250,000 Pedofiles. Can this number be correct?

Factual Questions
1

For the record, people who abuse children and those who look at these types of pictures should be arrested, jailed, castrated, but that’s not what my question is about.

With the Pete Townsend arrest and the mention of the FBI tracing “250,000” suspected pedofiles (worldwide) that accessed pictures using a credit card, something in the math doesn’t quite add up. I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here on the math of this based on a couple quick reference checks: The number of total worldwide internet users is around 300,000,000 and about half of those were in the US of A. Would it be correct to assume then that about half the worldwide internet pedofiles are in the US and that would amount to about 125,000?

If so, and the total US population was about 280,000,000 million in 2000, then in my area (Indianapolis) which has about 1,500,000 people (0.5357% of the US total) should have about 670 internet pedofiles to be arrested locally (0.5357% x 125,000). No one has been in the news locally for being arrested as part of this FBI operation that I can recall, and if so it wasn’t 670 people.

The Chicago area (MSA population) should be expecting about 3,571 arrests. Los Angeles is looking at 4,111 (it would be 4,113 but they have already arrested Pee Wee Herman and Jeffrey Jones).

If my math is correct and my assumptions are sound, doesn’t this sound way too high? Or are there really that many pervs out there?

2

The number of actual pedofiles your post suggested would not shock me.

The actual number the FBI are really tracking is the number I have a problem with. The FBI is probably reporting an individual as being tracked, if his name has been recorded on a disk. That’s hardly being tracked IMO. And there could be many duplications and errors, each being counted separately.

3

An article here suggests that pedophilia is extremely widespread - the figures you’re quoting may even be on the low end. Worrying stuff.

4

If I read the article correctly, 250,000 users had accessed only one child-porn website. Since there are presumably many such sites, the actual number of pedophiles is much higher than 250,000.

5

H8_2_W8, Speaking of Chicago, as you were, go to
this page and select any beat in the City of Chicago and find out how many registered sex offenders there are there (and note how many have the ‘Y’ checked in the ‘victim under 18’ column).

6

That presumes that everybody who accessed the site deserves to be called a “pedophile”. That strikes me rather like suggesting that everyone who takes a toke of a joint is a hardcore drug addict.

I imagine that some percentage of those people accessed the site (even if they paid to do so) out of simple curiosity, the thrill of doing something illicit, or because they have viewed so much porn of other types that they are jaded.

The list they should be examining is the list of REGULAR visitors.

7

OK, that is weird. The focus of the article, once you get into it, is the use of SSRI medicines on paraphiliacs to suppress their sex drive. It includes cites of studies showing success in this treatment method. This clashes with my experience of using SSRI’s as a treatment for my clinical depression; in the depths of depression, I don’t have any sex drive to speak of, whereas after successful treatment with those drugs, I do. I don’t know if that’s a widespread phenomenon, but I can’t imagine that these types of medicines would be very popular treatments of depression if they took away the patient’s interest in sex along with his depression …

But hey, what do I know. And I can say that I have no interest in having sex with children while on these medications. Didn’t before I was on them, either, but there you go.

8

The problem with the use of statistics in this area is, not that nobody knows what they’re talking about, but rather that nobody knows what anybody ELSE is talking about.

What are WE talking about?

>Middle-aged men who assault 6-year-olds next to the teeter-totter?
>Some guy who downloads pictures of (supposed) 13-year-old girls in “suggestive” poses as an aid to masturbation?
>A grown-up who thinks he remembers that Mommy once touched his thingie while dressing him for school?
>The size of the subscriptions list for YOUNG HOT STUD-PUPPIES magazine?
>The Nielsen audience for shows like “The Brady Bunch” and “Eight Is Enough”?
>The college student who enjoys petting sessions with his high-school-age inamoratum?

Now the law sometimes does, and sometimes does NOT, distinguish between these categories. But IMHO, only the first one ought to be captured by the statisticians as a “dangerous pedophile.”

Setting aside my opinion, though–one still has to question the wild statistics that are thrown around.

9

Yabob: fair enough.

10

Pedo “f” ile? Ha! I was so busy thinking about the math I didn’t notice it should be Pedophile (and I can’t claim a typo since I had it wrong each time.)

Why should it matter if someone is a regular visitor or a one time visitor to that site? Can I rob a bank, just once, out of boredom and not be a bank robber? They gave their CC#s to gain access so I’m assuming they knew what they were going after and I would think anyone with enough IQ to operate a computer and have a credit card would know what he is doing is illegal.

I extrapolated the numbers to the “local” level to give a sense of perspective to 250,000, since that seems too large to conceive. If it is true, and there is a credit card “paper” trail, should all those people be arrested? We’d probably have to clear out the jails of all the drug arrests to make room I suppose.

11

What about societies that don’t think under 18 is considered “underaged minors”?

Back to the OP though, I don’t think that’s too high really. A lot of men like “young” looking girls (I don’t mean 6 year olds, I mean 16-17 year olds).

I find anyone preying on children a sicko, but I don’t blame those who view it (at least those who view “17 year old school girls” [who are most likely 22 year olds dressed as school girls]).

I remember listening to some DA in Texas (I think it was) who said (and I’ll try to quote) "if even 1 guy views this material and then goes out and abuses a little kid, that abuse is caused by the website [offender]). How is that? Does that mean I can go have sex with a 10 year old and then blame in on the Internet? Sheesh, people need to take responsibility for their actions, and not blame what they see (think TV violence).

Hope I don’t get flamed for saying that :smiley:

12

250,000 potential offenders divided by 280,000,000 is a little less than one in a thousand, if everyone is from the US.

That doesn’t seem very high to me. Especially considering that police authorities like to round up their numbers – and may be including anyone whose computer was hijacked by popups and redirected to the site.

13

As an aside, I’ve always found it vaguely annoying that law enforcement agencies persistently refuse to distinguish between nepiophilia, pedophilia, and ephebophilia. The three paraphilias are treated as a singular disorder, whereas in fact they are very different, very rarely occur together, and often have very distinct root causes.

14

I think it’s all Badmana’s fault.

If even one person reads this thread, and then goes out and molests a child, it’s all Badmana’s fault.

No, but seriously… I sure would like to know exactly the circumstances behind who we’re calling pedophiles, and who I might not agree with.

Once upon a time, when I was 22 or so, I once met a lovely lady in a bar, who offered to take me home with her if I’d teach her how to rassle. I was more than amenable. We were already out to my car before she remarked that I’d have to be out by a certain hour, though, as that was when she expected her parents home.

(???)

I asked how old she was. She said she was fourteen.

I about jumped out of my shoes. I could practically hear the cell door closing behind me already, right there in the parking lot. She didn’t LOOK fourteen, but I understand that most juries don’t buy this as a defense.

I decided not to go home with her. In fact, I made a point of going back into the bar, so no one could say they’d seen me leaving with her. She made it back into the bar, too, and gave me dirty looks for the rest of the time I was there. Exactly how she was able to enter this particular den of sin, I dunno. Like I said, she didn’t look fourteen, and the bouncers weren’t real strict about carding ME.

So… does this make me a pedophile? I will admit I was excited about the idea of having sex with her. She was yummy.

On the other hand, finding out her actual chronological age affected me like a bucket of cold water.

Based on this evidence, I would assume I’m not a pedophile.

However, if her parents had been staying out all night, I would technically be a child molester. There’s a thought that’s kept me awake a night a time or two. And if the cops had somehow become involved, I would now be a registered sex offender, assuming I was out of jail yet.

Here’s some more food for thought:

Read a case a while back where a boy and a girl got to humpin’. They were teenagers, same high school. Uh-oh – she got knocked up. The kids discussed the matter… and decided to come clean with the parents.

The parents got together and held a meeting to decide what to do. The kids said that they loved each other, and didn’t want to break up.

Finally, it was decided. The teens would get married. She would keep the baby. The parents would stand by the kids and support them. He would work part-time until graduation, and then work part-time while in college; she would start college when the baby was old enough for nursery school. Both families would provide some financial support to make it all come together.

Sounds like a strong possibility for a happy ending, right?

Wrong. Local district attorney decided to get involved. Deduced from the baby’s birth date and doctor’s reports that at the time of conception, Daddy was a legal adult whereas Mommy was still a minor (due to the local ages of adulthood and consent).

He issued a warrant for the boy’s arrest, and had the sheriff pick him up at work. Charged the boy with statutory rape, and made a big noise about “child molestation.”

The parents were outraged. The judge who wound up having to try the case wasn’t too happy about it either… but he wound up having to uphold the conviction. Technically, what they had done was against the law.

This made our Daddy-boy a registered sexual offender and a convicted felon, all at the tender age of eighteen… for having sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend just a tiny bit too early.

Now, I am not going to stand up and defend child molesters. Far from it. I am a parent, and I personally don’t see why we keep the repeat offenders alive.

But then… my idea of “child molester” is basically … “adult who seduces a minor when there is an age difference of greater than… um… hell, I dunno… six years? Ten years?”

Is a 40-year-old who seduces a 14-year-old a molester? Yes, I think so. Shoot the bastard.

How about a 20-year-old who seduces a 14-year-old? Um… well, yeah, I guess so. What, he can’t find someone his own age?

Then what about an 18-year-old who seduces a 14-year-old? Uh… well… plainly, I don’t approve of that sort of thing, and I think there should be legal consequences of some sort… but… child molester? Hell, the kid’s barely in long pants himself!

Where do we draw the line?

15

I don’t know if I want to ask banks for any clarification, or would prefer to remain in blissful ignorance …

Ah, whatever. Hey, banks – care to elucidate? (Nepio-what?)

16

You asked for it…

Nepiophile- a post-pubative person who is aroused by infants. In general, restricted to arousal caused by infants below the age of two years.

Pedophile- a post-pubative person who is aroused by pre- or peri- pubative persons.

Ephebophile- a post-pubative adult person who is aroused by post-pubative, non-adult adolescents.

Thus, in slightly simpler lingo-
Nepio- birth-two year olds
Pedo- two year olds through the end of puberty.
Ephebo- end of puberty through adulthood as defined culturally.

Just another entry on the long list of unsavory things my accursed memory has burdened me with.

17

You ask my SO, and she’ll probably agree :smiley:

I also have a semi-related story about my under-age years. I knew (and still know) a girl who moved in across my building years ago. I got to know her and we talked etc. I was absolutely shocked to hear she was only 14 when I met her (I was 16-17 at the time). She really looked “my age” and I couldn’t imagine how a 14 year old could be such a hottie.

I wonder if my taking pictures of her (playfully!! and some “questionable” shots) would look now? She was 15-16 and I was just turning (or turned) 18. Was that me taking advantage of a minor? Heck, she got laid before I did!

Don’t worry, no nudity, and nothing online. But I wonder how such innocent “play” can turn really serious in a heart beat.

I think the numbers are inflated if you include EVERYTHING that older men (and women) do with younger girls and boys (say, within 2-4 years of age). Lots of younger girls look older, so I’m sure that changes the numbers a bit.

I still don’t agree with a 40 year old guy and a 14 year old girl though. That’s just gross. (Unless it was a 40 year old woman and a 14 year old boy…I’m sure a lot of boys have that kind of fantasy :smiley: )

18

TMI!! TMI!!

The first one (nepio) is just gross. I can’t imagine getting a kick with a several month old baby. Pedo starts at 2 and ends at…what? 12-15? These days 12-15 year olds are having kids so I think maybe the term is out dated (I personally can’t see the crime in a 14-15 with a 17-18 year old in a relationship but that is probably as far as I would go).

Never heard of an ephebo.

I hear about pedophiles the most. It seems almost over used.

19

Badmana- for a recent ephebophilia incident in the media, one needs look no farther than the R Kelley situation. He is an post-pubescent adult attracted to post-pubative non-adults. Pedophilia as a term seems overused because it is. It’s used as a blanket statement to apply to adults who are sexually interested in people who appear younger than them.

Nepiophilia is undeniably the most repugnant of the three. It scares me that the fact we do not hear of it may be due entirely to the fact that its victims are universally too young to complain.

20

Anyone who says they aren’t attracted to a hot 17-year old girl solely because she isn’t legal is lying.