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!

Internet "Creates Pedophiles" According to "Expert"

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the unbridled-stupidity dept.

The Internet 548

Brian Ribbon writes "In the latest sensationalist article about pedophiles on the internet, the director of a Spanish vigilante organization has claimed that the internet 'creates pedophiles'. While conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse, the 'expert' quoted in the article incorrectly states that 'studies show that some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age, but the majority of them develop the tendency later on'; he then claims that 'the internet can become a catalyst for people belonging to the latter group.'"

cancel ×


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

Um (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381622)

Couldn't this very likely be true? And, more importantly, if it is, so what?

The internet is an enabling technology for an awful lot of things, and the information easily available via the internet has, I'm sure, acted as a catalyst or even an initiator for all sorts of interests, even interests some may consider distasteful or even illegal. Fortunately, the positive aspects of this information tool are viewed by the vast majority of people to outweigh its negatives.

This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate; namely, that the internet can catalyze or even create an interest in a predisposed person, who might not have had the opportunity, inclination, will, or knowledge to pursue it otherwise, absent this tool. Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?

The internet is a tool for access to information. That tool allows someone who may not have explored their pedophilia 50 years ago to do it now, simply because of the privacy and ease, and may even catalyze it or allow it to grow. That is, essentially, creating -- or at least solidifying -- "pedophiles", and I am not making any value judgment whatsoever. Just as the internet "creates" people who enjoy online games, or who have discovered and embraced any of a number of other topics they otherwise might not have without the unique and easy exposure the internet can provide in the comforts and privacy of one's home 24 hours a day, it is so for this as well.

And why can't it follow that however small an increased number of people -- however small -- may act on those feelings of "pedophilia" who wouldn't ever have gotten to that point before because of their own inhibitions or any number of other reasons, jumping the gap to what the rule of law in many societies currently defines as illegal in the form of either child pornography or child sexual abuse, regardless of consent? (Whether pedophilia does not always equal child sexual abuse and vice versa is irrelevant.)

The internet makes a great deal of things much easier. As such, it is going to support much easier access to information -- text, images, video -- and like-minded individuals that can undoubtedly support or encourage interest in just about any topic one can imagine.

What is so hard to believe about that?

The Internet Creates (0, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381660)


Provide your own link.

Re:The Internet Creates (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382076)

Thank you for not giving us a direct link...
DAMN YOU for even putting that image in my head!!! It was burnt into my very soul and I was almost done with treatments you bastard!

Re:The Internet Creates (3, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382220)

The picture isn't that bad. Now, if you contemplate what he had to do to make his anus that elastic...that is grounds for nightmares.

And is liking children so wrong? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381714)

When I was six, I fancied this girl in my year: she was a child. Does that mean I'm a paedo? Does it mean that children should only try to hit on grownups?

Re:And is liking children so wrong? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381806) []
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children.

You were not an adult, so no, you were not a paedo. If you are now an adult, and that six year old is still your sexual ideal, then yes.

And I Quote: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382146)

From TFS:

"studies show that some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age, "

6 is an early age.

If 6 is excludable because of the definition of paedophillia, then the qualification in that quote is redundant and misleading.

If it isn't then a lot of kids are in trouble...

Re:And is liking children so wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382038)

Most definitions of pedophilia require that the pedophile themselves not be a child.

(Not that I think it's 'wrong'. If you wanna masturbate to the little girl across the street, go ahead. As long as you don't touch, I don't give a fuck.)

Re:And is liking children so wrong? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382218)

Most definitions of pedophilia require that the pedophile themselves not be a child.
Though the law may disagree (see e.g. those kids who got prosecuted for "child porn" offences for taking photos of each other naked).

Selective Comments (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381726)

He's head of an internet based organization entitled "Save the Children."

I found it odd that the whole article goes on talking about how pedophiles use the internet to get photos and contact other pedophiles. But he never once talks about how it has empowered his organization to receive tips, track these people, pose as children to catch them, pose as other pedophiles to gain evidence, etc.

So odd how we were only selectively told the bad things the internet allows the criminals to do. And yet in the article, they remind us that they are not criticizing the internet.

Perhaps I would have taken this man more seriously had he looked at it with a neutral and objective point of view.

Re:Selective Comments (5, Interesting)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381978)

The increase of paedophiles is accompanied by their average age going down. Some are minors themselves.
That little nugget caught my eye. How are minors who have consenting sex with minors paedophiles? Am I missing something there? I would like to see the statistics for how many of these paedophiles are people who are +/-3 years apart, and around the legal age in their respective country.

Re:Selective Comments - Obligatory... (5, Funny)

Trails (629752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382176)

internet based organization entitled "Save the Children."
or NAMBLA for short.

Re:Um (3, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381768)

What is so hard to believe about that?

Because it ignores that it's equally easy to "poison" the internet with "children" who want to meet, but turn out to be Chris Hansen of Dateline NBC.

"Why don't you take a seat, right there? Now, what are you doing here? What did you come here for? Hey, what's in that bag? Now why would you need those if you're just meeting a 13-year-old boy? And this? Isn't he too young to drink that? What's the meaning of all this? GET ON THE GROUND! POLICE!"

(Btw, a big THANK YOU to all the moderators that have reversed my clearly unwarranted vendetta mods and restored my karma to "Bad".)

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381984)

That brings up a very good point. While the Internet does provide an avenue for people to explore any number of fetishes (including pedophilia), it doesn't necessarily make these people more likely to act out on these fetishes. View porn of it or whatever maybe, but actually engage in sexual molestation of a child? Probably not.

However, groups such as this guy's goes farther. They actively go and seek out people and try to convince them to act on urges that may otherwise remain dormant forever. Some of these people may live and work among children all the time without ever acting on or even seriously thinking about acting on pedophilic urges, but then groups like this find them and actively try to get them to act out by posing as children who seem to actually *want* it. They actively seek to remove the fantasy/reality barrier that most people have to keep them from acting on urges that they know to be deviant or wrong.

The number of people out there who enjoy deviant pornography is probably a lot larger than anyone wants to admit, but the number of people that actually act out based on those deviant interests is far smaller. For example, I'd imagine most of the people who like porn involving simulated rape probably aren't rapists. However, if someone was posing online as a girl trying to convince the guy to come rape her (fulfilling her own fantasy or whatever), I'd imagine at least some of them would take her up on the offer.

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381904)

This submitter appears eager to dismiss something that is probably quite accurate; namely, that the internet can catalyze or even create an interest in a predisposed person, who might not have had the opportunity, inclination, will, or knowledge to pursue it otherwise, absent this tool. Why don't we instead simply agree that while this state of affairs may be the case, it isn't the "fault" of the internet?
There are those who will say that if it is true that some source (like the internet) provides people with information that 'enables' them in some criminal way, then the actions of those people ARE indeed the fault of that source of information. By simply conceding the point, you have effectively strengthened their base argument and their calls for censorship. If the internet really 'enables' or creates pedophiles out of people who would have never been interested in such things had they not seen it on the web, then giving a copy of the Bible to a person whose never read it has the potential to turn that same person into a rapist, misogynist, murderer, religious bigot, and general psychopath. Don't cede the argument without looking at it more closely. Just because something may give people ideas, doesn't mean that same something is responsible as an enabling agent in prompting them to act on those ideas. That is a very dangerous conclusion, and one we shouldn't allow people to make. People are wholly responsible for their own behavior, not the websites they visit or the books they read. That is the message we need to focus on spreading to counter arguments like those made in the TFA.

Disagree...the internet does "enable" many things (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381998)

This comment [] pretty much sums it up. That's not good or bad; it just "is".

And your Bible analogy is remarkably spot on: the contents of the Bible (or the text of any other religion) has created a lot of ill, and a lot of good, depending on your perspective, that may not otherwise have existed.

The point is that information in its many forms influences people. That the extensive and more comprehensive access to information of all kinds provided by the internet can act as an even greater/broader influence should come as no surprise.

Re:Disagree...the internet does "enable" many thin (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382132)

In this case, I think my sig says it all.

Re:Disagree...the internet does "enable" many thin (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382178)

The point is that information in its many forms influences people.
That is the starting point of every pro-censorship argument. If information influences peoples behavior, then it is clearly responsible in some way for those peoples behavior. Once that conclusion is made, then it is possible to say that we need to control access to information in order to ensure that people aren't 'encouraged' or 'influenced' into doing things that society doesn't approve of. I deny that information can be blamed for peoples behavior. People are responsible for their behavior, not what they read, hear or see. To say otherwise is to deny the very core of human free agency and make robots out of us all, whose input must be carefully controlled to avoid unwanted outputs. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a society where I am considered a human being with my own will and able to make my own decisions irrespective of what information I may have come into contact with.

Re:Um (1)

anorlunda (311253) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382012)

daveschroeder makes a very good point

In the same manner that the Internet helps create pedophiles, then so do photography, the written word, and the five senses also help create pedophiles.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382060)

Not making any value judgments??? Even if we can't agree on whether the Internet is good or evil, can't we at least agree that it is wrong for an adult to desire and/or to seek out a sexual encounter with a child?

Naaaaaaa. (1)

Naerymdan (870497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382242)

No, actually, I don't think we can agree that it's wrong for an adult to sexually desire a child.

We can surely agree that it's:

1 - Not common, thus socially unacceptable.
2 - Not exactly the best way to be happy, especially in a society where it's not acceptable.

Other than that, if there is actual sexual assault, it's called rape. If there is wanted sex, it seems to depend on the country but it's either rape or abuse of authority. Of course, I'm talking about countries where a child is not considered to be a whole person with emotions and desires, but something made out of porcelain until 21.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382196)

It seems from the news and the laws that have been passed that badly beating a kid nowadays is treated as less of a crime than sexual abuse (which includes just exposing yourself). The punishments and outrage are less. Hit a kid with a baseball bat and you don't have to register with anyone. Even a 17 yr old with a 15 yr old in much of the US can be charged as a sex offender. It must go along with how sex on TV is strictly forbidden but showing people being murdered is considered prime-time entertainment.

He also states that ... (5, Funny)

PitViper401 (619163) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381636)

He also states that 4chan creates child molesters with a penchant for fur and funny cats.

Re:He also states that ... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381702)

2girls one cup

Re:He also states that ... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382068)

If you don't get this, do NOT google it. It is a shock image(and one I was fortunately spared).

Re:He also states that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381802)

4Channers hate furries.

Re:He also states that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382208)

4chan/b/ seems to like:

A) Cute Cats
B) Mudkips
C) A sweet eight year old girl with pink hair
D) Severed heads and spectacular infections.

It spans a range from cute and funny to crazy and disgusting. It's very hard to tell to what extent the pedophilia that surfaces is serious or just another kind of joke.

If a picture of a corpse that has been hit by a truck captioned with the word "EPIC FAIL" counts as a joke, maybe the constant child porn and pedophilia references should not be taken too seriously.

I'm a little put off (-1, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381646)

The summary has a definite pro-pedophilia slant. I'm not entirely sure I like that.

Re:I'm a little put off (0)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381692)

Thats exactly what I thought, and no I am not joking.

Re:I'm a little put off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381770)

What about it has a 'pro-pedophilia' slant? I can't really find anything like that.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381858)

I'm not entirely sure I like people who try to blame sexual assault against minors on anything but the assailants.

Re:I'm a little put off (5, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381886)

Pedophilia is not a crime. Sexually molesting children is a crime.

Pedophiles are the modern equivalent of witches, used to rile up the mob. Even if they never touch a child, they are often treated like depraved criminals and imprisoned or murdered.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

one_get_one_free (868733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382050)

What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma."

Re:I'm a little put off (5, Insightful)

JesseL (107722) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382154)

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children. There is no specific act associated with pedophilia, outside the mind of the pedophile. You are advocating thought crime.

Creation/possession/distribution of child pornography and child molestation are not the same thing as pedophilia.

Re:I'm a little put off (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382268)

ATTENTION FBI: You might want to have a look at Jesse Lambert's Internet activity and personal computers.

Re:I'm a little put off (2, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382224)

Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma."
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with your point, but your argument is a bit flawed. Based on that logic looking at pictures of illegal acts would thus be illegal. It could be argued there's a market for pictures of accidents and death (certainly several sites dedicated to it, that whole train-wreck phenomena), in which the pictures may or may not be of a crime scene, but viewing of those pictures is not considered illegal. There are fetish sites out there that claim to have videos of people being raped (obviously staged as they're licensed, but that's irrelevant to the argument) as well as some genuine rape videos, but viewing of those videos is also not considered illegal. Sorry, but your argument simply does not stand up.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382256)

Pedophilia is a disorder involving sexual attraction to children. It may be limited to sexual fantasies or result in the sexual abuse of children, depending on the person.

Even though the legal system may disagree, the last time I checked, there wasn't a "thought crime" exception to the Bill of Rights.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382262)

In order to watch pedophilia pictures and clips, they must be made with ... children! A friend of mine used to watch S/M clips, some really sadistic and real; I made him wonder if the "victims" could indeed be real victims obtained by kidnapping which would be found dead later...

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381976)

The summary has a definite pro-pedophilia slant. I'm not entirely sure I like that.

I fail to see any slant, unless you meant the implication that pedophilia (wanting to fuck little kids) and child sexual abuse (fucking little kids) are not the same thing, which is of course correct, as one means desire and the other action.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382270)

Could be an even finer point, as it's theoretically possible that someone could be aroused by images or depictions of something, without actually wishing to do that same thing themselves. I'm not sure if in practice that's true though. Any psychology majors ever heard of someone being turned on by something that they didn't actually wish to partake in themselves?

Relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382092)

A couple of years more using the internet and you too will be a foaming at the mouth pedo!

I'm not sure I see the slant in the submission. It states sexual abuse of children and pedophilia are different and that is factually correct. Which do you disagree with more, submitters appeal to fact or the position in the article?

Disclaimer: I myself have not RTFA, nor do I plan to.

Re:I'm a little put off (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382100)

The summary has a definite pro-pedophilia slant. I'm not entirely sure I like that.
I'm not sure what you would consider pro-pedophile about the summary, but it is unusual to see the word "pedophile" without it being followed by expressions of rage and violence such as, "cut his nuts off with a rusty knife," or, "I hope they are raped in prison."

Re:I'm a little put off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382212)

Pedo's are like homosexulas; they are BORN that way. Therefore we should accept them the way they are. Pedos should be a "protected minority", obviously.

telephones create terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381662)

and fraudsters, scammers, murderers, pedos, thiefs, robbers the internet creates nothing, its just a communications tool dont hate the game, hate the players

"Creates"? (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381664)

Perhaps "gives an opportunity for people with such inclinations to learn more" I suppose...but really, you may as well say that public libraries, with their chemistry and physics books, their copies of the communist manifesto and other 'inflammatory' tracts, create bomb-firing terrorists.

Well.. (2, Insightful)

katterjohn (726348) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381670)

This is the same logic as TVs causing fat people. Yes, if you watch a lot of TV you're likely to become fat... but it's not the TVs fault. It's peoples' behavior and tendencies.

Re:Well.. (2, Funny)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382126)

That analogy makes no sense, everyone knows its the internet that causes fat people, not tv, ive got firsthand proof!


that's nothing (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381676)

i heard that ideological motivation can destroy a person's ability to reason

and that some people called "experts" mistake indoctrination into an agenda for actual education

ban ideology!

ban "experts"!

creates more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381680)

i see it as the internet allows pedophiles to have easier access to porn with people of questionable age in it, revealing the pedophile in some more easily.

then, 4chan isn't helping.

Re:creates more? (2, Funny)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381996)

then, 4chan isn't helping.
Has 4chan in its entire history ever done anything that could be described as "helping"?

Re:creates more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382140)

Sometimes you just gotta have porn.

And I thought.. (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381696)

And here I was thinking that computers turned people into homicidal maniacs ready to climb the clock tower with a high powered rifle. Glad this guy turned me straight...

Creating Pedophiles... (5, Insightful)

provigilman (1044114) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381718)

Yeah sure, it's internet... I'm guessing that track pants with the words "Juicy" across the ass don't have anything to do with it though? And certainly not the thongs for 12 year, never!

If there's anything leading to Pedophilia being activated later in life it's the over-sexualization of our kids, not the internets. It's all around us all the time...but the key here is "activating" them. None of this "creates" Pedophiles, but some of it might push someone on the edge over the brink.

Re:Creating Pedophiles... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381868)

Exactly, why doesn this guy have the balls to say,

"hey parents! STOP DRESSING YOUR KIDS LIKE SLUTS! are all of you insane?"

also what nimrod parent allows unfettered and unmonitored internet access for a child?

The fault of this lies completely in the hands of the parents.

Make your fucking kids behave, you know how many delinquents my daughter has to deal with daily at school because the parents out there are useless? I'm talking $150,000 a year and higher income levels.

Little tommy wants to shave 1/2 his head and dress like a pothead? smack the shit out of him.

Dammit children need to be beaten a LOT more today.

Re:Creating Pedophiles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381954)

I guess some parents want to make sure you are staring at their daughter's ass by buying them pants that have writing on them. It isn't that much worse than buying them tight belly shirts with writing on them and jeans that almost come down to their pubis though.

I plan on walking around poor sections of the city waving a roll of hundred dollar bills. If someone mugs me I won't accept any blame.

Re:Creating Pedophiles... (1, Flamebait)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382118)

An sexualized a 12 year old? Why can't we blame the de-sexualizing of 12 year olds in the past ~150 years. You think your great great great great grandmother was 24 years old when your great great great grandmother was born? Was Mary, mother of Jesus, a 30 year old successful carpenters assistant? I'm in my lower 20s. You know what I find some "under age" girls attractive. I'm not talking about 11 and 10 year olds. But 16,17,17.9999999 years old, stuff that would get me thrown in jail and beaten and have to register where ever I live, you know. How it worked for the last few thousand years.

Why is it that us Americans think that every single thing that has to do with sex must be seen our way. You know gays weren't "invented" in the 80s. Native Americans had 5 'genders'. Some cultures it was the norm to have sex with 12 year old boys along with your wife. Hell you were weird if you didn't.

Despite what some say, Europe is full of breasts in advertisements and I don't see every teen age boy turning into a rapist.

Dear my fellow Americans: Please get over yourself.

Re:Creating Pedophiles... (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382122)

Reminds me of those rather disturbing images of Jon Benet Ramsey in those beauty pageants. Seriously, wtf kind of parent does that to a six-year-old kid?

I once saw an interview with Dennis Quaid where he was asked about the idea of letting his kids become child actors. His response was something along the lines of "I think that would be tantamount to child abuse." I mean, can anyone look at the Britney Spears of the world and not see the dangers of pimping their children as some sort of sick commodities? Seriously, I've seen way more screwed-up parents in this world than pedophiles creeping around on the internet. If anything represents a risk to kids, it's terrible parenting more than anyone lurking in some chat room (which the kid wouldn't even be in if their parents were actually paying attention to what they're doing online).

The internet is an easy target to blame. But if a lot of these parents want to spot the REAL problem, they might want to check out the mirror.

Re:Creating Pedophiles... (1)

SoulRider (148285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382138)

And I am also sure Kalvin Klein and the Gap havent contributed either.

My computer... (5, Funny)

Artaxs (1002024) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381772)

...lets me play violent games on the Internet, yet I haven't become a sociopath. I think it is more likely that the Internet "creates" sensationalist vigilante groups by giving them an outlet and a high-profile target simultaneously.

Re:My computer... (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382162)

You're quite close. It's a well-understood phenomenon. A social system like the Internet allows people with extreme views to find others who share them. They can then more easily exclude people with more mainstream opinions and eventually believe the ones they keep encountering to be normal. This is true of pedophiles, sensationalist vigilantes and open source fanatics alike. It's not just the Internet; the mainstream media provides the same feedback loop (people read newspapers that agree with their ideologies, find them reinforced, and then forget that they are a minority).

With that logic... (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381780)

everybody that peruses porn will become rapists.

There will undoubtedly be cases that will trigger bad stuff but generalizations are rarely (never) a good thing.

So whats the next step? Any man that is over a certain weight and uses the net more than X amount of hours is now profiled to be something that they are not?

Big brother I request kindly that you go and play hide and seek and go eff yourself.

/b/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381782)


/c/ (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381866)


Re:/c/ (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382134)

cute, not pedo.

Internet creates downloaders (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381790)

Most people have latent downloading tendencies that go back to our hunter-gatherer roots. Most people don't normally download until they get on the internet. I propose that we create legislation that mandates upload-only connections.

Re:Internet creates downloaders (0, Offtopic)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382090)

I propose that we create legislation that mandates upload-only connections.
... well, that's rather pointless. I'm just trying to picture what that would be... digital billboard? Couldn't request content because that would require a "download" on the part of the server, so it would just have to broadcast its content constantly and hope someone went looking for it. Sorry, the internet just isn't setup for that kind of thing, all internet connections are inherently bi-directional. At best you could block unsolicited inbound connections, but many peoples firewalls and routers already do that.

Man talks crap about paedophilia (3, Insightful)

imipak (254310) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381792) at 11. C'mon, if you removed all the ill-informed people offering speculation and unfounded personal opinion as fact from the Internet, there'd be very little left apart from busty substances and badger paws.

Re:Man talks crap about paedophilia (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382168)

Slashdot would certainly cease to exist.


In other news... (4, Funny)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381814)

Fucking creates morons...

Canovas is an idiot (4, Interesting)

creeva (1021101) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381834)

Let's start with his statement: "Once a man has become accustomed to child pornography or had sex with a 13-year-old, his perception of children changes," Canovas says. "He begins to see them as sex objects instead of children." This means that a man will always consider a woman a sex object. Why would their be a disconnect on how someone feels towards one thing they may have sex with but not another. AL so though the article states that most pedophiles develop later in life, following that same logic, what about underage teenagers that engage in sex? Do these individuals have a predisposition to be pedophiles? Everyone likes to build up the hype of pedophiles on the internet - but most studies support that it is more likely to come from a family member or someone the child knows in real life. Internet cases are still the exception and not the rule. While it is true the Internet may have found a "bonding" communal ground for these to people to meet, it's no different then the e-mail chains or snail mail groups that operated in the past. Technology has always enabled communication and if there is something invented after the Internet, then that will be blamed for it during that time period. I'm sure, photography, the movie camera, the camcorder, and the VCR had their own vilification that they shared from this in their own time period.

Re:Canovas is an idiot (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382204)

"Once a man has become accustomed to child pornography or had sex with a 13-year-old, his perception of children changes," Canovas says. "He begins to see them as sex objects instead of children."
Wait, he's saying that once someone has sex with children they might be a pedophile? That's... incredible.

I believe it (4, Insightful)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381848)

It doesn't matter what you believe or are feeling, the Internet is big enough that you can find a group of people just like you. The "I am not alone" feeling in combination with the protection of anonymity dissolves the taboo in the individual, which is the psychological wall that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable. After that point, nothing is preventing you from examining and exploring your thoughts, which naturally can cause them to grow, especially when you have others legitimizing them. You can't rationalize it until the taboo is broken. On the extreme end, this acceptance INSIDE the group leads the group to feel that there really is nothing wrong with what they believe, and they start working on legitimizing themselves. You can see this happening online today. there are already activists for such causes. They are explicitly using the civil rights and gay rights movements as templates for creating social acceptance. Keep an eye out for it.

Re:I believe it (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382082)

It doesn't matter what you believe or are feeling, the Internet is big enough that you can find a group of people just like you.

I dunno... After 20 years on the internets I'm still looking. :-(

Re:I believe it (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382142)

I know does not count as scientific research, but this is exactly what Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka (founder of said in his speech at UIUC back in 05. The talk was meant to be humorous, but there's a lot of truth in it as well. A video of the speech is here: []

There is no transcript that I'm aware of, and I don't know the timestamp where he makes that point, but it's in there.

Confusing cause and effect? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382222)

> It doesn't matter what you believe or are feeling, the Internet is big enough that you can find a group of people just like you

Stop there for a minute: would that not imply that the person is *already* a pedafile?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the article seems to state that the internet *creates* pedafiles.

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics (5, Insightful)

blcamp (211756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381870)

Anyone with an agenda can push any "theory" they like.

Example? Water is dangerous and deadly... we should ban that, right? After all:

It causes death due to accidental inhalation, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to water in solid form causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
It's is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous water can cause severe burns.
It contributes to soil erosion.
It leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in it are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

And on, and on and on...

Re:Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382116)

Don't forget that:

Large quantities of water have been found in the bloodstream of EVERY SINGLE KNOWN PEDOPHILE TO DATE!

well then, that explains a lot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381892)

Using his logic, the internet creates retards. I've seen plenty of evidence in various web forums and "comments" to support this claim!

Blame the roads (5, Funny)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381900)

In 2001, for instance, more than 30,000 Spaniards travelled abroad to have sex with minors, the organization Save the Children estimated.
It's the trains, planes, and automobiles' faults.

Re:Blame the roads (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382120)

"the pain in spain is mainly on the train"

(stolen from from the terror blast a few years ago.) /got nuthin' else

Re:Blame the roads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382186)

In 2008, the average IQ of a member of Save the Children is less than 50, anonymous coward estimates.

See, I can make up statistics with absolutely no basis whatsoever too! How exactly did they arrive at this number? Did they conduct a random poll, asking people "so, did you travel out of the country this year to have sex with a child?" and expect honest answers? And by the way, the age of consent in Chile is 13, so at least in some cultures, wanting to have sex with a 13-year old isn't considered "pedophilia".

Will somebody please think of the children? (1, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381906)

And how exactly is one supposed to become a pedophile? The internet can certainly help you in many ways, but it's not going to create pedophiles because of explicit content or whatnot. Much like television doesn't make people become serial killers.

I haven't got the faintest idea why pedophilia exists, but my guess is early child abuse, abnormal levels of serotonin or a DNA flaw.

Isn't that the problem? (1)

daveywest (937112) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382098)

I think the OP's point was too many people are thinking of the children.

Jack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381916)

Is that you, Jack Thompson?

Not really supported... (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381990) the criminal statistics I've seen. Yes, the number of child pornography charges have exploded but the number of child molestation charges have not. All that's happened is that thousands of pedos have pooled all their pictures and videos made over decades and copied them around the internet. I guess it's something like the Drake equation, even if you assume this few are pedophiles, this few molest children, this few produce video, this few share it with anyone, this few leak to pedos in general - when you start out with billions of people spread over decades it hardly takes much for that to add up to quite a lot.

Aren't we all? (2, Insightful)

popmaker (570147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382006)

"... some pedophiles feel attracted to children from an early age ..." Well, sure. I was attracted to a few twelve-year-olds when I was their age. Hope that doesn't make me a paedophile.

My dad has a great definition for "Expert" (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382008)

Expert - noun - a has-been drip

Do newspapers create pedophiles? (2, Interesting)

jejones (115979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382016)

All those Sunday paper inserts for Sears, Penney's, etc. with photos of children...

People will _always_ find something to fantasize about. The question is: must everyone be constrained by what might set off a tiny minority?

Re: Conflation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382056)

"conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse"

ScuttleMonkey, do you have something you'd like to disclose? Because generally I've seen the only people who don't conflate pedophiles and child abusers are rather enamored of boyflesh.

I could see this (1)

E1v!$ (267945) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382062)

I haven't read the article, but I remember a story in PHX AZ where a police officer lost his job because kiddie porn was found on his home computer. His explanation? "I got bored"

I've looked at TONS of porn via newsgroups and I can empathize with the 'bored' part. If you look at enough body parts, they all start to look the same. Just imagine, if you've downloaded even ONE complete news group like '' you've probably seen more vaginas than a gynecologist would in a month or more.

I think seeking new things is natural, in this-case though, the effects can be 'unhealthy'... primarily for the person viewing the material. As they become accustomed to extreme bsdm, kiddie porn, or whatever their unusual flavor of the week/month/year they become less adjusted to what is available and acceptable in real life.

What would be really cool would be to run a positive jpg campaign, one free of criticism, but with information about alternate activities, how to socialize, be healthy... these people often need help, and usually know it.

really? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382070)

Pedobear reporting, I heard someone mention CP...

this is more than internet and pedophiles (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382072)

this is all encompassing.

think about this for a second. 50 years ago 90% of the things you see on television or with advertisement in general today would have been considered absolutely detestable by the majority of the population. people like to pat themselves on the back and say "there has always been homosexuality, sodomy, etc. there is nothing different." i disagree. the difference is the amount of people forcing their opinion.

think about what i just said very carefully- if i tell people what my opinion (and /why/ my opinion) is about say for example, religion, anyone that disagrees within earshot range will walk off thinking 'blah blah blah go force your opinion somewhere else.' you see, back in the day sodomy and homosexuality were seen for what they are, a detestable danger to us personally and to our society (though our social fabric that bound us together was already dissolving, i can assure you homosexuality sped the process up by far)

the question is: why is it that only 50 years ago it was considered such an awful thing by most of society, and now it is not only embraced but forced (because if you dont bow down and say that they 'cant help who they have sex with' you are considered a borderline prejudiced hateful person) as a 'normal' thing on other people.

i think i know the answer

see 50 years ago people were ashamed of this type of thing, it wasnt something you went on tv and said "hey guess what!! i came out of the closet!! clap for me!!", only recently did it become more widespread and IMHO it was because people (mostly the gay community) were forcing their opinions on everyone else. if you dont accept us IN EVERY LIFE DECISION WE HAVE MADE you are a bad person.

if i decided today to walk out of my house today wearing a fluorescent green suit with bright orange pokadots guess what? i am subject to whatever anyones opinion of me is. i know right now that if i did that, most people dont, and therefor society would throw it in my face for being different. its sad, but that is simply the way it goes. its sad that people will judge you based simply on your appearance but this is the way of the world (especailly after edward bernays and sigmund frAud). now, it would be absolutely and completely wrong of me to say "HEY, I CHOSE TO WEAR THIS SUIT, THAT MEANS YOU CANT JUDGE ME BASED ON THAT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER." EVEN IF i get a whole group of people together to wear the suit with me, justbecause we all wear it DOES NOT mean that ANYONE ELSE has to agree with it NOR embrace it. its OUR CHOICE regardless if the rest of society applauds or condemns me.

i have chosen a life of celibacy because many years ago i was a hopeless sex addict, that is my choice.
if i decide tomorrow to change and have sex with a woman, that is my choice.
if i decide the next day to change and have sex with a man, that is my choice.
but for me to say "this is what i do, and you HAVE to accept it and embrace it" is bull and is the definition of forcing an opinion

i am convinced that the only reason we see this spread of homosexuality is because over the last 50 years it slowly became more commmon to see people coming out blantantly proclaiming that its normal, then the next thing you have is crap like what happened in mass a few years ago- []

can you believe that garbage? school children being told that fisting and anal sex are completely normal and to experiment with their classmates-- granted they wear protection. like a 14 year old man can even being to understand the complexities of what sex really means.

every look you give, every word you say, every word you write sends ripples down through the ages far past your death that directly influence the opinions of people that havent even been born yet.

im totally going to buy henrey mackows (the creator of the game Scruples) two new books. i knew there was something wrong with the shift that has happened to married people, but i couldnt put my finger on it. he sums it up so well.


"The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman illustrates how men and women relate. We all know that a woman can open a door herself. But when a man does it, he is affirming her femininity, beauty and charm. When she graciously accepts, she is validating his masculine power. This trade, a woman surrendering physical power in exchange for a man's protection (i.e. love) is the essence of heterosexuality. In order to develop emotionally, men and women need this mutual validation as much as sex itself. Sex is an expression of this exclusive contract.

Under the toxic influence of feminism, women open their own doors. Neither sexual identity is validated; neither sex matures emotionally. Men feel redundant and impotent; women feel rejected and unloved.""

Of Course... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382108)

... that's why we invented protocols like PPP (Pedophilia Propagation Protocol), TCP (To Contaminate with Pedophilia) and BGP (Background Generation of Pedophiles).

Maybe not causal, but probably contributing... (1)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382174)

The guy asserting that the internet causes pedophiles is probably taking things a little too far, but a lot of people here are dismissing this notion entirely. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.) There are probably many factors which go into a person becoming so imbalanced that he becomes a pedophile. Genetics probably play a role, social development definitely plays a role, and there are a bunch of other factors which most likely contribute to the behavior. Among them is most likely the relative ease and lack of punitive measures that potential pedophiles face in committing their crimes. For instance, if there a group of police watching their own children at a playground, it is unlikely a pedophile will come in and solicit one of the children. However, if our potential pedophile is introduced to child pornography in his own home without repercussion, he or she is more likely to not only view it, but to develop a further need for it and become deeper entrenched in it. (I'm sure I can dig up three or four journal articles on how pornography can be a developing process as well as addictive.) I think the assertions are a bit broad as well, but it is equally broad to dismiss all of it. Something ought to be done in order to prevent that type of material from becoming so easily available to any person with a high-speed connection.

As the saying goes (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382210)

"Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers." - If anything, it's sexual repression that causes sexual deviance.

Pedophilia is hardly a new aspect of society. Anyone here ever read Vladimir Nabokov? How can any honest, informed person make this kind of assertion?

The law creates pedophiles - and no victim blaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382226)

I would define real pedophilia as being attracted to pre-pubescent girls. I don't think it is particularly strange that a man might be attracted to someone the law would define as a child. For most of our history sending off a women for marriage at the first sign of pubescence would be considered quite normal even at 12 or 13 years of age.

I'm not arguing we should change the laws. Adults have an unfair advantage over youth and there are valid reason why we might want to pick an age of consent that was higher than a biological expression of pubescense. But this doesn't mean it is immoral for a man to internally lust after a lolita from a biological perspective. And we shouldn't be surprised if we hooked a majority a men to lie dectectors and found that a majority might be attracted to women that the law defined as children.

And on the pedophila being blamed on a girl wearing "juicy" on her butt just reeks of a "blame the victim" mentality the belongs under sharia law. It is sad to see such a concept get 5 karma.


and spoons.... (1)

TheeBlueRoom (809813) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382230)

The same thinking can be applied to the idea that spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat...

Computer generated images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382250)

I have been wondering about the legality of computer generated images. Since our graphics cards can render photo realistic images in real time, have the pedophiles taken up CGI?

Without digging into the gutter, google came up with a couple of hits.

In the US, apparently you have to prove the images are of real children that are under age. Not sure how to do that, especially with better faster computers. Also not sure how they did that in the past either with "barely legal" models, must track down the model and show the pics were illegal when taken? []

In the UK (where first amendment does not play) they apparently allow possession of images but not distribution. []

Personification of man's Tools = Shifting Blame (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382258)

The "Internet" is a network and a tool.
It is not the volitional agenda-based anthropomorphically-intentioned snake handing Eve an apple and fostering narcissism and reassurance to her it is all ok.
It is a fancy TOOL. Nothing more. Zeros and Ones encoded.

Communication mediums that lead to increases of stimulatory sensory perceptions, given enough contact by the controlling recipient (the tool user), will lead to some sensory desensitization to the original stimuli.
This is the nature of SOME (but not all) humans. (how else could humans be possibly interested in some of the 'kinks' out there?)
People exposed to some stimulatory data later lost that same initial psychological experience as when first introduced to the same stimuli, so obviously some people use their "tools" to seek out a *more* stimulating data set. (based on what they then crave). This can become a slippery-slope (and often does).

I bet people also use the Internet to seek information on Automobile Engine repair (as well as all of those sorted automobile autopsy images with their instructive qualities). After all, they are "art"....
-It could be also argued that the "Internet" Creates "Auto Mechanics" according to "Me".

Personification of the "Internet" seemingly removes accountability and responsibility from the parties who choose to use this great new global communications TOOL for purposes not approved by society, religion, law, etc...
It could just as reasonably be argued that there are not more pedophiles, but in fact, more awareness to them because of their use of the Internet.
Pedophilia, (albeit extremely repugnant, unacceptable, cruel, and criminal to me as well as something I do not understand) does exist in this world. It existed in the world before the invention of this Interweb "tubes" tool.
I hate it when excuses are made for actual human decisions and choices and are thence blamed on some "tool". This is akin to stating that Ouija Boards... cause devil worship!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?