Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYT On The Internet And Child Molestation

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the disturbing-links dept.

The Internet 527

prostoalex writes "In a long and disturbing story on child molesters, the New York Times Magazine among other issues researches the impact of the Internet on the child molesters. While officially the number of child molestations did not change significantly, Dr. Fred Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, considers the Internet to be a new vehicle for child molestation: 'There are three areas of concern. First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked -- leads to disinhibition. Second, there's a blurring of fantasy and reality. There's someone at the other end of the Internet conversation, but it's not quite a real person; there's a feeling of playing a game that can lead to actually doing what one otherwise wouldn't. Third, the easy accessibility can facilitate moving over boundaries.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Johnny Carson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450260)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - late night legend Johnny Carson was found dead in his Malibu home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.


(actually, yeah... [google.com] )

Re:Johnny Carson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450289)

Slashdot community != All American, you ignorant fuck.

Re:Johnny Carson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450366)

Slashdot community != All American, you ignorant fuck.

That does not change the fact that Johnny Carson is an american icon. He was American... it was hosted in America, and the first show when he introduced Groucho Marx Mr. Carson first words were, "Boy, you would think it was Vice President Nixon." The man hosted the Tonight Show for 30 years (1962-1992).

Hey asshole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450609)

Don't be an inconsiderate fuck. I bet your dick rose after you read the articles (the Johnny Carson AND the pædophile article)

Some random thoughts (0, Offtopic)

Bring back the old t (784356) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450261)

Headv Pqnax Bgsyj Huief Tmnbx. Adyml Askah Wslzx Phkbt Qpdcf. Ufyig Hvnly Devyz Ukanc Blppd. Clxyg Rnayf Cldyi Emkad Afiel. Xxflm Twnhd Hjnjr Ejsrb Cdogn. Nojac Jxuih Mmgjm Gbzpk Npslg. Cyxhu Wblev Cgycj Yrsrf Iamkx. Mznre Vvjbv Tdttq Sqynr Qdnhp. Vnobj Cnbol Ubdwq Cbfxi Sbimu. Lpyxb Pzorw Lrgtq Kaxvi Vrdoz. Jxgyt Ktaol Spoff Tayid Dzjty. Vnlrs Caxrc Phxpb Qmwkt Zzoze. Sdrhf Ryjfm Mqfyw Scnrv Zztfz. Vejsp Otivy Cknxn Exjhg Asclj. Gnhwz Uznlx Fysca Xzmht Xllxf. Jhgws Rwwpr Jlfbc Pnyik Pxhlt. Wjabj Tiafd Ujnbx Edyfl Qmjne. Fpoka Mtbbj Hmxrt Rzzwb Ahvio. Khmsw Qyrjd Fftrk Gdxtx Slera. Tpalj Wzfnp Xvzdl Smhhn Djxmo. Gpinx Tkrsl Keanv Thmld Iwtnx. Smddt Qymvc Swmua Iypzv Emoew. Obzbp Fndxd Rcvme Sbdxt Veqfd. Vfqmj Ctkbf Rjiak Pztxi Qhmsj. Nzckb Eojue Bpexv Yabgp Mmyww.

Xmsdm Ejdmi Vivzl Zvonx Ifwdh. Mrhmu Ljhqy Iicnv Agpmk Amzfi. Hydkj Czgca Rmuid Clqpq Podqr. Thvev Ouzhp Xmflw Gsnai Qzihg. Gmtay Gyvzd Sfwiq Fdooo Sqnnq. Wyyct Kphvq Rgyfm Dertt Lchjy. Kalwd Ztyxs Lvqiv Kfupm Ewpra. Tknfi Zaggv Xgwtw Xepas Kfowl. Avlkj Xciue Rmyjq Ryfyf Tqzhu. Yjdxb Ljjwm Vottj Lxcdg Bpnhe. Fjyvq Wxbda Phcga Ovcno Doqhz. Yesps Fgwzr Pvlnb Mxaco Mcvsm. Qdvie Yvwam Kdpxs Znotk Wmuxd. Wtdis Knozw Yrmxe Jzhhz Slmey. Fwtzj Jbpdh Egabc Arlhp Mjwlw. Nrfrz Mkgts Ikyas Ooqnq Ecrao. Wzrgj Qexny Xgkgk Tzdap Nfhnl. Pfhrb Eyykp Yxurl Bomid Fqhif. Fparz Lyppb Bptxq Nfuos Ftnsu. Mzpgq Givji Cqlgt Okrlt Qughk.

Qtbht Bzhkf Zwyhu Thduh Zetqa. Erawi Strtw Ighgs Bnzud Xuvzx. Gsmct Fvyit Ardbf Ctwff Ovsiu. Yjclx Oaibt Vcyzj Zkadc Uctdt. Knxdh Ckust Hqjrs Omqcx Mridi. Rdrfc Zokbd Hxvdk Yvuyz Rmeyv. Cllpj Czepw Renqh Qyiuy Uulfh. Aaedr Dsifh Kpavr Wqrml Dwean. Jnnrk Zaiiz Ppqtv Emvxp Gdcpr. Bxaom Xkfdx Mmdfp Wldit Hrlpg. Ofhrk Rfnkz Nocxb Uyoct Wytjm. Wluto Nnhzr Hwaay Vonhz Atebz. Hwzqi Dteht Xheze Yudid Xznyy. Tuhhk Aourm Gzrmw Mqwqr Pstsj. Ssyvf Gwxth Yeayy Gctjk Qlaah. Zguuz Bcsui Dbiav Ybass Ovwpf. Ghmcj Lsxjn Tygoz Siepu Vpjva. Scoar Mdmwv Wvmoi Pijrh Zcans. Tziiy Cqnpx Yziff Dvnfw Gjrfr. Buqmo Nbwee Dmspw Bkozo Mprzq. Bdznn Vgscu Noczt Gugrt Zdsom. Blfco Ippbz Mdebc Eunjh Xoadw. Dpvee Rbngz Elemq Ihity Klrzp. Seswz Xemxm Koxgt Cppli Grsxh. Shcrw Txqav Pllnb Pitgb Qdahe.

Re:Some random thoughts (0, Offtopic)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450367)

Did you mean: Head Pqnax Bugsy Chief Tmax. Adsl Askoh Wlzx

Second question:
Did you type all that yourself? Tried to google part of it, but came away with nothing.

Re:Some random thoughts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450567)

It's all in 'words' of 5 characters, broken up into 'sentances' of 5 words. Way too regular to be random. And the pattern of letters isn't consistent with hitting keys at random.

Looks like some sort of encryption, although what he's trying to say I have no idea. Probably something obscene. God I'm bored.

I claim this FP in the name of spain!!.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450265)

Uriel is teh suxx0r!!.. :)

Ignore this one folks. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450276)

More demonisation of the Internet. More FUD. More people scared of new stuff.

Nothing new, it happens time and again, wanting to blame something apart from the criminal who perpetrates an act.

"oh the internet made me do it"

bah.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450358)

its not saying the internet them do it, its saying that the internet is a tool that helps them in their mission.

having said that, this whole thing is BS, blah blah blah, move on to next story.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (5, Insightful)

ratnerstar (609443) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450431)

On slashdot, does documenting a problem a with a medium automatically qualify as "demonizing" it? The Internet is a great tool, but that doesn't mean there are no downsides to it, nor that we shouldn't ever discuss those downsides. I must be new here.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450446)

Mod this up. Good point.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450519)

Overhyping a problem with a medium, or focusing extreme attention on those problems in a sensationalist manner while papering over evidence those problems are not significant, is definitely "demonizing".

Does the article do that? Beats me, you'd have to read the linked story in order to know. And nobody does that, not on slashdot, especially not when the link is to the NYT. You probably didn't read it either.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450524)

Well it does but you get to a point where all you are ever doing is discussing the downside to the medium and then in peoples consciousnesses after years of hearing the downside to it it becomes a downer.

if all you ever read about internet is worms viruses child molestors riaa raids, warez, mpaa raids, stalkers and everything then all of a sudden the internet in public consciousness becomes a bad thing. it becomes too easy to blame, and it becomes a scapegoat for the real people who are too weak to admit responsibility for their crimes!!!

There are bad things with everything. Like for a long long time rock and roll music was linked with drugs and hsex and rape and satanism and blames for all kind of bad things with society and is used just as a scapegoat. without looking at what might be wrong with society or the individuals invoved.

on its own this is just one look at a study but it is part of a campaign by the left to create a demon in The Internet so that when people who are TRUE CRIMINALS are caught doing things they are RESPONSIBLE FOR as an act THEY ALONE HAVE PERPETRATED then they can deflect blame and just make it so they can easily say "this person is really innocent!" when they fucked some little kiddie up the ass.

Net's biggest Online Nude Anime Gallery's [sharkfire.net]

Re:Ignore this one folks. (1)

ratnerstar (609443) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450649)

Every day there are news stories about car crashs, gas prices, and high emissions. But nobody ever reports on the simple usefulness of automobiles! Why must we constantly demonize cars?

Everybody already knows the Internet is great for communicating with your friends, doing research, and looking at high-quality pictures of naked women. No one is going to take it away from you.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450617)

On slashdot, does documenting a problem a with a medium automatically qualify as "demonizing" it? The Internet is a great tool, but that doesn't mean there are no downsides to it, nor that we shouldn't ever discuss those downsides. I must be new here.

You must be. While the article does describe a problem with the internet (or with any closed community) it has that "what about the children?" quality that triggers the bulls*** filter in those of us who have been here a while.

As someone who's been on the internet since before the web let me give you some tips:
Anyone who talks about your patriotic duty is looking for power.
Anyone who talks about protecting children is looking for money.
"save" means "take away"
"manage" means "take away"
"preserve" means "take away"
"innovate" means "take away"
Whenever someone in the press talks about saving money, freedom or lives, it usually means that they intend to spend yours to save theirs.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450549)

1. PO boxes. classical false but perceived anonymity.
2. strip poker. classical disinhibition by fantasy/reality blur.
3. telephones. postal mail. telegrams. classical trans-geographical communication.

what's so new about the internet? honestly.

if i mail hentai starring cartoon version of me and a friend to my friend's PO box, isn't that nearly the same? what if that friend is 14 years old?

this comment posted anonymously, but i'm sure the feds will know where it's coming from anyway.

Re:Ignore this one folks. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450627)

That is very true. Most of child abusers are related to the child or friends of the family. The cases that break the news line are always about strangers, so public gets very wrong image of the reality.

You can protect your kids from strangers, but who will protect them from you? This topic has also been disgussed in South Park.

Article text (Reg-Free) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450285)

Certified 100% Karma whore free!

The Making of a Molester

January 23, 2005
By DANIEL BERGNER

Not long ago, Roy became a type of monster. The transformation took a year and a half, and now, one morning each week, he sits in a room of similar cases. The windowless room is plain, with a blue industrial carpet, a circle of brown cushioned office chairs, a blackboard, a pair of unused conference tables pushed to the rear wall and a faint hum from the air ducts. To reach it from the waiting area -- on the second floor of a probation building in Connecticut -- Roy and the other men walk down a series of corridors and around a series of turns that feel like a path through a maze. The room is wedged in a back corner. "No one," a probation officer said, "likes to think about what's back there."

Roy wonders constantly how he wound up in this place, in the circle of 10 or 12 chairs, a circle of child molesters. His story begins on the beach and ends on the Internet. It seems to him that he was, only recently, a normal man, about 40, running a crew of technicians, repairing elaborate, computerized telecommunications equipment for Wall Street trading firms and in his off hours leading a wedding band, singing Frank Sinatra and Barry White at the Plaza. For a hobby, he flew kites -- kites bigger than most living rooms, brilliantly striped, with rippling streamers and "space socks" trailing more than a hundred feet behind, kites that could perform ballets when he held the lines. He recalls no history of longing for young girls. He had no criminal record of any kind. But then one summer, on vacation, his second wife pointed out her 11-year-old daughter's body. Roy and his wife were standing on the sand; his stepdaughter and her best friend played several yards in front of them at the edge of the surf. "Look at those girls," Roy remembers his wife saying. "They're changing already. You can see their bodies changing."

Roy has a soft, smooth face and an easy, engaging smile. (At his request, I've shielded his identity by using a nickname some of his former band members gave him.) Now in his mid-40's, he's round in the middle and broad in the shoulders; there's something bearish about him, but in a way that's more pandalike and cheerful than threatening. Nearby along the circle sits an elderly man with a graceful wave of white hair combed back from his forehead. There's a well-scrubbed blue-eyed man in his mid-30's, wearing a button-down shirt with a pleasant check of pale blue. Like the rest, they're here by court mandate for group counseling as part of their probation. Most, including Roy, have served time in jail or prison, from a few weeks to several years. The man with the wave of white hair touched the vagina of his grandniece; he kissed her chest and had her hold his penis. This happened repeatedly when the girl was between 7 and 9 years old. As an adult, the man in the checked shirt performed oral sex on his 11-year-old brother and later took his 6-year-old daughter to a motel room along with his brother, who was by then 16. Living out a fantasy he'd had for months, he persuaded them both to undress and urged his brother to have sex with his daughter, only desisting, only waking from the trance of his desire -- "seconds away from something really, really bad happening," he has told me -- when his brother began to cry.

"What possessed me?" Roy asks in one form or another in the group sessions that I've been observing for close to a year, in conversation with me and, it is clear, alone with himself. It's a question that seems to churn through the thinking of most of the men. The one who longed to watch his brother and daughter, and who is a published poet, has talked to me about feeling like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In group one morning, another convict made reference to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Heinz."

How does a man enter the realm of the monstrous? How broad or thin is the border between the normal and that realm? "Could anybody end up getting into this mess?" Roy once asked me plaintively.

Focus your awareness on your feet," Patrick Liddle, the group's therapist, its leader, instructs the men at the start of many sessions. They sit with their hands on their thighs, their eyes closed, as he teaches them a relaxation technique. "Now allow your awareness to move up to the center of your chest." He speaks in a soothing monotone, the voice he maintains with them always no matter how disquieted their cri m es make him feel. Part of his job is to give them methods to keep their lives under control, to keep themselves from molesting again. This technique is one way. "Center your attention on the steady beating of your heart." He wears fashionably tailored suits and shoes polished to a low gloss. The clothes are part of the program. Liddle's boss sets the dress code for his staff, an attempt to confer value on those in treatment, men who could hardly have fallen lower. "Picture in your mind a large open f i eld covered in deep grass up to your waist." Roy and the others sit perfectly still. Their fingers curl gently. Their jaws are slack; their mouths, slightly open. They seem almost to be sleeping, and like sleeping men anywhere, they look almost like children. "Now slowly open your eyes."

They return from the field of tall grass to the faces of the other men. Liddle sometimes asks them for introductions, though the faces stay mostly the same. They go around the circle. "I was convi c ted of two counts of sexual assault four and three counts of risk of injury to a minor and enticing a minor over the Internet," Roy began during a session months ago. He managed not to mumble. Facing up to what he has done, he knows, is a requirement for graduating from treatment. And t h is might lead, he hopes, to a judge's reducing his term of probation. The treatment theory is basic: to acknowledge both his crime and the anarchy of lust that lies within him is the first step toward his finding self-control. So the ability to confront himself -- and to be candid with Liddle about his sexual yearnings -- is a requirement, too, if he wants to do anything outside the bounds of his probation restrictions: visit his parents over the state line in New York or go to a bowling alley or a movie or a family function, anyplace where he might come in contact with children under 16. Any family gathering he attends must be adults only; he has to leave right away if kids show up. The group leaders and probation officers work in tandem, evaluating how well they can trust the men, and the therapists can be at le a st as wary as the probation officers. (In Connecticut, counseling is ordered for almost all sex offenders on probation, and the state-financed organization Liddle works for, the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior, handles nearly all of it.) Together, Liddle and Roy's probation officer set the limits on his life.

"I was sentenced," Roy continued with his introduction, "to 20 years suspended after 30 days, with 35 years probation. My offense behaviors I engaged in were touching my wife's daughter and her best friend sexually, touching them through their clothing between their l e gs, around their waist, moving my hand into the top of their waistband. I also moved my hand under their shorts up to their panty lines. I used games that were called 'Chase' and 'Spider' to manipulate them into feeling safe with me." His voice quieted as he hurried on toward the end, toward the part of his story that holds echoes of recent, well-publicized cases -- like that of John Dexter, the headmaster for a quarter-century at the Trevor Day School in Manhattan, until his arrest in 2003 and guilty plea last year -- of apparently ordinary men going on l ine to seek out sexual conversations and often to arrange to have sex with adolescents, with children.

With more detail than he gives in group, Roy has told his story as he and I have sat together at his home and at his job. He is still a supervisor at the telecommunications repair company. In a bland suburban building just off a highway, at worktables in vast, orderly rooms, he and his team lean over high-tech consoles with exposed intricate wiring and microprocessors with multicolored flashing diodes. They fix circuitry or, if he deems it necessary, redesign it. With the permission of Liddle and the probation department, Roy is allowed to work around computers as long as he never goes online outside the watch of a colleague. Everyone at his job is aware of his crime. He has made a point of answering everyone's questions. The company's owner, who has known Roy for five years, testified on his behalf at his sentencing. "You're talking about a person I know," the owner said to me. "If you told me about a stranger I would write them off, I wouldn't talk to them, I wouldn't see them -- if they did one-tenth of what he did." At Roy's job, the element of personal forgiveness goes beyond employment. As I drove with him to work after one of my first sessions with the group, he said that he was engaged to be married again -- to a bookkeeper at the company, a colleague since before his offense.

When Roy has spoken with me about his crime at the well-burnished kitchen table in his small, neatly kept wooden house or in an empty conference room across from the repair stations at work, he starts with the words of his stepdaughter's mother at the beach. No matter how common -- "Look at my daughter, how pretty she's going to be when she grows up; I'm going to have problems wi t h her when she grows up"- they have a serpentlike quality as he tries to sort out what followed. They were "the first trigger," he has said. Before, he doesn't think he saw his stepdaughter in any erotic way. He had known her and her older brother from the time they were born; he had been with their mother since they were around 4 and 6. (He has no kids of his own.) The children lived with their father, an executive, a man Roy grew up with. But they spent a fair amount of time at the home Roy shared with their mother, and after that vac a tion at the shore, the games Roy played with his stepdaughter, and frequently with her best friend, grew sexualized -- at some level -- in his mind.

During "Chase," they would turn off most of the lights. Often they plugged in a strobe light from his band equipment or a lamp that cast the shapes of moons on the walls, in blues and yellows and greens. His marriage, at that point, was falling apart. Sometimes his wife was home, having shut herself in their bedroom for the evening. Sometimes she was out on her own. He raced after the girls through the house, through the colored beams. In "Spider," each player had to sit motionless; if you moved at all you got pinched. The touching occurred during the games. The confessional -- and dutiful -- introduction Roy delivers to the group implies that the touching was blatantly, consciously sexual on his part, but though he is obsessively introspective about all that took place, he can't seem to figure out whether this is true.

He remembered, with me, his anger at his wife, the fleeting thought that if she was going to leave him ta k ing care of her kids, then he was "going to get something out of this, too." Yet he recalled that there was no r e al sexual intent at that stage, not even any dalliance with fantasy, that often he didn't want to deal with the girls and their demands that he try to catch them; he didn't want to be bothered. "I don't think I ever touched them in their private areas," he said, making a distinction between those areas and the edges of underwear. "Grabbing them, pulling them, knocking them down. Them jumping on me. It was still just teasing and playing with them. It wa s n't like I wanted to have sex with them. Is there a difference?" How much of the touching was errant, inadvertent, amid playful mauling? To what degree do normal games of chase played with 11- or 12-year-old girls hold an erotic element? How far beyond the normal did things go, at that stage? These kinds of questions reel through his memories. He can't settle on single answers. "But was there sexuality behind it?" he asked once while we talked. He replied immediately, "Yes."

The erotic became explicit, Roy said, when they were in separate rooms, at separate computers. The layout of the house mirrored the one he owns now, many towns away. There was a ser i es of rooms along a narrow hall. The basement was crowded with his guitars and keyboards and recording equipment. His stepdaughter was 12 -- though he doesn't face up to reality easily on this point. The first few times he came to this part of his story, he told me that she was by then 14, maybe 13. During his introductions in group, he doesn't men t ion how old she was; for a short while I didn't know her true age. When I read an old article from a local newspaper about the case and told him that it put her age at 12, he insisted that the article was mistaken. Only after I had asked him repeatedly did he call me one morning: he had just phoned his sister and "found out" that the newspaper was right.

When she was 12, then, one evening she sent him an instant message. She asked what he was doing. He was in his office; she was in her bedroom down the hall. He told her he was working on band contracts. She wrote that she was bored, that none of her friends were online. He responded that her brother had been giving their mother tro u ble, that she was completely different, that she was "a really good little girl." According to Roy, "she came right back to me and said: 'Roy, you don't know me. I'm not a good girl, I'm a bad girl."'

She wouldn't tell him what she meant, but he had been smitten with what he had seen as the wild streak in her mother, back when she had left her husband for Roy, and now, right away, his imagination ran along sexual lines. "Oh, God, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree," he recalls thinking; he told me, regarding the effect of that instant-message exchange with his stepdaughter: "You couldn't have drawn me in any faster. I still remember it. Not excited as arousal excited, but excited as I gotta know more. Major adrenaline rush. I felt myself go flush. I was already overloaded. I finished the contracts I was doing, but I got off the computer right after that, and I went immediately downstairs and started playing. That's what I always do when something's really got me; I need to shut it off. I had to shut that off at that moment. I had to calm it down. Put my head p hones on. Had my guitar. I have this jazz routine I like doing. I do a jazz version of 'Blue Skies.' 'Polka Dots and Moonbeams' -- it's a slow jazz tune. I have about an hour's worth of music, and I just have to concentrate on the chord changes and the progressions, and it clears my mind. The only problem is," he raised his voice, almost shouting to me across the kitchen table, "it didn't help."

Soon he loaded his computer with a software program that would allow him, because of the way his and his stepdaughter's computers were interlinked, to monitor her online conversations. That day, alone in the house, he stepped back and for t h along the hall, between rooms, between PC's, making sure his system worked, that she wouldn't be able to detect his lurking. And the next time she came over and logged on and started chatting with her best friend (the same girl he had chased through the house), their words ran across his screen.

His stepdaughter's romantic explorations, confided to her friend, became his pornography. Each time he monitored her conversations (about 7 to 10 times over several months, he thinks), he would have a soda and popcorn and "put my feet up on the desk, and I watched this thing unfold. 'Cause you have to understand, it's not something I would masturbate to while s h e was on the Internet. It would almost be like an aftermath of it. 'Cause it had your mind so cranked you had to have some relief. At any point I thought this girl was going to have sex with this boy. That's how intense this was."

He didn't worry that she would walk down the hall and find him reading her words. "Impossible, because my computer didn't face the door, and it would have taken a split second to shut it off, literally," he said. "Nobody could catch me, nobody. I'm too good. I'm too good with computers, trust me. I set up that PC so that when I shut the computer off ev e rything was erased. So there was no trackable record on those PC's. It was wrong. So wrong. I put myself in such a bad situation, and I just fell into it. I guess that's how a drug addict gets. Once you've fallen into that, and you've gone in, it's almost like that's it: now you've got it in your head, and it's not going to go away."

The direct instant-message exchange between him and his stepdaughter continued every so often during the period of his monitoring. "She would sign on and say something to me, and that's when the conversation started. And I would flip it. She didn't start it sexually. I always flipped it. Just so you know. She didn't do it. She was a kid."

He would ask her to "show me something." She would refuse. He asked her to have sex with him. She told him no. He wrote to her, in one of their final Internet conversations, months before her 13th birthday, that he was going to step out of his office and into the kitchen to get a soda. He wrote that if she wanted to see wh a t he wished to do with her, she should walk into his office and click on a window that would be on his screen. She left her computer and walked to his. When the window opened, a video showed "a man rubbing his penis on a girl's vagina that's been shaved," he said. A moment later, they passed in the hall. He remembers her calling him "disgusting" and each of them going quickly back to their own PC's. Petrified that she would report him, he begged her over the Internet to meet him on the stairs to the basement music room, promising that he would stay at the bottom. He pled his apology as she sat at the top of the stairs. Then she was gone.

Soon afterward, I learned recently from her father, she told her stepmother for the first time about Roy's ongoing solicitations. (Her father had just left on a business trip.) Her stepmother then sent her to Roy's house so that, assuming he would p r oposition her yet again, she could print out his words for evidence. She did. He was swiftly arrested. It had been about a year and a half since that trip to the beach. In court, he pled under the Alford Doctrine -- a legal acknowledgment that the evidence against him was sufficient to prove his guilt -- to the charges he lists each time he gives his introduction. He has been in treatment now for around 17 months. "I'm so embarrassed," he said to me at the kitchen table. "I can't believe I did this. You know, I just don't know how I got myself there, I really don't. It makes me sick."

Roy looks that way -- ill, aghast, mortified -- whenever he finishes his account. His full cheeks appear almo s t gaunt, as though he has just emerged, barely, from the siege of some terrible infection. To see him like this is to feel that he would never allow himself to come anywhere close to repeating his crime. It is to understand what the owner of the telecommunications repair company -- where Roy's existence can seem so ordinary as he goes about his work -- once told me about his wife's opinion of Roy: their own children are grown, but she would have him in their house even with kids around. "That," the owner said, "is the confidence that he gives you."

Yet to think back over Roy's shadings of his stepdaughter's age and to hear his explanation that he wasn't lying to me but somehow no longer knew that she had been 12 is to feel less confident. Whether he has tried to deceive me or himself, this is exactly the kind of evasion, the kind of diminishment of hard truth, that would worry Liddle; it's a sign that Roy may not be capable of self-confrontation and self-control. And th e n I discovered, in a statement his stepdaughter made to the police, that some of the troubling touches, through clothes, began when she was in second grade. To have heard his consistent denials about this, his certainty that back then there had been only innocent games, is not only to wonder if she has imposed the taint of recent events on earlier moments but also to wonder if anything Roy says can be believed. And then when I learned, from the transcript of his sentencing hearing, that he used Freekypeephole as his Internet screen name, I could see him, simply, as a dangerous creep -- except that when I asked him about this, he recited the lyrics of a disco song he wrote and recorded back in the late 70's, a song called "Freaky People," about the drug use he observed at Studio 54. (His father was an alcoholic, and Roy has never been much for drugs or alcohol.) He recounted that the song got some airtime on a major radio station, that because of this he wanted "Freaky People" as his screen name, that it was already taken, and that his server supplied the alternative, Freekypeephole, which he accepted well before his crime as a joke. My sense of Roy shifts back and forth ceaselessly, from perceptions of basic normality to those of extreme aberrance, from guarded trust to deep unease. But one constant is the reverberation of his words: "I just don't know how I got myself there."

How did he get there? What are the causes of child sexual molestation, which is committed against perhaps 20 percent of girls and 5 to 10 percent of boys under the age of consent in the United States, according to David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. (Finkelhor, who has examined the studies extensively, added that the numbers range widely from 10 to 40 percent for girls and 2 to 15 percent for boys, depending on definitions and methods. The victims are preadolescents about as frequently as they are older. Most are abused by someone they know, often by a member of their family.) What parts are played by biology, by an abuser's own childhood, by aspects of isolation in his (for males make up around 90 percent of offenders) current life -- or by the powerful arrival of the Internet into the world of Eros? Calling psychiatrists and psychologists, researchers and clinicians, who have been working in the field for decades and asking about origins and explanations, I have heard in response regret and laughter. The laughter came from Dr. Martin Kafka, senior clinical associate in psychiatry at the Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., where he studies and treats sexual disorders. "I'll give you a quick answer," he said, cutting me off at the word "causes." "We don't know."

A much longer answer followed, his words propelled at high speed by his fascination with the subject: studies of sexually deviant brains have scarcely been done; there is "one suggesting hypothalamus abnormality, but really, the research is in infancy." The data show that sexual abusers of children are more likely than the general population to have been child sexual-abuse victims themselves but "most pedophiles have not," he emphasized, "been sexually abused." (And here I thought of Roy talking about the men in group who were "abused as kids something fierce, so I must be a real piece of crap, because I was never abused.") Research indicates that "social skills deficits" can be a factor. Kafka's voice rushed on as he tried to construct for me some sense of coherence from what scattered scraps of knowledge exist.

"There is nothing coherent that's been established," Dr. Robert Prentky, a forensic psychologist at the graduate school of criminal justice at Northeastern University, told me. "Frankly, in my opinion, there has been very, very little progress in the area of etiology." And Dr. Fred Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, talked about society's discomfort with any scientific inquiry into sexuality, let alone into the causes of pedophilia. "There is inadequate funding, too little support for this kind of research," he said. "We can't get beyond the moral to the scientific. These are considered vile people. There is an aversion to studying them."

I asked about the Internet, whether it may bear any causal responsibility along the path toward offending. "It's a fairly complicated issue," Berlin said, and one for which there appears to be, again, no solid research. "I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Internet creates desire, but I do think it is creating significant difficulties." To some extent, he explained, it is merely a "new and different vehicle" for those who would offend against children anyway. But it "provides temptation for some who might not otherwise have crossed the line." He added: "There are three areas of concern. First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked -- leads to disinhibition. Second, there's a blurring of fantasy and reality. There's someone at the other end of the Internet conversation, but it's not quite a real person; there's a feeling of playing a game that can lead to actually doing what one otherwise wouldn't. Third, the easy accessibility can facilitate" moving over boundaries.

Over the past decade, with the surge in Internet use, there has been no spike in the overall number of cases of sexual abuse against children. (There has been, it appears, a significant decrease, attributed by some to the success of harsher sentences and offender registries and by others, in part, to the possibility that those sentences and registries discourage victims, who tend to know their abusers, from reporting the crimes.) But Berlin's concern was echoed by Prentky when he described the Internet as "a catalyst for fantasy and dangerous if the control over behavior is markedly impaired." And by David D'Amora, Patrick Liddle's boss and the head of the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior, who has about 800 child sexual abusers under his watch in Connecticut, when he talked about the Net's abundant porn and disembodied chat-room conversation as a "disinhibitor." And by Liddle himself, whose normally tempered voice nearly rose to a yell when I asked whether online porn might provide a safe outlet for otherwise destructive erotic drives: a man masturbates; the craving subsides. "No!" he replied. He was thinking of the men in that back room at the probation building. "That's like an alcoholic saying I'll only have a couple of drinks, I'll only have low-alcohol beer." And then he was thinking of everyone when he said that pornography "desensitizes people so extraordinarily."

When Roy tells his story, he insists that he never visited any Web sites of child porn. He doesn't think there is much relevance in the mainstream porn that he did view -- and it doesn't seem to have had, for him, the erotic impact of his stepdaughter's conversations with her best friend. But he claims (perhaps too self-servingly) that he would never have propositioned his stepdaughter had it not been for the Internet's unique, oddly dehumanized form of communication. In the ultimate moments, he beckoned her to his computer. He beckoned her, physically, into his space. But before then, his lust gained much of its unbearable power, and found its most intense expression, screen to screen.

One day this fall, Roy sat behind a gray laptop that rested on a metal desk. Martina Kardol, one of Liddle's colleagues, stood over him in a small office in the probation building, reading aloud from a set of instructions. He would be shown 160 images on the laptop screen, she informed him. Her voice stayed level; her face, expressionless. She has long blond hair and wore a loose sweater with black stretch pants. (Not all the therapists adhere to D'Amora's dress code.) "You will see people of varying ages." Roy had on a black blazer, a tie and sharply pressed khakis. From here he was headed straight to an important meeting at work. "Imagine being sexual with the models in the slides."

Kardol told him to score each picture for sexual interest, hitting 1 for "disgusting" up through 7 for "highly sexually arousing." He should advance through the images by clicking the return key. He was shown a practice set. A blond woman in somewhat prim white lingerie; then a clean-cut man in a plaid shirt and khakis; then a boy, who looked to me around 12, straddling a bicycle with a book bag over his shoulder; then a girl around the same age wearing a straw hat and eating strawberries; then a pudgy little girl of maybe 4 in a blue one-piece swimsuit. Kardol asked Roy if he was ready. Sitting upright, ever compliant, he said that he was. We left him alone with the photographs.

He was taking the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest, as all the men do at some point during their treatment. It offers a gauge of erotic preference measured not by the 1 to 7 ratings but by the length of time a man lets his eyes linger on each image. The photos are fairly demure. Legally, the test can't show pornographic images of minors, so to keep things balanced, even the adult pictures are less than revealing. And when, later, I clicked through a sampling, the distinction between age categories sometimes eluded me. The subjects in the pictures are supposed to represent four plainly separate age groups so that areas of attraction can be clearly measured. There are children of 2 to 4, children between 8 and 10, adolescents between 14 and 17 and adults at least 22. But some of the 8-to-10's looked to me almost like young adolescents. And some of the adolescents appeared more like young fresh-faced adults, with the kinds of faces and bodies you might see on billboards selling underwear, before I reminded myself about the likely ages of the models in some of those ads. Still, the Abel Assessment is widely considered a strong diagnostic tool, and when Roy came to Kardol's office door a half-hour later to say that he was finished, he looked faintly shellshocked, like a patient who had been through an arduous diagnostic exam. The information was sent down to the Abel offices in Atlanta, Ga., and Kardol soon got the results. Roy's attractions were for adult females and -- very slightly more so -- for females in the adolescent category.

This put him, Liddle explained to me, within the realm of ordinary male sexuality. The minimal preference for adolescents over adults was, he said, a cause for some worry, given Roy's crime. But in itself the strong erotic response to adolescents was entirely normal.

Along the circle, during my time with Roy's group, there have been a few whose Abel results were plainly aberrant: men drawn above all to preadolescent boys and men drawn powerfully and almost equally to disparate categories, adults and young children, boys and girls. Until his term of probation ended, there was a retired accountant who met the psychiatric definition of a "fixated," or exclusive, pedophile. He had coached sports and built a clubhouse on his property in order to lure the neighborhood boys; he had spanked and groped many over a period of many years.

Yet most of the group tends to fall somewhere closer to the middle of a continuum -- a continuum on which normal occupies a broad and blurry sector. With most of the men he has worked with over the past 14 years, Liddle says, "the difference between me and my guys is a very thin line." He doesn't mean that he's on the edge of doing what they have done, only that the potential may lie within all of us.

"We want there to be the clear line; we want there to be the sloped forehead," David D'Amora has said, summarizing society's thinking about the men in groups like Liddle's, men D'Amora has been watching over for the state since 1986. Before that, he was a therapist for adult and child victims of sexual assault. "It just doesn't exist. We want them to be the few, the perverted, the far away. Most are not."

What research has been done seems to back this up. Dr. Richard Green, a psychiatrist at the Imperial College School of Medicine in London and professor emeritus of psychiatry at U.C.L.A., wrote two years ago in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior about a 1989 study: the psychologists John Briere and Marsha Runtz found that "in a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21 percent reported some sexual attraction to small children." Specifically, "9 percent described sexual fantasies involving children, 5 percent admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children and 7 percent indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught. Briere and Runtz remarked that 'given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher."' Green wrote as well of the work done in 1970 by the researchers Kurt Freund and R. Costell. Forty-eight Czech soldiers were hooked to a "penile responsivity" meter known as a plethysmograph. Viewing a series of slides, "28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10." And to count Web sites or consider legal history is to sense that the results of these studies may represent an unspeakable reality. Type in "preteen porn" on AOL's search engine and the list of sites covers thousands of pages. Until the late 19th century in England, the legal age of sexual consent was 10.

"They are not monsters," Joan Tabachnick told me. "They are us." Tabachnick is the director of public education for Stop It Now!, which was founded by a sexual-abuse survivor and which is among the most prominent national organizations devoted to the prevention of child sexual abuse. "It's so much easier," she said about the prevailing public vision, "to think only of the most sadistic, most dangerous pedophile," the predator who kidnaps and abuses and kills. "It's very comfortable. We can say, They're not who we are." But they're also not, she pointed out, the typical offender. They are the rare extreme. "It's very uncomfortable," she went on, "to say, I know what it means to look at my child as a sexual being -- I know what it means to want to touch my child." She was not excusing molestation; she was calling for a complex understanding of a widespread and often devastating crime, because without it, she said, efforts at prevention are crippled. She drew a comparison with adults' acknowledging their wish to hit their children in moments of rage -- mere acknowledgment can make the impulse easier to quell, and those drawn hard to such violence can seek help. "It's far more difficult to be candid about sexual urges," she said, and so it's far more difficult for those on the edge of offending -- those for whom cultural taboos, legal prohibitions and empathy for the child aren't powerful enough to keep desire deeply submerged or to choke it off if it rises to the surface -- to find a way to stop themselves.

After the relaxation exercise and after the introductions on days when they are given, the men lift their loose-leaf binders from the floor beside their chairs. The books are filled with the homework they've done and the handouts they've been given, with "feelings journals" and instructional sheets on methods like "Thought Broadcasting": "If you get a deviant thought, imagine that your thought is being broadcast from your mind over a loudspeaker system."

Roy's binder is the thickest of all. He tries to think of treatment like "a normal college class," as if to convince himself that diligence will guarantee graduation. Not only does he have a jumbo white plastic binder with labeled dividers that he brings to group; he has another that he keeps at home. He throws away nothing. His homework and "action plans" -- his applications to do what his basic restrictions don't allow -- are composed at length and always neatly typed out. But lately, for Roy, things have not been going well.

The counseling takes what is known as a cognitive-behavioral approach. Back in the early to mid-1970's, D'Amora has recounted to me, when the field of child-molester treatment was just developing, the typical strategy was more psychoanalytic and individualized -- profound insight into the disinterred past was supposed to change behavior and reduce recidivism. It didn't, and by the early 80's, therapy shifted toward behavior modification, with offenders instructed to inhale noxious odors during deviant fantasies. Here there were signs of "fair success," D'Amora said, followed by signs that the effect was often short-lived. The method has mostly faded from the field. Meanwhile, the cognitive-behavioral model began to be used more and more -- Liddle's sessions can seem as much like classes in coping skills as anything that might be called treatment. With a creased, stoic face and a manner that is habitually restrained, he keeps the fluorescently lighted room sedate. He asks the men to open their binders to a handout on "dynamic risk factors," and they go over a list, from "victim access" to "intimacy deficits," of things they need to avoid or try to overcome. Or he asks what deviant thoughts they've had over the previous week. To Liddle's question, I have never heard the men speak more than a very few words about children. Roy has told me that he's fantasized about his stepdaughter a good deal since his arrest, but he has never brought it up in group. (By court order, he hasn't seen her since then.) One man has said to me, "If we talked in there about what was really going through our minds, we'd all be wearing ankle bracelets." Liddle takes what modest fantasies the men are willing to mention -- one morning, it's about a young-looking gas-station attendant someone has glimpsed -- and he reviews "Thought Broadcasting."

Liddle never presses hard toward the darkest truths. His approach is full of paradox. He explained to me that he aims to elicit candor -- but candor that is delicately calibrated. Detailed and wrenching confessions of illegal acts or illicit desire could destroy the composure and dignity he wants to instill in the men, partly through the air of unbreachable calm in the room. (Too much communal honesty could also stoke their fantasies. For this reason, the men are forbidden to talk with one another outside the meetings.) Liddle hopes to "build up their sense of decency." He wants them to leave the program, which they usually do after about three years, believing in their own capacity for restraint.

This kind of treatment may work. The recidivism rate for child molesters is around 17 percent, according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a psychologist with the Office of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in Canada and a leading researcher in the field. Already far lower than the public tends to think, the rate may drop by as much as seven points with the completion of a cognitive-behavioral program like D'Amora's. Yet Liddle knows enough to feel uneasy, almost always, as the men move on.

He is uneasy about Roy -- and Roy is nowhere close to moving on. For a time, all looked positive. Roy's diligence seemed to signify honesty and control. The privileges he applied for were steadily granted. He could drive over the state line to visit his parents; he could fly his kites on his town beach. He was told that he might eventually be allowed to play music at a local bar. But not long ago Roy and his new bride, the bookkeeper from work, put in a request with Liddle that she be allowed to take a special training course the next time it is offered and that she then be appointed an ancillary, probation-approved supervisor so that the couple could have more freedom. Yet it turned out that Roy and his wife haven't told her parents about his crime. And Roy didn't make this clear to Liddle. Hiding his past from his in-laws may be entirely understandable: should he be expected to tell them? Have any of us constructed our lives without concealing portions of ourselves? But his not coming clean about this to Liddle is considered unacceptable. If Roy's wife wants to be in a supervisory role, her first concern has to be with keeping him away from trouble, like family situations that might involve contact with girls; to do that she needs to tell her parents the truth. When his in-laws' ignorance emerged, indirectly, during a later discussion in group, Liddle started to worry about the way Roy had deceived him.

Then Roy took a polygraph test, as the men generally do twice a year. One of the most powerful parts comes not when the machine is running but, beforehand, when the nervous offender fills out a wide-ranging questionnaire. Here Roy admitted, for the first time to anyone in the program, that he fantasized about his stepdaughter. Earlier, telling me about these erotic thoughts, which he seemed desperate to exorcise, he said that his treatment prevented him from putting them in the past. The thoughts were "burned" into his mind because he had to sit every week in that circle, and he could not bring himself to confess them in the carefully subdued atmosphere of the back room. Liddle, he said, "asks for deviant fantasy but he doesn't really want it."

Liddle didn't see it that way. He saw a man in denial, a man trying to deflect responsibility for the force of his lust, a man who should have delivered, in group, a simple acknowledgment of his desires, just as he should have been clear about his in-laws. Other deceptions glimmered. In the evasion of truth Liddle saw the threat of chaos. He saw a man unable to confront himself or ask for help, a man who might unravel and repeat the past, if for example, his marriage were to deteriorate, if he were to have access to girls.

In mid-January, he moved Roy to a newly created group for higher-risk offenders. He had already taken away all Roy's privileges -- the kite flying, the visits to his parents. Roy has to start from scratch. Except for work, he is more or less housebound.

At his house, one recent evening, I met the woman who has married him. She is a few years older than Roy, but young-looking and trim, with brown bangs and a kind of Caroline Kennedy smile. This is her first marriage; she has no children. She and Roy sat side by side on a new couch with matching end tables. Outside, there were cute wooden shutters on the windows. She wore white socks on her shoeless feet. They had just finished their ritual Friday-night meal of pizza and eggplant sandwiches. In certain ways, the domestic scene couldn't have been more unremarkable.

They started dating a few months after his arrest but before his plea; probation's rules hadn't yet defined what he could and could not do. They went to the movies and bowled and flew his gigantic kites. He confided in her about his crime. "In my heart I didn't think he was this monster that he was portrayed as in the paper," she told me, referring to the articles in the small newspaper of his suburban town at the time of his arrest. "I didn't know what to believe."

On the couch, they reminisced about the purple-and-aqua stunt kite that she flew and couldn't manage on their first date. They laughed about the way it tugged her down the beach. He remembered her once saying to him, "When we go out flying, it's like an entire new day." She recalled, "One of the nicest things he ever said to me was that when he met me, God was giving him a second chance." Her voice was sweet yet scarcely gave way to emotion. She could seem keenly realistic, as if she had thought everything through. But Roy had spoken in group about the meeting the two of them had with her family priest, who was about to marry them. They told the priest about his crime. When the priest asked her whether she was really prepared for a life with a convicted child molester serving 35 years probation, suddenly "she cried hysterically."

"I think," she said on the couch, "I know Roy well enough" to be sure that he won't ever do again what he did. "I think with Roy things just got out of hand." She talked of hoping still to take the course for family members who wish to act as supervisors, so she could learn how to be on guard, how to save him. "People can stumble," she said. "I want to be able to recognize the signs, to know what to look for."

Then, for a few seconds, her voice sharpened severely. "To this day" -- she spoke partly to me but partly to her husband -- "I can't understand how he could write crap like that to a little girl." She said she told him this frequently. "She does," he mumbled, looking stricken.

One night, shortly before his privileges were taken away, Roy and his wife launched a vast, luminous gold-and-red kite at the town beach. Usually after dusk the beach was empty. But a group of kids came running toward them, boys and girls who looked, in his eyes, to be between 4 and 12. By his agreement with Liddle and the probation department, he was simply supposed to tell the kids to keep their distance, to tell them they might get tangled in the heavy lines. The mere presence of minors didn't mean he had to leave the waterfront. But he panicked, and whether fleeing some imagined legal transgression or terrified by something within himself, he left the unwieldy lines to his wife. He raced away.

He rushed for the waist-high fence that divides the sand from the parking lot. He couldn't get his bearlike body over it cleanly; he wound up stuck, sitting on it and crushing it. Sometime later he showed me the place of his flight, where the fence remained bent. It wasn't hard for me to picture him caught there, between the safe and the terrifying.

Daniel Bergner is the author of "In the Land of Magic Soldiers: A Story of White and Black in West Africa." His last article for the magazine was about cannibalism during the civil war in the Congo.

30 days suspended - NO jail time (1)

a55mnky (602203) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450399)

"I was sentenced," Roy continued with his introduction, "to 20 years suspended after 30 days, with 35 years probation"

Anybody else have a problem with the fact that this guy did not do any significant jail time for what he did?

Re:30 days suspended - NO jail time (1)

KenFury (55827) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450480)

Not really.. As tempting as it is to belive in the lock them away forever mode I dont think it is a good approach. This guy got 30 years probation. He is being watched, in all likleyhood he will not reoffend. He claims to feel remourseful. He shows all the the signs that you would want to be in someone who came out of the system. I am more of the theory that we need more cops catching criminals and much lighter jail time.

Re:30 days suspended - NO jail time (2, Insightful)

a55mnky (602203) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450556)

I am assuming that you do not have any children -

These people in general - and this animal Roy in particular have no business walking the street.

How do you think the mother of this girl feels? It is likely that this girl will be traumatized for the rest of her life. And as far as I am concerned -

in all likelyhood he will not reoffend

what if he did and it was YOUR daughter?

Perchance you might change your mind

Ya know... (4, Informative)

Rupy (782781) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450290)

Child pron was legal in Japan, in fact it was only very recently that they brought down the hammer on it (1999 ood): Child pron @ wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ya know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450333)

"Russian teen" is a googlenym for "kiddie porn" due to the fact that Russia'as age of consent is 14.

Re:Ya know... (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450424)

How about "altar boy"? The age of consent in the Vatican City is 12 [sundayherald.com] , technically not necessarily "teen" sex. That crafty old Pope knows how to run a divine monarchy.

Re:Ya know... (1)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450435)

Russia also has problems with corruption, widespread prostitution, and (surprise surprise) an exploding rate of HIV infection [indystar.com] . It's like Thailand all over again.

Re:Ya know... (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450374)

Child pron was legal in Japan, in fact it was only very recently that they brought down the hammer on it (1999

Some northern european countries are more liberal in this regard too.

The thing is, centuries ago people used to get married as young as 13, and it is clear that many high-school students are full of sexual harmones. Thus, the cut-off age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary from a biological and historical perspective. I suppose it is "mental maturity" that is used to justify 18. However, some people are so stupid that they would never be allowed to have sex if that was the criteria.

Re:Ya know... (1)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450400)

The wikkipedia article you reference says that child porn was legal and normal many places until the 80's or so. That still doesn't make it right...

In any case, this article is about the interaction of child porn and the internet -- people behave differently when they're online than they would ordinarily, unsurprisingly. Whether or not child porn is OK in and of itself is a separate debate.

Burn them. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450294)

Burn the bastards at the stake...... seriously.

I shit you not, who'd give a toss anyway ?

Not me.

And before all the bleeding hearts chime in.... screw you too !

Hanging is too good for the the scum.

Re:Burn them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450317)

I concur.

Dead. And not quickly... Dead.

Fuck up kids for a life time, and they get what, 10 years of jail?

30 days in jail? (0)

nietzsche_freak (804786) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450546)

Fuck up kids for a life time, and they get what, 10 years of jail?

30 days in jail, plus probation. From TFA:

"I was sentenced," Roy continued with his introduction, "to 20 years suspended after 30 days [...]"

Meaning, in layman's terms, he spent one month in jail. He'll spend much longer than that out on probation--where he could potentially molest more children.

Does the Internet enable child molesters? Not as much as a legal system that sets them free after 30 days.

Re:Burn them. (2, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450512)

Burn those anonymous cowards, they are nothing but scum anyway.

Let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450296)

... the data shows no increase, but we should be worried because some doctor wants some press by scarring the masses?!

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

technos (73414) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450361)

Yes ma'am! That's how some folks get their funding. Release a report to the media saying "Fear X!", and wait for the ensuing "We need to study this" to ask for your funding.

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450493)

Scarring the masses... Is his name Lecter?

Child molesters? (0)

brokencomputer (695672) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450301)

I wonder what it'd be like to have a beowulf cluster of those...

Re:Child molesters? (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450445)

One big circle jerk?

I don't like it when people think this way (5, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450304)

While officially the number of child molestations did not change significantly

Then what's the problem? It made what they do easier? It makes much of what the rest of society does easier too. Stop criticizing the Internet for society's problems.

Re:I don't like it when people think this way (4, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450331)

That's exactly right. The internet didn't cause more child molesters to be 'created' or whatever, but it just gave them a more readily-accessible means to view the content that they want. No child molester (or child pornograpy-viewer) became one BECAUSE of the internet. The internet just made it easier to trade/view such content.

I will reiterate what bersl2 said: Stop criticizing the Internet for society's problems.

An excellent statement.

Re:I don't like it when people think this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450334)

It's merely blaming something new for an old problem. The internet has nothing to do with this, but if it's sown into the public consciousness that people are more likely to commit crimes while on the internet, it furthers the agenda of those who would believe there are no bad people, when there are bad people who do despicable heinous acts.

Personally, I think these people should be put to death. They'd have done it with or without the internet (as shown, the article points to no change in the number of molestations). How many times do you hear about molestors being released early from prison for a 2nd and 3rd time only to do their disgusting thing again?

First offence, death penalty. It's the only option that's going to protect anyone. Fuck the concept of protecting the criminal here, they couldn't be bothered protecting the children - a job that adults carry.

Re:I don't like it when people think this way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450346)

Who are you, the internet's little defender? How precious.

The G.I.F. theory (1)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450307)

First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked -- leads to disinhibition.

This is known. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:The G.I.F. theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450359)

They slashdotted PA! Bastards!

Re:The G.I.F. theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450381)

The Online Disinhibition Effect [rider.edu] has been well documented. Move along, nothing newsworthy to see here.

Re:The G.I.F. theory (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450472)

I thought it was known from slashdot, not UT2004....

Encyption's impact on this (5, Insightful)

vladd_rom (809133) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450318)

>> First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked

"Easily tracked" comes most often in conjunction with peer to peer and movie/audio sharing. The solution for this is encryption, and it's quite a popular Slashdot topic when it comes to peer to peer and sharing files. If the traffic would be encrypted, then there would be no more RIAA law-suits and debates because they couldn't figure out what does the traffic represent.

Sadly, the technology allowing anonymous traffic would also allow this kind of activities. If you ask me, the right to anonymity should be above all, but it kinda makes you sad when you think how encryption could be used by these molesters in order to avoid police, FBI and such.

Re:Encyption's impact on this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450528)

If the traffic would be encrypted, then there would be no more RIAA law-suits and debates because they couldn't figure out what does the traffic represent.

How would encryption help? Peer to peer networks needs to help to track users better so **AA can be pushed out of the network when they are spotted.

Re:Encyption's impact on this (3, Informative)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450544)

How would encryption help? I somehow doubt they simply listen to packets and inspect their contents for infringing material. If theres a site (suprnova like) or client (kazaalike) any client can/will see whoever else is sharing the content 'he' is downloading regardless of encryption? Don't see how you can prevent the RIAA from doing searches and downloads like the avg downloader would?

Re:Encyption's impact on this (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450576)

There is a tradeoff between anonymity and accountability. Anonymity is only made possible by creating a situation where one's actions and words can't be traced to a specific person. In a truly anonymous forum, no one can be held responsible for what they do or say because you just can't find them.

We must as a society try to decide where we need to allow anonymity and where we must require accountability. Both of these things are important, but we cannot promote one to the exclusion of the other.

This is not a simple problem.

Yeah RIght (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450319)

Come on people... we're going to blame the internet for the behaviour of child molesters? Please.

Why don't we kick it back in time a bit and blame photography for the spread of this....

Then we can go back and blame (insert new tech here)...

I say that a sicko is a sicko and he's gonna do sicko things whether or not has access to photographs or a computer....

Nothing to see here, move along.... but if you catch a perv, be sure to break his knees for him.

Physician, heal thyself. (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450339)

Doesn't the "virtualization" scenario he's describing apply as accurately to news reporting and bad events? We've got a lot more data about the increase in bad events than the apparent nonincrease in child molestation, now that so much oversight it virtual, through the media, rather than in-person with direct accountability. Now that the NYT has top-of-the-line media products specializing in "self examination" every few months, they should try this model on their own problems first.

New York Times, 1864 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450348)

"In a long and disturbing story on child molesters, the New York Times Magazine among other issues researches the impact of the horseless carriage on child molesters. While officially the number of child molestations did not change significantly, Dr. Bob Hamburger, associate shaman at Ye Olde Schoole Of Medickal Arts and Alckemy, considers the automobile to be a new horse for child molestation: 'There are three areas of concern. First, the molesters can use these 'cars' to travel to children, getting to them much faster than they could using just a horse or even a team of horses. Second, the automobile's interior can be used as an area for molestation. Third, the easy accessibility can facilitate moving over boundaries.'"

Human Behavior (4, Insightful)

Kesh (65890) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450351)

The Internet can potentially allow a person to move from simply having a desire, to acting upon that desire.

However, it can also allow someone to satisfy that desire through sheer fantasy (written stories, role-playing, artwork, etc.), removing the need to act upon the desire in real life.

I think this applies to every aspect of human behavior, from the benign (sports, hobbies, etc.) to the harmful (murder, child abuse, etc.). The question becomes: is the 'net any worse than allowing the average person access to a public library, the phone system, and so forth? Any of these can either encourage behavior or provide a controlled (and harmless) outlet... it's all a matter of what the individual chooses to do.

And I think that's what many people miss in discussions like this. It all comes down to self-control and individual responsibility. One argument is that the 'net, through its anonymity, encourages people to deny responsibility and lose their self-control. The other argument is that anyone who does so was simply looking for an excuse to avoid responsibility anyway.

It's like people who claim that an AC/DC song 'encouraged' them to kill their girlfriend, or that comic books 'made' them think they can fly. The 'net cannot influence a person unless they choose to act upon their desires anyway.

Re:Human Behavior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450398)

It all comes down to self-control and individual responsibility. One argument is that the 'net, through its anonymity, encourages people to deny responsibility and lose their self-control.

This is the crux of the outrage you'll see in these comments against the story.

I do believe the anonymity can encourage people (criminals) to deny as much responsibility. However no matter how much they deny it, they ARE still responsible for their criminal acts.

Unfortunately it's articles like this that will be used to make our legal system look a little lighter on the criminal, and accept that maybe they did have a little less responsibility. It's turning the criminal's delusions into a reality.

That is a travesty.

Leet speak (4, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450352)

The real problem is that children don't understand leet speak, and so will often get drawn into encounters with child molesters and have no clue what is going on.

Re:Leet speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450412)

h3Y LiTTL3 b0Y OR 9IrL, Wan+ $OmE cANDY?

We must stop this evil Internet thing!!! (2, Funny)

edunbar93 (141167) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450355)

Before it takes root in society!

Ooops, too late!

Priests prefer face to face contact first. (3, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450363)

The point being that the media and bottomdwellers who live in it like to take a slow news day and turn it into yet another story about how the internet is going to murder you, your children, your way of life.

The internet is no more a haven for child molesters than your average group setting with children and the adults we willingly give proxy power to. Strangely though no one seems to want to do away with Christian youth camps, only some of the bad people who work in them. So maybe the issue is really about the fact that most people don't know the difference between a browser and the 'internets' and they basically fear what they don't understand so gory stories about lesbian communist heroin addicted al Qaeda child rapists is just the thing to play to their ignorant fears.

Um. (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450383)

Hello and welcome to 1995.

These people are ill! (2, Insightful)

lonesometrainer (138112) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450391)

Now go and treat them like ill people!

Get them as fast out of the public as you can, but DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT simply put them in jail without any kind of therapy (as most countries - especially western "developed" countries do).

Without any kind of therapy you're just producing timebombs that are gonna blow of when someone decides to kick them out of jail (someday).

Everyone knows that these are ill people (the simple disgust most readers here would develop by reading what child molesters do should prove that).

And DO NOT let them out too early.

Any YES the death penalty is no option. It's simply archaic and in-humane.

Re:These people are ill! (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450429)

Now go and treat them like ill people!

I recommend a basball bat enema for them.

Re:These people are ill! (1, Troll)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450439)

> Any YES the death penalty is no option. It's simply archaic and
> in-humane

And instead you would have them let out again and molesting more children. That's humane? You are a sympathiser. Child molestor's who spend 50 years in jail come out and fuck kiddie's again. There is no CURE for this, IMHO death penalty is the ONLY OPTIONS

The Best Online Nude Anime Gallery's [sharkfire.net]

Re:These people are ill! (1)

Bachus9000 (765935) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450618)

Fine, but do keep in mind it costs more to kill them than to keep them in jail for life.

Re:These people are ill! (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450658)

A bullet is less than a dollar. Besides you would put kids future whole life at risk to save a few theoretical dollars???

Online Best Anime Gallery's [sharkfire.net]

Re:These people are ill! (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450568)

Interesting that the first two replies (and that are the ones at +1 or higher) promote violence instead of trying to figure out why it happens and how it can be prevented.

I wonder if that are the same people who think that homosexuals should be locked up in jail (males only, females they want to lust on).

Re:These people are ill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450607)

Typical liberal fucking response to the situation - homosexual relationships are between consenting ADULTS

This behavior is against children, who cannot protect themsleves.

Re:These people are ill! (2, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450639)

If these homosexual relationships are between *consenting* adults, why are so groups of people opposed against it?

Re:These people are ill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450611)

these people are not ill. It is a natural part of every man to desire young beautiful girls. I don't believe anyone over the age of 30 who says they wouldn't feel attracted to a beautiful 18-year old. What about 17 then? Or 16? It is difficult to put down a border.
Many people are also attracted to innocence. This is fine if they are attracted to someone innocent at their age.
But putting these two perfectly natural things together attraction to young girls and attraction to innocence, for someone who has little self-control this can lead to child molestation. He is not really ill or different, the only difference is that he has stepped over a line society has drawn.
I'm not saying this line shouldn't exist. I'm saying these people aren't so different to us "normal" people than you would like to think.

Re:These people are ill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450653)

12 years old

12 years old

pre-pubuscent 12 year old girls

did you read the article 12 years old

If you were invisible, what would you do? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450392)

Anonymity is unaccountability. Unaccountability is the essense of power. Power corrupts.

If we can suspend our kneejerk reactions for the moment and simply acknowledge the fact that most/all of us would be much less moral if we realized there were no consequences(earthly, spiritually, etc..) then we can understand the point of view of this researcher.

It seems that half the community has the assumption that these poeple are just "made" this way and influences)such as child pronography on the internet) do not exacerbate the situation at all. I think that perhaps a more realistic approach is to look at the situation more holistically.

Yes, the internet probably did not cause their cravings, but can we truly say it doesn't feed them, fuel them, or take it to the next level of actually perpetrating a crime?

what's more, anyone can have a child (5, Interesting)

raindrop#1 (176770) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450395)

Of course, anyone can get a child of their own without any vetting at all by the state - assuming they can find a willing partner. I wonder if we will see articles worried that this provide an easy way for a paedophile to gain access to a child? NYT to call for licensing of parents?

Mind you, "internet enables child abuse" makes for a good scare story. I don't suppose the headline "Families enable child abuse" is going to sell so many newspapers.

Re:what's more, anyone can have a child (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450475)

I have to agree... Most children are molested by someone they know... Usually a family member. If anything the internet provides an outlet for these people (gross as that may seem) with roll playing and such...

In any case, If there is an effect in either direction resulting from internet access, its small.

Re:what's more, anyone can have a child (1)

redhog (15207) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450570)

Hm, scarily, this is the actual scenario in a book based on a real story, called (freely translated) "behind closed doors" (I don't know its origin, but I think its from Norway).

And actually, it _did_ get quite some headlines. But of course, no one was arguing that there should be some type of control over who would be allowed to have children...

Nothing new here? (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450405)

Wrong.
True, that child molesters and purveyors of child porn exist in probably the same percentages as ever. No more, no less. And they will do whatever it is they do, with or without the Internet.

But.
The net does provide a new vehicle for them. A presumed layer of anonymity (and for those that are not entirely stupid, encryption and proxies makes it much harder to track). And a way to dissminate their crap in far wider circles than before.
Exactly like con artists. 419ers, phishers, and the like have been around forever. Fast online communications just make it easier to suck in a wider range of people.

Just because it existed before the net doesn't mean that the net's influence shouldn't be looked into.

Re:Nothing new here? (1)

mizhi (186984) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450588)

This sort of reminds of me the automatic rifle argument for stricter gun control. They spray more bullets which allow a shooter to potentially hit more people, ergo we must heavily regulate or ban automatic rifles.

Children and potential molesters have access to a pervasive and easy to use communications medium which allows molesters to target more children anonymously. We've already seen attempts at regulation, and apparently they haven't been working (even though there was no increase in molestation rates).

What gets lost in the mix is that the decision to molest, to shoot, comes down to individual responsibility.

Not saying that studies shouldn't look into it. I think it's a worthy research topic, but people shouldn't start jumping the gun. (pun unintended)

Way to keep the view limited. (1)

TodPunk (843271) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450406)

I think the thing they're missing here is that sure, anonymity and surrealism make people do things they normally wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing. Drinking alcohol literally makes one less inhibited, but everyone knows several people that are intelligent enough to drink responsibly. I'm relatively sure the ratio of responsible drinkers to irresponsible ones is much lower than the ratio of responsible internet users to irresponsible ones. This is just a look at the losers that give the whole medium a bad name.

What the hell is up with this story? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450411)

The man with the wave of white hair touched the vagina of his grandniece; he kissed her chest and had her hold his penis. This happened repeatedly when the girl was between 7 and 9 years old. As an adult, the man in the checked shirt performed oral sex on his 11-year-old brother and later took his 6-year-old daughter to a motel room along with his brother, who was by then 16. Living out a fantasy he'd had for months, he persuaded them both to undress and urged his brother to have sex with his daughter, only desisting, only waking from the trance of his desire -- ''seconds away from something really, really bad happening,'' he has told me -- when his brother began to cry.

It's like reading horrible erotica.

And did they absolutely have to give us the child molestation manual just in order to write a story on the subject?

During ''Chase,'' they would turn off most of the lights. Often they plugged in a strobe light from his band equipment or a lamp that cast the shapes of moons on the walls, in blues and yellows and greens. His marriage, at that point, was falling apart. Sometimes his wife was home, having shut herself in their bedroom for the evening. Sometimes she was out on her own. He raced after the girls through the house, through the colored beams. In ''Spider,'' each player had to sit motionless; if you moved at all you got pinched. The touching occurred during the games.

Did we really need to know that? :/

Re:What the hell is up with this story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450598)

That reminds me of the televised ordination of some senior level priest. Until that was on TV, the only time I had ever heard about "rimming" was bicycle repair or Red Dwarf.

Thanks for the church for explaining the real meaning and the percentage of the population who have participated in this method.

Media trying to steer youth away from Net? (1, Interesting)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450416)

There is a certain leftist school of thought that holds that the school system was developed especially to churn out factory workers and consumers. And furthermore that the US Govt and corporate lobbies extended this idea to develop citizens that are subservient.

According to this theory, in general all this molding of youth is accomplished by propaganda, basically: Pledge of Allegiance, regimented classrooms, watered down curriculum, portrayal of American system of capitalism is positive, leftist forms of govt are portrayed negatively.

Well, it may sound farfetched to some, but I think this idea is more or less true. THe school system was not set up like this in some smoke filled room, but instead evolved to be like this and accomplish these goals through decades of top-down pressures by powerful interests who act to evolve a school system that operates to reinforce the status quo and to inculcate ideas in children that favor the powerful institutions that already exist in society. In that sense, the propaganda is built into the system.

So, you might wonder whether there are powerful forces acting upon the school systems that favor demonization of the Internet and favor scaring children away from the Internet, for a variety of reasons, principally because the Net is a disuptive force, one that challenges the status quo. In particular, the net offers easy access to historical materials and writing that are both accessible, and that portary America and its histor in a rather unfavorable light. That exposure of those ideas to children could threaten the powerful institutions and people in contol of them.

So, in line with that theory, the entire Internet is tainted in the minds of youth. As the children get older, these ideas in their heads will make it easier to control or cripple the internet through political means.

Also, in current time, associating the Net with pedophilia will make it easier right now to cripple the net or p2p through political means. Once people become parents, they will allow many bad things to be done by their government if it can be made to seem that it is in the name of protecting their children.

Ew. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450448)

For once I think it's fine not to RTFA. It starts out gross, who needs to read the rest?

For unbiased discussion and support.. (2, Interesting)

Renesis (646465) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450455)

This site provides unbiased, free discussion and support on the topic, including the ways that governments and police forces manipulate this very sensitive issue in order to further stifle our freedoms of speech:
http://www.madbadorsad.org/sadbbs/ [madbadorsad.org]

20 percent of girls molested? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450464)

What are the causes of child sexual molestation, which is committed against perhaps 20 percent of girls and 5 to 10 percent of boys under the age of consent in the United States
Does that stat sound really disturbing to anyone else? I really find it hard to belive that 1 in 5 girls have been sexually molested.

Re:20 percent of girls molested? (1)

kdark1701 (791894) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450561)

Does that stat sound really disturbing to anyone else? No.

my thoughs. (5, Interesting)

TK2K (834353) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450470)

My name is Austin and I am 14. this whole thing sort of freeks me out a bit. I was bored so i did some thinking on this, and this is the gereral direction my thoughts went. I'm 14, that means its normal for me to like girls around that age, find them atractive, ect. Now, we asume as people age, the mature mentaly as well, but this asumption can not always be entirely correct. As my 22 year old friend once said, "If at 16 I found a girl in my class hot, what has changed to make me NOT find a 16 year old hot?"
To break this down, simply, there was no major change in his atraction to girls between 16 and 22, but unlike when he was 16, it is no loger 'right' for him to find a 16 year old atractive, now, the youngest he 'should' find atractive is more like 20.
Im no shrink or anything, but i guess its sorta the same thing with the guy in the artical...

Re:my thoughs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450505)

They aren't talking about attraction to 16-year-olds, though. It may not be legal for a 22-year-old to act on such an attraction, but that'd be because the 16-year-old hasn't reached the age of consent yet, not because s/he isn't sexually mature.

In this article, they're dealing with a guy who put the moves on his 11-year-old stepdaughter. Being 14, you should have some idea of how much growing-up happens, both emotionally and physically speaking, between 11 and 16.

Re:my thoughts. (1)

daveaitel (598781) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450523)

I guess as you get older you realize that 16 year olds have very little to offer. Most models are 16-20, and we still find them hot - on paper. In real life, you tend to want someone who's a bit more traveled. A 16 year old coming onto you in real life seems a bit like watching an 80's movie and still finding the effects really cool. Young chicks do some pretty funny things with make-up, and they tend to over-act. Innocence is great for a while, but us jaded older guys crave real deviance, and that takes a while to develop.

I'd hate to get graphic on you here, but a 25 year old chick is going to know a lot more about how to turn you on than a 16 year old, and you're going to be bored of cheerleader outfits and backseats by then. Realistically, what a 16 year old is usually missing is how to turn HERSELF on, but we'll leave that for aminaked.com, won't we?

-dave

Re:my thoughs. (5, Interesting)

KenFury (55827) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450534)

I just follow the seinfeld rule. ({your age}/2)+7= min age to be with someone.

As you get older you will realize that a 30 year old guy can not talk to a 16 year old. They are dumb! when I was 16 I did not think so but age changes interests and priorties. It is slow but it happens. Attractivness is not just physical but mental (in both meanings).

Re:my thoughs. (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450622)

"If at 16 I found a girl in my class hot, what has changed to make me NOT find a 16 year old hot?"
As a 39-year-old male, let me suggest to you that what changes is not that you stop thinking 16-year-old females are hot, it's that you start thinking 40-year-old females are.

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to 16-year-olds, as long as you don't actually do anything about it.

In other news, the internet contains information. (1)

ActionJesus (803475) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450503)

Sure, you can look up child porn on the internet, or you can read how to build bombs.

Or you can look up art, and read how to do first aid.

The internet is a medium, no different from the telephone, newspapers or television.

Sure, you can attack the internet, but i think the main problem with paedophilia is the witch hunt called my mainstream news, making it impossible to actually deal with the subject objectivly. Either your for burning anyone that looks at a kid at the stake, or your a child molester that needs burnt at the stake.

Im not trying to justify it in any way, but why does this thing get so much attention when rapists and murderers are considered to be more "socially acceptable" crimes?

Re:In other news, the internet contains informatio (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450590)

Im not trying to justify it in any way, but why does this thing get so much attention when rapists and murderers are considered to be more "socially acceptable" crimes?

We (most of us anyway) are hardwired to protect kids. It violates our sensibilities at the very core.

More Fear-Mongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450504)

When I explain what the interet is to someone I often tell them "The Great thing about the Internet is you can find almost anything on it, but thats also the bad thing about it."
There are always Fear-Mongers when it comes to new things, and most of the time the fear is baseless. These people always seem to want to cause unfounded fear in the less educated masses.

The same comments that this Dr makes could also be made about the slave trade, and the bodyparts market. But they would be passed off as a loony if they did.

Take the NYTimes with a grain of salt here (2, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450521)

Whenever the NYTimes writes a piece bitching about how the Internet is such a horrible place, remember that they have been struggling like a lot of newspapers to grapple with their online competition. They don't want the Internet to look good, their business gets worse as the Internet looks better.

I'm not saying that they may not have some points, but always be skeptical about "old media" coming out with the latest horror story about the Internet. We've known about this problem for years now, but they keep beating this horse over and over. Ever notice how rarely they mention the sting operations that go down very successfully against online kiddie porn sites? Stings that get people in like 10 countries at once?

Well who'd want to hear the cops might actually be winning on something here? Certainly not the NYTimes and other publications because that might mean the Internet is still the "wild west" but the west ain't so wild anymore.

Re:Take the NYTimes with a grain of salt here (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450665)

If you read the article, you'll see that it's not the article that's alarmist about the internet. The internet alarmism seems to have been imposed by the NYT and Slashdot editors. They're the ones who wrote the blurbs and titles.

The article itself is the opposite of alarmist. It emphasizes that recidivism rates are low, and proposes the uncomfortable idea that there may be a gray area between the evil child-molesting monsters and the ordinary people.

who diddled you? (5, Informative)

aberoham (30074) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450535)

"child sexual molestation is committed against perhaps 20 percent of girls and 5 to 10 percent of boys under the age of consent in the United States."

If that is news to you, or you find it hard to understand true society-burdening effects of child sexual molestation, check out this award-winning film and its website:

Searching for Angela Shelton [searchingf...helton.com]

...Angela drove around the country meeting other 'Angela Sheltons', only to discover that a majority had been raped, beaten or molested just like herself as a child. In the film she confronts her child-molesting father and eventually goes thru a massive emotional breakdown.

Her story is pretty amazing, and seeing her film and how it touches survivors really helps non-survivors understand sexual traumas.

Not until I had spent lots of time around Angela did I finally realize that as I child I had been abused by a baby sitter who thought it was OK to let a 11-yr-old suckle on her breats...

Abe

Re:who diddled you? (1)

djplurvert (737910) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450559)

That does it. We need a law that prohibits giving the name Angela Shelton to anyone.

Oh, before I forget....lucky dog!!!

Pretty obvious if you ask me. (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450547)

Newflash: The Internet is also used by pedophiles. Wow. Shocking. (/sarcasm)

The Internet, as a communications medium, is just another scenery for all kinds of human behavior, from charity to crime. We have to yet see any place on earth that isn't vulnerable to crimes of any kind.

Give me my lesbians w/fake boobies and long nails (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11450579)

Look, I've seen a LOT of porn on the net--and I've never seen any photographic child porn. I am not saying none exists, I am just saying it's probably a lot rarer than our fears lead us to believe.

This is a good thing; besides a society that fetishised injuring kids wouldn't be a society that would have long term cohesion.

Take home point: compartively little child porn and we drop a load of bricks on those who get caught making it, now can we get back to work here?

Tiffany (lamps) (4, Interesting)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450599)

This reminds me of the case where Tiffany tried to sue eBay because of the huge numbers of fake Tiffany lamps on eBay. They said that they had to have two full-time members of staff trawling eBay to catch them. What they didn't seem to grasp was that they only needed two full-time members of staff to catch them. Before eBay they wouldn't have caught 1% of them.

Likewise, a psychologist friend of mine was pointing out recently that the Internet has made it easier than ever before to catch child molesters without making any significent increase in the numbers of them. In other words: the Internet is the single greatest anti-child-molestation system ever invented.

But that's not such an interesting story and needs a little tiny bit of lateral thought, so it's not going to be in the mainstream press any day soon.

TWW

Some interesting notes (1)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450681)

How did he get there? What are the causes of child sexual molestation, which is committed against perhaps 20 percent of girls and 5 to 10 percent of boys under the age of consent in the United States, according to David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. (Finkelhor, who has examined the studies extensively, added that the numbers range widely from 10 to 40 percent for girls and 2 to 15 percent for boys, depending on definitions and methods.

Well, I guess I was an ugly kid. Nobody even attempted that on me. Now I'm an adult, and I can't get another adult to :-(

in a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21 percent reported some sexual attraction to small children.'' Specifically, ''9 percent described sexual fantasies involving children, 5 percent admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children and 7 percent indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught.


So 5% masturbated after thinking about it... and 7% said they might do it if not caught? I'd think those numbers would be reversed. 7% masturbated, 5% would if caught.

Just sounds strangely wrong. Even the way it's explained.

Green wrote as well of the work done in 1970 by the researchers Kurt Freund and R. Costell. Forty-eight Czech soldiers were hooked to a ''penile responsivity'' meter known as a plethysmograph. Viewing a series of slides, ''28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10.''


FYI plethysmograph is the Slashdot word of the day.

Google Image Search [google.com]
Ebay (if you really want one) [ebay.com]

On a sidenote, weren't some UN peacekeeping soldiers from that region accused of sexual abuse in Africa not to long ago?



He rushed for the waist-high fence that divides the sand from the parking lot. He couldn't get his bearlike body over it cleanly; he wound up stuck, sitting on it and crushing it. Sometime later he showed me the place of his flight, where the fence remained bent. It wasn't hard for me to picture him caught there, between the safe and the terrifying.


In Connecticut as I recall, if you don't report criminal activity(vandalism), you can be charged...

I'm curious what the deal was with this. And if there will be charges of vandalism. Especially considering he's already got a parole officer on his ass.

Did anyone else... (1)

Grave_Rose (715146) | more than 8 years ago | (#11450687)

...see the title and interpret it as: NYT is on the Internet and Molesting Children or am I just as sick and perverted as my NAMBLA friends tell me?

Gr@ve_Rose
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?