tell me who to Pit

[denquixote]

I am reading this “question” in GQ from Billdo who is wondering, in a fairly long-winded way, about whether there actually are any 13 year old girls on websites looking for real old guys to have sex with. It seems that the news reports are only telling us about the perps and the FBI agents posing as teenagers and Biildo is wondering if the reporters are leaving out anything (like the good parts I would suppose.)

At some point Zambini post with his postulate that Billdo may just trying to compute the odds on getting caught.

Whereupon first Colibri and then Samclem state that Billdo is well known and would never do something like that and such comments have no place in GQ and best of all, if Zambini has information that would apply to the “question” in question he should simply suplly said answer and move along without further comment.

WHAT THE FUCK kind of a website is this. Yes I am for free speech but whose are we protecting? The moderators know the guy so he can ask if it is really possible to get with a 13-year old girl through a suspicious website, but if another poster questions the (only too transparent) reason for asking then he is reigned in.

Have I fallen into a parallel universe from which there is no escape. I can only lament that I don’t have the gifts of some of the other ranters on this site to truly expound on this subject and the participants in the vernacular that they deserve. Please someone help me out here.

May as well include VC03 in the mix. Of course he is only asking out of curiosity, but is it legal for an afult male to meet a 15 year old and not have sex, but just -… oh I don’t know … wrestle? Holy Christ.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

It almost seems to me like asking if there are MP3 trading communities where you won’t get caught by the RIAA. I understand the oogy feeling.

[Garfield226]

I think you should pit Guin, for stealing your M.O. a couple days ago.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@denquixote

but if another poster questions the (only too transparent) reason for asking then he is reigned in.

Whatever. It’s a perfectly valid academic question on its own right. I have a feeling you’re not as “for free speech” as you think you are, even though it’s so useful to say that phrase, and it makes you sound so American and wholesome. It’s getting to be a bit of a cliche, actually, like the guy who says “I’m not racist, but…” and then launches into a racist tirade. And then says “Really, I’m not racist, I have a black friend. He’s really nice, though–see, he doesn’t act black.”

FWIW, Barry Glassner’s The Culture of Fear gives this topic a pretty good treatment early on in the book. I just started it, so I don’t know if he gives any statistics at any point, but he does argue rather well that fictional 13-year-old sex kittens seem to exist at a disproportionately large rate compared to the real ones. And he quoted someone–can’t remember who, and can’t be assed to find the quote–who asked if society is really better off when fictional preteen girls use sexy screennames and suggestive chat to tempt grown men into committing crimes they may not have committed otherwise.

I’m only 21, but I have a strict policy of not responding to solicitations of any kind from anyone under 18 online, even at 17 and 364 days. I found I had to do this after I was approached by a 16-year-old girl on MySpace when I was 19. Now, I had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl while I was 17, and that was legally and morally pretty safe (California law would have both of us prosecuted by technicality, but it’s not enforced that way), but after I had spent some time chatting with this girl–all PG, but she was very big on meeting me in person and very excited to see me–I realized that (a) it was possible that she was some bored undercover cop or something and (b) I would have never been tempted to have a relationship with a minor if I hadn’t been approached by one, so (c) if I ignored all the “friends requests” etc. from anyone even a day less than 18 I would never have the problem. (ETA: “The problem” = “the temptation to break this law.”)

I turned out to be right on point C (ETA: I haven’t crossed the “age of consent line” for a sexual or romantic relationship, and don’t plan to in the future), although she turned 18 this year and yes, she’s the real deal. Regardless, I bet a fair portion of the men who get nailed under these schemes wouldn’t have actually tried to have sex with a minor if they weren’t approached first, and didn’t have their ego stroked.

And all this emphasis on Internet predators is really missing the point. I don’t have the cite right now–I’ll try to find it if asked–but IIRC I remember reading that the average child is a couple hundred times more likely to be sexually abused by a relative’s lover/partner than by a stranger met through the Internet. And although these stings seem to target solitary bachelors, it’s worth noting that most crimes against women and children are committed by married men–which makes sense because they have more access to women and children. I myself am much, much more worried about the family angle than I am about some dude on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, asking for facts about something that involves a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors by its nature.

[Dunderman]

While I agree wholeheartedly with fetus, Colibri’s “Billdo is well known and therefore he’s OK” comment was very, very strange.

[Hostile_Dialect]

Quick addition: I’m too tired and gloomy-news-weary to search for the statistics now, but I think a good number to look at would be: number of child sexual abuse arrestees under Internet stings vs. number of people who actually sexually abuse children in a given year. The former may be higher than the latter regardless–it’s easy to catch a bear when you set up a trap ahead of time, after all–but if it’s way higher, that may be a hint that some people are being lured into committing crimes that they wouldn’t actually commit otherwise, even if they would have fantasized about it.

[denquixote]

@fetus

Whatever. It’s a perfectly valid academic question on its own right. I have a feeling you’re not as “for free speech” as you think you are, even though it’s so useful to say that phrase, and it makes you sound so American and wholesome. It’s getting to be a bit of a cliche, actually, like the guy who says “I’m not racist, but…” and then launches into a racist tirade. And then says “Really, I’m not racist, I have a black friend. He’s really nice, though–see, he doesn’t act black.”

FWIW, Barry Glassner’s The Culture of Fear gives this topic a pretty good treatment early on in the book. I just started it, so I don’t know if he gives any statistics at any point, but he does argue rather well that fictional 13-year-old sex kittens seem to exist at a disproportionately large rate compared to the real ones. And he quoted someone–can’t remember who, and can’t be assed to find the quote–who asked if society is really better off when fictional preteen girls use sexy screennames and suggestive chat to tempt grown men into committing crimes they may not have committed otherwise.

I’m only 21, but I have a strict policy of not responding to solicitations of any kind from anyone under 18 online, even at 17 and 364 days. I found I had to do this after I was approached by a 16-year-old girl on MySpace when I was 19. Now, I had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl while I was 17, and that was legally and morally pretty safe (California law would have both of us prosecuted by technicality, but it’s not enforced that way), but after I had spent some time chatting with this girl–all PG, but she was very big on meeting me in person and very excited to see me–I realized that (a) it was possible that she was some bored undercover cop or something and (b) I would have never been tempted to have a relationship with a minor if I hadn’t been approached by one, so © if I ignored all the “friends requests” etc. from anyone even a day less than 18 I would never have the problem. (ETA: “The problem” = “the temptation to break this law.”)

I turned out to be right on point C (ETA: I haven’t crossed the “age of consent line” for a sexual or romantic relationship, and don’t plan to in the future), although she turned 18 this year and yes, she’s the real deal. Regardless, I bet a fair portion of the men who get nailed under these schemes wouldn’t have actually tried to have sex with a minor if they weren’t approached first, and didn’t have their ego stroked.

And all this emphasis on Internet predators is really missing the point. I don’t have the cite right now–I’ll try to find it if asked–but IIRC I remember reading that the average child is a couple hundred times more likely to be sexually abused by a relative’s lover/partner than by a stranger met through the Internet. And although these stings seem to target solitary bachelors, it’s worth noting that most crimes against women and children are committed by married men–which makes sense because they have more access to women and children. I myself am much, much more worried about the family angle than I am about some dude on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, asking for facts about something that involves a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors by its nature.

I only wish I had been as smart as you when I was 21 (and as lucky when I was 17 but that is another story - though you might be glad you did not live in Georgia.)

I do believe in free speech you asswipe, I just don’t believe in trolling for underage girls, nor do I believe in allowing it on your website, nor do I believe in criticizing the remarks of someone who suggests that it could be taking place, solely on the basis of a prior acquaintanceship with the possible troller.

The good news for you, you probably don’t have to worry about how old they are now. In order to eliminate any chance that a defendant can argue that he was coerced into committing a crime he would never have committed without the temptation being presented by the authorities, the feebs wait for the troll to act first. Feel free to continue taking the high road in upholding your strongly felt moral position.

[ParentalAdvisory]

How about a fucking reference?

Are there any 13-year old girls seeking sex with older men who are not police...

Zambini57 IMO jumped to all kinds of the worst conclusions.

So two issues,

1. The mods maybe shouldn’t give leeway to high mileage/well known posters, because of that status. Even though I agree that the OP was a harmless and legitimate question to begin with.
2. The question posed by Zambini57 is a little ridiculous, only because maybe Billdo didn’t use the greatest wording. Basically, Billdo is asking of what jtgain re-wrapped in basically the same question, but more direct.

@jtgain

I think the OP asks an excellent question, and it is one that has very serious societal implications.

ARE these guys just following a fantasy and taken off of the street before they rape OR
is this their 15th encounter, and the 14 previous times they had sex with a 13 year old girl, only this time they got caught?

If it is #2, then we have a VERY VERY serious problem in society. If it is #1, then we only have a VERY serious to maybe not that serious problem, in that these guys would never have had a real opportunity to get around a 13 year old girl anyways, and these arrests are only preemptive.

Good question!

Also, Samclem never said anything to the effect of “is well known and would never do something like that…” And Colibri’s statement of…

“Billdo is known personally to a number of members of the board and I hardly think he would be posting this here if that was what he were after.”

…simply means that he doesn’t know him personally, but that he has knowledge of that fact that he is known by others here, on a well known board, and likely wouldn’t prowl through the boards prodding for information on picking up 13 year old girls on the internet. There’s a difference.

[Dead_Badger]

@denquixote

I only wish I had been as smart as you when I was 21

If only you were as smart as fetus now. Or for that matter a fetus.

I used to work as a moderator on a major website for young teens, and frequently wondered precisely what Billdo did - whether I was largely protecting 47-year-old policemen from 52-year-old perverts. It’s a perfectly reasonable question, although I see no practical way of getting it conclusively answered. Sets off no alarm bells for me though, and believe me I’m far too used to spotting these things.

You two, on the other hand, I would have likely banned for being either too young or too stupid to allow on the internet. Even Zambini57’s climbdown was fucking idiotic. Oh, all he had to do was deny everything and it’s fine, eh? Gosh, I bet no paedophile ever thought of that. My, you’re cunning like a fox. If you think you’ve found a paedophile, call the fucking police. Don’t say, “hey! Are you a paedophile? No? Oh, okay then.”

And don’t come posturing on here to demonstrate just how much you aren’t down with the kiddy-fiddling. None of us are. We’re just intelligent enough to realise that there’s such a thing as idle curiosity. Fuck off and play the Hardy boys some place else. (as it were)

[Maastricht]

Can I just say I agree whole heartedly with fetus and Dead Badger? I’ve said before on this board that I personally feel self appointed internet vigilantes are every bit as oogey as actual childmolestors.

You know who you remind me of? The Saudi religious police volunteers.

The Mutaween of the CPVPV is comprised of “more than 3,500 officers in addition to thousands of volunteers…often accompanied by a police escort.” They have the power to arrest unrelated males and females caught socializing, any one engaged in homosexual behavior or prostitution; to enforce Islamic dress-codes, and store closures during the prayer time. They enforce Muslim dietary laws, prohibiting the consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages and pork, and seize banned consumer products and media regarded as un-Islamic (such as CDs/DVDs of various Western musical groups, television shows and film). Additionally, they actively prevent the practice or proselytizing of other religions within Saudi Arabia, where such a thing is banned.

Just 50 years ago, people with your idealistic mindset were eager to report anyone who might be a communist during the McCarthy Era

During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[1] laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

Christ, when are you vigilante types going to learn from the past?

[denquixote]

@Dead Badger

If only you were as smart as fetus now. Or for that matter a fetus.

I used to work as a moderator on a major website for young teens, and frequently wondered precisely what Billdo did - whether I was largely protecting 47-year-old policemen from 52-year-old perverts. It’s a perfectly reasonable question, although I see no practical way of getting it conclusively answered. Sets off no alarm bells for me though, and believe me I’m far too used to spotting these things.

You two, on the other hand, I would have likely banned for being either too young or too stupid to allow on the internet. Even Zambini57’s climbdown was fucking idiotic. Oh, all he had to do was deny everything and it’s fine, eh? Gosh, I bet no paedophile ever thought of that. My, you’re cunning like a fox. If you think you’ve found a paedophile, call the fucking police. Don’t say, “hey! Are you a paedophile? No? Oh, okay then.”

And don’t come posturing on here to demonstrate just how much you aren’t down with the kiddy-fiddling. None of us are. We’re just intelligent enough to realise that there’s such a thing as idle curiosity. Fuck off and play the Hardy boys some place else. (as it were)

Well you certainly have put me in my place. I in no way ever said that Billdo was a pedophile, but i did of course wonder about the interest in the specific facts that he was trying to ascertain and themotivation behind the question. I also wondered if he was looking for anecdotal information as opposed to statistics. The point is not what his purpose was or what I thought his purpose was (and BTW I did think that if this person had some seriously demented purpose this has to be the lamest way ever of going about it.) My point was that this has to be the most upside down system ever invented where someone can ask about the percentage of real teenagers searching for older men on inernet websites with out alarms going off but when someone suggests that this sounds a little hinky they get lambasted with the “inappropriate forum” bullshit. Well, excuuuuse the fuck out of me!

If someone wanted to get such information while trying to conceal their real purpose I am guessing they would invent some other explanation. As to Billdo or anyone else being well known to certain members of the clan here, well most of the prisoners in our penitentiary system have family and friends who love them. I am not sure how anyone’s affiliations have anything to do with the subject.

[Contrapuntal]

@denquixote

As to Billdo or anyone else being well known to certain members of the clan here, well most of the prisoners in our penitentiary system have family and friends who love them. I am not sure how anyone’s affiliations have anything to do with the subject.

All **Colibri **is saying is that *since *his identity is known to some posters, he would not risk exposure by posting such a question if he were in fact trying to compute the odds of getting caught. He wasn’t vouching for him. You misunderstood the comment.

[askeptic]

I think you should pit yourself for being more stupid than a really stupid person. You really don’t get the difference between “Man why are these guys so stupid as to fall for this sting? Do young girls ever accept their offers?” and “Where can I find me some young snatch?” ?(BEFORE YOU SPAZZ OUT THAT LAST QUESTION WAS ILLUSTRATIVE I DO NOT IN ANY WAY WANT TO FIND YOUNG GIRLS BUT YOU SEEM SO STUPID THAT IT MUST BE SPELLED OUT)

[Zebra]

I think the fact that Bildo is personally known to, what is actaully a small percentage of, some dopers has nothing to do with it.
Bildo’s question could easily been answered with numerous cites of young girls running off with much older men they meet online.

[KSO]

I thought I had a pithy response but askeptic did a better job.

Seriously lame attempt at a pitting.

[Dead_Badger]

@denquixote

My point was that this has to be the most upside down system ever invented where someone can ask about the percentage of real teenagers searching for older men on inernet websites with out alarms going off but when someone suggests that this sounds a little hinky they get lambasted with the “inappropriate forum” bullshit.

Yeah, and my point is that your point is utterly stupid. It’s called General Questions, not Vague Accusations Of Pederasty. It should be fucking obvious that you don’t go accusing people of being perverts for the mere act of asking a question. And it should be still more obvious that you don’t chuck around accusations of paedophilia, veiled or otherwise, without a damn sight better reason than Zambini57 had.

And finally, it should be obvious even to you that if you genuinely suspect Billdo of being a paedophile, this board in its entirety is the wrong place on which to accuse him. Either have the courage of your convictions and go to the fucking police (or the moderators in the first instance), or shut up. As far as I can see, all of this pissing and moaning is designed solely to demonstrate how awfully concerned you are for de widdle children, and has no basis in any genuine belief that Billdo is a paedophile. Otherwise you wouldn’t be in here complaining about how trivial aspects of moderation, you’d be getting off your arse and doing something. Think of the children!

[tomndebb]

@denquixote

At some point Zambini post with his postulate that Billdo may just trying to compute the odds on getting caught.

He went a bit further than that:

@Zambini57

Man, that has to be about the weirdest question I have read recently.

You want to know if there are actual 13 year olds out there soliciting sex who are not cops? ‘’

Of course there are. The real question is why do you want to know?

What are you trying to do, compute the odds of getting caught? Because that’s what it sounds like.

This is pretty close to a direct accusation of evil intent.

It is also pretty silly.

As noted by others. Colibri’s response was not that no known Doper could possibly be a pervert, but that a poster who was known in real life by other posters would have been unlikely to look for ways to pick up kids on a board where someone in real life could identify him.

Billdo’s (pretty clumsy) question could not have actually produced any tips on ways to pick up kids without being caught, so Zambini57’s question was based on a silly inference and making such an accusation, (particualrly in GQ) was egregious.

[drachillix]

@fetus

I don’t have the cite right now–I’ll try to find it if asked–but IIRC I remember reading that the average child is a couple hundred times more likely to be sexually abused by a relative’s lover/partner than by a stranger met through the Internet.

You are correct, this can run frighteningly high, although depending on cultural background I would revise your statement to “abused by a relative”

And although these stings seem to target solitary bachelors, it’s worth noting that most crimes against women and children are committed by married men–which makes sense because they have more access to women and children.

Huh? As someone who has been involved in PJ, there is no targeting, rule number one for playing bait is not to initiate. Not conversations, not sexual conversations, and not to request a meeting. The frightening thing is they don’t have to. Plenty of overzealous bait players have tried and ended up with their cases dropped/not reported to police by PJ for such behavior.

[Jodi]

@denquixote

Well you certainly have put me in my place. I in no way ever said that Billdo was a pedophile, but i did of course wonder about the interest in the specific facts that he was trying to ascertain and themotivation behind the question.

You might not have said he was a pedophile, but you are certainly implying it when you question his motivation, assert that his motivation is “all too transparent” and speculate that what he’s really looking for is “the good parts” left out of police reports.

Billdo does have a reputation here as a person who is generally civil and rational. Even if he didn’t, there is a legitimate rationale for his inquiry – even if that rationale is only idle interest – and to respond by insinuating he’s trolling for underage tail and “computing the odds of being caught” is hugely insulting. It is also an inappropriate response in the forum of GQ.

Some of us who have been here a long time believe, rightly or wrongly, that we do have a reputation with at least some other posters. And it is not unreasonable for us to expect that other posters who know us would defend us against such deeply insulting accusations. Frankly, if I had been the recipient of such a shot I would hope (if not really expect) that others would step up to say how shitty it was. So IMO it’s pretty stupid for you to act like such a defense is out of line.

Just because this is a virtual reality doesn’t mean some of us don’t think we know one other within it, even if we’ve never met IRL. Reputation and posting history DO matter. A poster with a history of lascivious interest in voyeurism who posts a question on Peeping Tom laws is going to get a different response than a rational well-respected poster who asks the same exact question, and who might legitimately be offended to be accused of being a voyeur. I’m sorry you don’t appreciate that difference, but there is one.

[lobstermobster]

Pit me!

I’m kidding. Please don’t. I can’t take anymore zingers. I’m exhausted.