BBC article here.
That’s a huge number, even if you recast it as approximately 0.2% of the adult population. HTF did we let it get so bad?
Of course, the cynic in me is saying that Javid is posturing for the Tory leadership.
Still seems low - Best guessesare anything from 0.5 - 1% (that last from Seto, who’s revised the former 5% number down) . But then I guess that higher number is for people who admit paedophilic ideation, whereas the 0.2 is for dangerous paedophiles.
Still, it’s 10x less than the 2% rate the Pope says the Church has, so there’s that. “The UK - now with ten times less kiddie-fiddlers than the Catholic Church” isn’t exactly a tourism slogan that rolls off the tongue.
“Let it get”? You think kids were any safer in 1818 or 1918? I have no stats, just a presumption.
But yeah, anything is fair game for politics. Of all the murders in the US, certain folks here wanted to highlight the slaying of a pretty White girl by a Mexican man who was here illegally. And yet nobody is willing to address the 500 million tons of silt dumped into the Gulf of Mexico every year (how long can we allow that to go on?).
What definition of paedophilia is used?
As with most questions about basic human variances, the answer is almost certainly “we didn’t let it get so bad/good/widespread, it’s always been that way. We’re just better able to measure it now.”
Also, “there are more people now, so absolute numbers have naturally increased.”
Well, how many of these are molesters? Bear in mind, there is a small - but not insignificant - percentage of pedophiles with no history of offending who self-segregate from children to ensure it stays that way. Yeah, they’re sickies - but as long as they can find a way to gratify their lusts without involving real children (cartoon porn, fantasy roleplay, etc), then it’s all good.
The numbers are specifically for the predatory kind, it seems.
I would bet the number is actually way bigger than that, but it depends on your definition of pedo. Are they TRUE pedophiles and thinking sexual thoughts of your average 5-10 year old? Or are they that other phile (hebephile? I think?) that’s looking at 14-18 year olds? One of them is bad. Like, really really bad. The other is borderline natural, just most definitely not really that right.
Define ‘adult’, please. Bear in mind that the biological definition of ‘adult’ is ‘having gained the ability to reproduce’. So yeah, I can see a normal, non-perverted adult lusting for a well-developed teenager - though he better not actually touch that teenager.
See, that’s the problem with using age-of-consent laws to determine morality. Age-of-consent is a legal principle, not a moral one. Determining whether or not certain forms of sexuality are acceptable is so incredibly complex, we can only judge on a case-by-case, no-precedent basis. The problem is that the law has to use plain language and objectively measurable standards on a one-size-fits-all basis, which puts the law in the position of having to force a square peg into a round hole.
Me fourth – Rev. Dodgson, about those photographs of young Miss Liddell…
And yeah, the cynic in you has got a point, OP: politically this is a very convenient number (plausibly low in percentage, shockingly high to a lay audience) to throw around to elicit exactly that kind of initial stunned reaction, and then that can then be turned into a “OMG do something, anything!!”(*) mood in public opinion, which we know is such a sensible basis on which to make policy.
(*Possibly “something” involving police/MI intervention into online activity to a degree or extent that the public may not be so eager for if it were about “normal” other People The Man Wants To Watch, but with the pedos as the face of the issue nobody will dare to say “wait, but…” in public )
BTW if those numbers mapped to the USA that would make about 500K potentially dangerous pervs over on this side of the pond (spread over a much larger space, though). But same deal – how many of those are really high-risk predators and how many are just people talking shit in *-chans from mom’s basement.
In this case these are people who ‘consume’ kiddie porn, so even if they don’t commit the acts themselves, they view the images and videos.
I’ll be the minority here (since I read the other replies) and say maybe – just maybe – it has gotten worse at least in terms of the number of children actually assaulted or victimized. No question it happened when I was a kid but to actually approach a child had more risk with small communities and more nuclear families. Actual molestation AFAI-Knew was more from family members. Kids being lured or snatched by strangers was actually really rare. These days it seems like hardly a week goes by without some case making the 11 o’clock news. To keep kids safe from all the pervs prowling the streets we’ve kept them inside where we can see them playing on their computers. :smack: So maybe kids were safer pre-internet. I don’t know; that is just the feeling my brain gets when the subject comes up.
The actual quote is ‘the NCA [national crime agency] estimates that about 80,000 people in the UK present some kind of sexual threat to children online.’
That’s… actually pretty damn vague. It’s not clear to me that someone like a 16 year old that’s harassing a 15 or 16 year old online in a sexual way wouldn’t be included in that number, and while teens being inappropriately sexual online is a problem, it’s not paedophilia.
It still is rare. But those are the ones that get the publicity. And, in today’s world, we hear about it when it happened half-way across the country (or half-way across the world) instead of just when it happens in our region. Same with other crimes, often. We think rates are going up because of the media coverage (or our access to coverage in other areas), but it’s often really remaining the same or going down.
Well said – what kopek describes, more than a result of a substantial increase in events, may be the result of a substantial increase in reporting, and especially in taking the matter as a serious criminal offense (or risk thereof) to be addressed and not as a shame on the victim to be concealed, leading to an increased perception of threat. Once upon a time it seemed like “outside the famiy” this did not happen… but all along that time the Predator Priests(*) and the Jimmy Savilles of the world with the impunity that public respectability brought about.
(* a majority of whose cases are from decades past)
I said CARTOON porn. In other words, no children; just made-up cartoon characters that look like children. Think Bart Simpson, Dora the Explorer, etc. Since these kids do not exist in real life, they obviously cannot be molested / exploited - how does one molest a child that does not exist? It’s the same way with fantasy roleplay - an adult talking dirty to another adult is not a crime that I am aware of.
It’s the ones that go after real-life prepubescent children who should be tarred and feathered. If the pedos have no history of touching children, and can gratify their urges within the realm of fantasy, then bully for them.
I’m aware of that but the article in my OP specifies otherwise.
What you said is more or less the point I was making. Back in the 1700s or whatever it wasn’t uncommon for women to give birth at 16 or sometimes even younger. I’m sure if we even go further in the past it would skew even a bit more young.
It’s probably engrained into our DNA to begin feeling attracted to the opposite sex around 12-14 (give or take), but because we don’t consider adults to be adults until 18, we automatically paint the person who wants to pork a 16 year old with the same brush as a person who wants to do it with an 8 year old.
…and the immense majority of them involve molesters who are family members, with some teachers, youth group monitors and priests thrown in.