 most slimy" at the top of the page, and you'll see what I mean.
I definitely didn't get very far there...
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-20-2006, 07:00 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimera
There is a pedophile I've been in contact with who has a "Little Girlfriend." The authorities have said that until the pedophile harms the kid, they have no reason to get involved. As far as I know, the mother of the child does not know what her daughter's "friend" really is.
Let me be sure I understand. You know a pedophile. You know this pedophile has a little girlfriend. You know this child could be at risk. Yet you've done nothing to inform the child's mother.

Seriously. What the fuck are you thinking?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-20-2006, 10:02 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
Let me be sure I understand. You know a pedophile. You know this pedophile has a little girlfriend. You know this child could be at risk. Yet you've done nothing to inform the child's mother.

Seriously. What the fuck are you thinking?
Way I read kimera's posts, he/she has had online communication with this pedophile but has no way to identify or locate him (the ped being very good at ISP spoofing), nor the little girl; so what can he/she do?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.