New York Times article re: paedophiles

Irishman80

What do people here think of this New York Times piece attempting to excuse Paedophiles.

For me, it's pretty simple. If you are chatting to a girl online, she tells you twice that she is 13, and you proceed to engage in sex talk and buy a packet of condoms on the way over to the house to meet her, you're a damn Paedophile.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html#commentsContainer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Irishman80 wrote: »

What do people here think of this New York Times piece attempting to excuse Paedophiles.

This is a guess, but that's not what it's trying to do.

Quantum Erasure

What's it got to do with this thread anyway?

Irishman80

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

What's it got to do with this thread anyway?

Active thread where people are discussing a media company which was sexualising children.

My link highlights another media company which is downplaying the attempted rape of a 13 year old.

Silentcorner

Irishman80 wrote: »

Active thread where people are discussing a media company which was sexualising children.

My link highlights another media company which is downplaying the attempted rape of a 13 year old.

I didn't think you'd have to spell it out but there you go!!!

Quantum Erasure

Silentcorner wrote: »

I didn't think you'd have to spell it out but there you go!!!

Maybe it deserves it's own thread, I dunno. It's an interesting topic in it's own right

Eric Cartman

Irishman80 wrote: »

What do people here think of this New York Times piece attempting to excuse Paedophiles.

For me, it's pretty simple. If you are chatting to a girl online, she tells you twice that she is 13, and you proceed to engage in sex talk and buy a packet of condoms on the way over to the house to meet her, you're a damn Paedophile.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html#commentsContainer

this is part of that 'virtuous paedophile' movement hogwash. Absolute degeneracy , but of course theres people to excuse it.

i_surge

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is part of that 'virtuous paedophile' movement hogwash. Absolute degeneracy , but of course theres people to excuse it.

If you read it, it is actually quiet complex.

There is a degree of baiting, entrapment and manipulation of extremely desperate losers who commit serious errors of judgement in playing along.

They are more catching people who are extremely desperate for anything rather than those who are full on paedophiles who watch child porn and groom kids.

Not sure my opinion

Eric Cartman

i_surge wrote: »

If you read it, it is actually quiet complex.

There is a degree of baiting, entrapment and manipulation of extremely desperate losers who commit serious errors of judgement in playing along.

They are more catching people who are extremely desperate for anything rather than those who are full on paedophiles who watch child porn and groom kids.

Not sure my opinion

I don't buy it for a second, if you hear she's underage you stop communication then and there, condoms in a car and agreeing to meet is enough for me to call paedo.

Irishman80

i_surge wrote: »

If you read it, it is actually quiet complex.

There is a degree of baiting, entrapment and manipulation of extremely desperate losers who commit serious errors of judgement in playing along.

They are more catching people who are extremely desperate for anything rather than those who are full on paedophiles who watch child porn and groom kids.

Not sure my opinion

A quick example: You have young kids - one is a 13 year old. Today, children are at more risk of Paedophile grooming because of access to the internet.

Your 13 year old daughter is online one day and starts chatting to a 20 year old. She tells him her age twice; however, he continues to chat with her and the discussion moves into sex talk.

The 20 year old arranges to meet your daughter at your house. You are not at home. On the way to the house, he stops to buy a packet of condoms. At the house, he meets your daughter and accepts the invitation inside.

What do you think of this man? What do you find complex about this situation?

i_surge

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't buy it for a second, if you hear she's underage you stop communication then and there, condoms in a car and agreeing to meet is enough for me to call paedo.

Agreed but there does seem to be two sides to it.

They are targeting the wrong people with those stings. They should react to grooming attempts rather than try to manufacture them.

You catch a much more sinister **** that way

i_surge

Irishman80 wrote: »

A quick example: You have young kids - one is a 13 year old. Today, children are at more risk of Paedophile grooming because of access to the internet.

Your 13 year old daughter is online one day and starts chatting to a 20 year old. She tells him her age twice; however, he continues to chat with her and the discussion moves into sex talk.

The 20 year old arranges to meet your daughter at your house. You are not at home. On the way to the house, he stops to buy a packet of condoms. At the house, he meets your daughter and accepts the invitation inside.

What do you think of this man? What do you find complex about this situation?

I'm not going to be goaded into defending the indefensible but I think they targeted some real hard up sexless losers for any easy win.

Irishman80

i_surge wrote: »

I'm not going to be goaded into defending the indefensible but I think they targeted some real hard up sexless losers for any easy win.

I'm not trying to goad you into defending the indefensible. I know that the vast majority of people are not going to defend it.

I'm just giving the actual story of the actions of this man in question. Strip away all the manipulation the NYT reporter seems to want to add to this.

This is a guy whose actions said he wanted to rape a 13 year old but the reporter seems to put more integrity into his actual words rather than his actual recorded actions.

This poor nerd, social outcast says he wasn't going to rape the 13 year old...poor guy. I'm not buying it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is part of that 'virtuous paedophile' movement hogwash. Absolute degeneracy , but of course theres people to excuse it.

When you have to post old Epstien/Spacey photos in order to imply something, you wonder what exactly it is you think people are trying to excuse. Getting photographed? Having a Netflix sibscription?

You screaming "peodphile!" is the same as SJWs screaming "racist!": if you try hard enough, you'll find it everywhere and if you don't you'll just make **** up.

RWCNT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is part of that 'virtuous paedophile' movement hogwash. Absolute degeneracy , but of course theres people to excuse it.

Had to look up "virtuous paedophile". So apparently they're guys who recognise that they're pedos, but don't act on their urges as they recognise that it's wrong.

The guys in this article sound as though they had every intention of acting on their urges, what's the link?

Tokyo

Mod: Broken out into its own thread.

kowloonkev

If it's a 13 year old then it wouldn't be paedophilia. Amazing how people still don't understand the term.

ronivek

kowloonkev wrote: »

If it's a 13 year old then it wouldn't be paedophilia. Amazing how people still don't understand the term.

The term is used outside of medical and academic circles to refer to any underage girls. You knew exactly what was meant by the term; so why do you feel the need to claim people aren't using it correctly? Indeed its dictionary definition is 'attraction to children' and the definition of children is 'not an adult' or 'someone under the age of majority' or in this case 'someone under the age of sexual consent'.

ILoveYourVibes

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is a guess, but that's not what it's trying to do.

You would be incorrect.

This is exactly what it is trying to do. Just as we excuse all other forms of child abuse while they are going on or rape. And yes i have read the entire article.

kowloonkev

ronivek wrote: »

The term is used outside of medical and academic circles to refer to any underage girls. You knew exactly what was meant by the term; so why do you feel the need to claim people aren't using it correctly? Indeed its dictionary definition is 'attraction to children' and the definition of children is 'not an adult' or 'someone under the age of majority' or in this case 'someone under the age of sexual consent'.

So according to you a 19 year old being attracted to a 17 year old is the same as a 40 year old wanting to have sex with a toddler.

Gruffalux

I can't read it. All I get to see is some morose- looking lardy young chap staring a bit simply at the camera with his Mammy hung over him in some kind of a 'there there pet' hug, and then I get asked to login.
If that lump of a full grown lad bought condoms on the way to meet who he thought was a 13 year old girl then he has every reason to be looking morose.

ronivek

kowloonkev wrote: »

So according to you a 19 year old being attracted to a 17 year old is the same as a 40 year old wanting to have sex with a toddler.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about now.

You commented about people using the term 'paedophilia' incorrectly; I explained that it's being used correctly as per the dictionary definition and in the context of informal discussion. We're not medical professionals or academics here.

Mellor

Irishman80 wrote: »

A quick example: You have young kids - one is a 13 year old. Today, children are at more risk of Paedophile grooming because of access to the internet.

Your 13 year old daughter is online one day and starts chatting to a 20 year old. She tells him her age twice; however, he continues to chat with her and the discussion moves into sex talk.

The 20 year old arranges to meet your daughter at your house. You are not at home. On the way to the house, he stops to buy a packet of condoms. At the house, he meets your daughter and accepts the invitation inside.

What do you think of this man? What do you find complex about this situation?

That situation is abhorrent. I don't think an sane person could defend it.

But that's not what the article is describing/defending. And even if writer wanted to defending paedos, it would never pass editors.

(edit: it can actually be read by canceling the page loading before the block appears)

kowloonkev wrote: »

If it's a 13 year old then it wouldn't be paedophilia. Amazing how people still don't understand the term.

I think it's more amazing that you think the pedophilia/hebephilia distinction is actually pertinent.
Pointing this out is r/iamverysmart material. Well done, you scored some pedant points today.

But in actual fact, you are wrong. It's technically based on physical development not chronological age.
For simplicity, people generally say pedophilia.

Gruffalox wrote: »

If that lump of a full grown lad bought condoms on the way to meet who he thought was a 13 year old girl then he has every reason to be looking morose.

No that's not really what happened. He thought he was meeting a 21 year old, who was actually 24.
Summary:
Any opinion below is directly quoted, not mine.

20 year old browses Craigslist dating site for over 18s.
Ad is posted girl age claims to be 21.
They get chatting. She's a gamer. He's a gamer.
Girl then says she is 13.
He askes "why did you post an ad in craigslist if your 13? You mean 23?" - article does say if she answered.
They start texting. She sends her picture. Girl in photo looks like an adult.
She speaks like an adult, slang phrases like "F**k the police". Sex talk.
She claimed to be 13 again. The photo seemed to tell a different story.
Gives him clear directions to her house, seemed too specific for 13.

He drives to her house and picks up condoms on the way. It a few hours since their email.
Girls from the photo, who is actually 24 and a police officer answers door. He goes inside, and get arrested.

He said he didn't know if she was joking/roleplaying about the 13 thing. He only went inside when an adult answered.

The guy is an idiot for the flakeiness. Even if she was joking, this should have caused massive alarm bells.

kowloonkev

ronivek wrote: »

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about now.

You commented about people using the term 'paedophilia' incorrectly; I explained that it's being used correctly as per the dictionary definition and in the context of informal discussion. We're not medical professionals or academics here.

I would disagree with you as i think it's important to make a distinction between someone who has a biological sexual disorder and someone who doesn't have a biological sexual disorder but is planning to break the law by engaging in sexual activity with a minor.

in order to be taken seriously, as opposed to someone on their daily outrage ritual, it is important to differentiate and use correct terminology.

Gruffalux

Mellor wrote: »

No that's not really what happened. He thought he was meeting a 21 year old, who was actually 24

That is different then.

Irishman80

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is different then.

That's what he claimed after the fact while he was been questioned by police.

During the conversation, she told him twice she was a 13-year old gamer. Even though she stated this, he proceeded to sex talk with her, arranged to meet her, and bought condoms on the way to meeting her.

It was only after he was arrested at the house that he started to say he thought she was older. He states that once he was at the house, he would have made sure of her age, and wouldn't have had sex with her if she was really only 13.

Simple rule for me: If you are online chatting to someone who tells you once they are 13, you cancel and leave the chat. You don't talk sex with them (grooming and abuse) and you don't arrange to meet up while buying condoms on the way.

His actions speak much louder than his words.

The White Wolf

For some reason reading those texts from the "girl" I imagined it was Rob Riggle sending them. What a brutal effort at ensarement yet it worked, which would suggest your man isn't all there. Clearly stated "she" was 13.

Mellor

Irishman80 wrote: »

That's what he claimed after the fact while he was been questioned by police.

During the conversation, she told him twice she was a 13-year old gamer. Even though she stated this, he proceeded to sex talk with her, arranged to meet her, and bought condoms on the way to meeting her.

It was only after he was arrested at the house that he started to say he thought she was older. He states that once he was at the house, he would have made sure of her age, and wouldn't have had sex with her if she was really only 13.

Simple rule for me: If you are online chatting to someone who tells you once they are 13, you cancel and leave the chat. You don't talk sex with them (grooming and abuse) and you don't arrange to meet up while buying condoms on the way.

His actions speak much louder than his words.

If all that happened was a conversation like the above - then yes, he hasn't a leg to stand on. No amount of "I was just checking" wouldn't wash.

But she claimed to be 21 too. And you are kinda ignoring the fact that she was 24, and shared a real current photo of herself after she said she was 13.
And when he turned yo at the house, the 24 year old answered the door before he went in.
In terms of police work, it's pretty sloppy.

Anyone with the brains about them would be gone, the minute 13 is mentioned. Literally no other reply close the chat.



Look at is this way. What if they were both was 44. And she says. "I'm actually 13 ".
Then sends a photo where she is clearly 44. Man turns up, 44 year old women from photo answers. He thinks ok, she is real. He goes in and gets arrested because of the "im 13 " line before the photo. Should he be locked up too? How old does the cop have to be before it's ridiculous police work.
There are so many ways they could have set this up better to have a much stronger case.

Wanderer78

Irishman80 wrote:

For me, it's pretty simple. If you are chatting to a girl online, she tells you twice that she is 13, and you proceed to engage in sex talk and buy a packet of condoms on the way over to the house to meet her, you're a damn Paedophile.

If a person is engaging in this type of behaviour, they require professional help immediately

Gerry Hatrick

Wanderer78 wrote: »

If a person is engaging in this type of behaviour, they require professional help immediately

You spelt hung incorrectly.

Wanderer78

Gerry Hatrick wrote:

You spelt hung incorrectly.

I understand I'm dyslexic, but no, I haven't