New York Times article re: paedophiles

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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.

IN fiarness, my post was written when it was part of the Netflix thread and everything people were posting in the name of pedophlia had nothing to do with pedophilia.

Plus, the poster never actually quoted his own link.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Phishnet wrote: »

Part of getting paedophilia back into the subconscious mind of the public, that Jung says has no filter.

Pedos under the beds!

sydthebeat

She said she was 13, he asked did she mean 23, they exchanged phone numbers and she sent him her pic... That of a 24yo.

Why are the police sending pics of 24 yo women in order to try to catch paedophiles?

Irishman80

sydthebeat wrote: »

She said she was 13, he asked did she mean 23, they exchanged phone numbers and she sent him her pic... That of a 24yo.

Why are the police sending pics of 24 yo women in order to try to catch paedophiles?

My guess would be that Paedophiles rape children. So it's good to catch them before they rape the children and have them registered as Paedophiles.

Just a guess though.

sydthebeat

Irishman80 wrote: »

My guess would be that Paedophiles rape children. So it's good to catch them before they rape the children and have them registered as Paedophiles.

Just a guess though.

Obviously a guess as that's no where near the question I asked

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Irishman80 wrote: »

My guess would be that Paedophiles rape children. So it's good to catch them before they rape the children and have them registered as Paedophiles.

Just a guess though.

Not all pedophiles rape children. You still haven't asnwere the question: if this was a genuine snare attempt, why did the "girl" a) say she was 21?; and b) send a picture of an adult?

Why did the feel that they had to blur the lines? Either pretend to be 13 and be consistent about it (which they didn't), or deliberely try to trick someone who may or may not be a pedophile (which they did)?

As soon as the "bait" gives an adult age, my guess in the second paragraph is correct.

osarusan

Interesting article.

Hard to feel any sympathy for a guy who was heading for sex with somebody he believed was 13.

I did think there was an argument for entrapment, but then the article explained why it's so rarely used as a defense.

Also interesting in how these crimes can end up getting sentences that are as long as (or longer than) crimes in which a young victim was actually assaulted - in those cases, the prosecution are willing to accept a lighter sentence to spare the victim the pain of testifying and reliving the crime, whereas when there is no victim, there is no reason to accept the lighter sentence.

osarusan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not all pedophiles rape children. You still haven't asnwere the question: if this was a genuine snare attempt, why did the "girl" a) say she was 21?; and b) send a picture of an adult?

I think you have confused things - the guy had previously responded to a girl of 21 who turned out to be a guy (or at least, that is who answered the door, so he turned and left).


In this case, the police consistently said they were 13, although they did send photos of a woman in her 20s.

Irishman80

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not all pedophiles rape children. You still haven't asnwere the question: if this was a genuine snare attempt, why did the "girl" a) say she was 21?; and b) send a picture of an adult?

Why did the feel that they had to blur the lines? Either pretend to be 13 and be consistent about it (which they didn't), or deliberely try to trick someone who may or may not be a pedophile (which they did)?

As soon as the "bait" gives an adult age, my guess in the second paragraph is correct.

The profile stated she was 21. During the conversation, she told him twice she was 13. First time, he should have cancelled the chat. In not doing so and proceeding the way he did shows he wanted to rape a 13 year old.

The image used in these stings to catch Paedophiles cannot be of children. They use women who look young from police departments.

Are you saying if a 13 year old looks older that the Paedophile can use that as a defence to rape even if the 13 year old tells them they are 13 years old?

Hector Savage

Nothing new here, the left continues it's spiral by normalising peadophilia - it has been doing this for some time now.

Wanderer78

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nothing new here, the left continues it's spiral by normalising peadophilia - it has been doing this for some time now.

wtf!

Irishman80

Interesting point in the article is that the Police Department provides information that half of the men caught in these stings are going to rape girls younger than 11 years of age.

Of course, the reporter disputes that this is really an issue because the person behind the profile was the police and not an actual girl younger than 11.

My view is the reporter is running defence for sick Paedophiles.

Irishman80

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nothing new here, the left continues it's spiral by normalising peadophilia - it has been doing this for some time now.

I'd bet the vast majority of parents and people generally, Left or Right, find Paedophiles disgusting.

Wanderer78

Irishman80 wrote: »

I'd bet the vast majority of parents, Left or Right, find Paedophiles disgusting.

their acts are certainly disgusting, but the behavior is highly dysfunctional and disturbing

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

I think you have confused things - the guy had previously responded to a girl of 21 who turned out to be a guy (or at least, that is who answered the door, so he turned and left).

In this case, the police consistently said they were 13, although they did send photos of a woman in her 20s.

Confusing is right, but I'm not the one doing it!

Who's setting up the sting? The "guy" or the police? Why did the police say she was 21, then 13 if they were not involved? WHy did the police delieberately **** up a snare if the did (if he is a pedo, for ****'s safe, don't give him an out by sending an image of an adult!!!)

Either it's the world's worst sting or blatant entrapment to the point were not even sure what the guy thought.

Irishman80 wrote: »

The profile stated she was 21. During the conversation, she told him twice she was 13. First time, he should have cancelled the chat. In not doing so and proceeding the way he did shows he wanted to rape a 13 year old.

The image used in these stings to catch Paedophiles cannot be of children. They use women who look young from police departments.

Are you saying if a 13 year old looks older that the Paedophile can use that as a defence to rape even if the 13 year old tells them they are 13 years old?

I know what happened, you know what happened, this is nothing new: the questions for the THIRD time is: why the inconcistency?

The moment the list the profile as age 21, it's entrapment. Show me the photo and I'll decide how old she looks. (EDIT - see photo - photo is definitely NOT that of a 13 year old girl! - not even close! - if he's going to meet her, he knows hw's going to meet an adult joking about her age!)
Police should know better than to **** up their own opperations (if they were even involved).

AS I SAID - article is not what you claim it to be. Doesn't even establish pedophlia. and not "but but but but but she said she was 13!" is going to make any difference.

Guy was clearly not having a conversation with a 13 year old.

lalababa

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

Probably not paedophilia but early pubescent attraction called hebephilia (12-15 depending on sexual maturity) or even ephebophilia (mid to late pubescent 14-18 depending on maturity again).
One must I think distinguish just for pedantic sake. Calls into question 'which is worse?'. As western countries are concerned probably Holland is the most liberal re to the two latter distinctions. In other cultures and parts of the world an interest in post pubescent children is acceptable and even enshrined.
I can't think of a culture of the top of my head that openly accepts paedophilia, but there probably is.

All that said , tis usually a case of power and experience and manipulation/grooming to be sexually selfish with children.
I didn't read the article

Mellor

osarusan wrote: »

I think you have confused things - the guy had previously responded to a girl of 21 who turned out to be a guy (or at least, that is who answered the door, so he turned and left).


In this case, the police consistently said they were 13, although they did send photos of a woman in her 20s.

The police posted the ad looking for casual sex? And to do that they had to confirm that they were 18+ to post. This was on a 18+ message board.

I though the ad itself claimed she was 20. But I may have mixed with the other one (don't have full access).

Irishman80 wrote:

The profile stated she was 21. During the conversation, she told him twice she was 13. First time, he should have cancelled the chat. In not doing so and proceeding the way he did shows he wanted to rape a 13 year old.

She said she was 13.
He asked if she meant 23.
She didn't answer but instead sent a photo of a 24 year old (which was her photo, but also probably looks younger).
They chatted for two more hours.

If that was it, there's a reasonable case for the guy. But the fact she said it again and didn't question it, crushes his defense. (I'm assuming if he did it would be mentioned)

Irishman80

Mellor wrote: »

The police posted the ad looking for casual sex? And to do that they had to confirm that they were 18+ to post. This was on a 18+ message board.

I though the ad itself claimed she was 20. But I may have mixed with the other one (don't have full access).



She said she was 13.
He asked if she meant 23.
She didn't answer but instead sent a photo of a 24 year old (which was her photo, but also probably looks younger).
They chatted for two more hours.

If that was it, there's a reasonable case for the guy. But the fact she said it again and didn't question it, crushes his defense. (I'm assuming if he did it would be mentioned)

Just reread the article. You're correct. It doesn't state she told him a second time. I misread a following paragraph where the reporter simply states "she claimed she was 13" and assumed it was her stating it again.

Irishman80

Maybe I'm been a little unfair here but I can't get the main image of Mom and the perpetrator out of my mind. It screams over-mothering and bad parenting to me.

This feeling is reinforced when he is arrested at the house. His first reaction to been arrested for attempted rape of a 13-year old is "Can I speak with my mom?"

What 20 year old man's first question on been arrested for attempted rape of a 13 year old would be to ask to speak with mom?

osarusan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Confusing is right, but I'm not the one doing it!

Who's setting up the sting? The "guy" or the police? Why did the police say she was 21, then 13 if they were not involved? WHy did the police delieberately **** up a snare if the did (if he is a pedo, for ****'s safe, don't give him an out by sending an image of an adult!!!)

Again, the police officer doing the messaging/texting as 'Gamer Gurl' never said they were 21, they only said they were 13, and said that twice. At no point was the guy told the girl he was contacting was 21.


I don't know how this issue of '21' comes into it. There are only 2 mentions of '21' in the article. Firstly, the guy that the article is mainly about had previously contacted a 21-year old woman online who turned out to be a much older man. I think people are confusing this contact as part of the Gamer Gurl contact, but it was a different incident and nothing to do with the police.



The second mention is when the police did not believe his defence that he came to the house wth the intention of verifying that she was 21 (an adult) before sex would happen.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

Again, the police officer doing the messaging/texting as 'Gamer Gurl' never said they were 21, they only said they were 13, and said that twice. At no point was the guy told the girl he was contacting was 21.


I don't know how this issue of '21' comes into it. There are only 2 mentions of '21' in the article. Firstly, the guy that the article is mainly about had previously contacted a 21-year old woman online who turned out to be a much older man. I think people are confusing this contact as part of the Gamer Gurl contact, but it was a different incident and nothing to do with the police.



The second mention is when the police did not believe his defence that he came to the house wth the intention of verifying that she was 21 (an adult) before sex would happen.

The profile that they guy responded to said it wsa that of a 21-year old and was on an 18+ only website.

From the article:

Users had to certify that they were 18 or older, but at the time Craigslist didn’t verify users’ age. People described their appearance in personal ads, then sent photos that didn’t match. Some seemed to enjoy role playing. He once replied to a post describing an attractive 21-year-old,

Irishman80

osarusan wrote: »

Again, the police officer doing the messaging/texting as 'Gamer Gurl' never said they were 21, they consistently said they were 13. At no point was the guy told the girl he was contacting was 21.


I don't know how this issue of '21' comes into it. There are only 2 mentions of '21' in the article. Firstly, the guy that the article is mainly about had previously contacted a 21-year old woman online who turned out to be a much older man. I think people are confusing this contact as part of the Gamer Gurl contact, but it was a different incident and nothing to do with the police.



The second mention is when the police did not believe his defence that he came to the house wth the intention of verifying that she was 21 (an adult) before sex would happen.

Yes. Confusion on the ages alright. Different contact.

Gamer Gurl only ever told the fella she was 13. He was the one who assumed 23 simply because Craigslist is over 18.

Had to reread again.

osarusan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The profile that they guy responded to said it wsa that of a 21-year old and was on an 18+ only website.

From the article:

That was a completely different incident and different time, nothing to do with the police sting at all.


The guy had online contact with a 21-year old woman, turned up at her door, only for an older man to answer, and he left immediately.


In the Gamer Gurl communication, there was never any mention of her being 21. She said she was 13, he initially questioned it as 23 (maybe he thought it was a typo?) as Craigslist is 18+, she didn't respond then, but later said again she was 13.

Irishman80

Irishman80 wrote: »

Yes. Confusion on the ages alright. Different contact.

Gamer Gurl only ever told the fella she was 13. He was the one who assumed 23 simply because Craigslist is over 18.

Had to reread again.

So Gamergurl told him she was 13. He still chatted to her about eating her out, about bandage, etc. Arranged a meeting with her, bought condoms on the way.

But he says he was only going to check whether she was 13 even though he was sex chatting with her when he seemingly didn't know she wasn't 13.

Still dont believe him. He was on the way to rape a 13 year old.

Mellor

osarusan wrote: »

Again, the police officer doing the messaging/texting as 'Gamer Gurl' never said they were 21, they consistently said they were 13. At no point was the guy told the girl he was contacting was 21.

The police posted the ad for casual encounters on an 18+ dating page. In order to register to do that they had to confirm that they were over 18.

She did say she was 13. The actual line was something like;
“I’m 13 and this alien is fukn killing me” (referring to a the computer game”
He asked if she meant 23. And she didn’t answer.

If the police were trying to consistently maintain they were 13 throughout. Why dodge the question? It’s a weird line from them if they want to catch a pedo and cement a case.

osarusan

Mellor wrote: »

If the police were trying to consistently maintain they were 13 throughout. Why dodge the question? It’s a weird line from them if they want to catch a pedo and cement a case.

I wondered about that as well. Maybe there is something about a lie in response to a direct question about age that would push it over the line into entrapment. The article doesn't say, or place any emphasis on Gamer Gurl's lack of response to the question 'Don't you mean 23?'

circadian

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nothing new here, the left continues it's spiral by normalising peadophilia - it has been doing this for some time now.

Nothing new here, just some folks finding a way to politicise literally every discussion.

Irishman80

Mellor wrote: »

The police posted the ad for casual encounters on an 18+ dating page. In order to register to do that they had to confirm that they were over 18.

She did say she was 13. The actual line was something like;
“I’m 13 and this alien is fukn killing me” (referring to a the computer game”
He asked if she meant 23. And she didn’t answer.

If the police were trying to consistently maintain they were 13 throughout. Why dodge the question? It’s a weird line from them if they want to catch a pedo and cement a case.

The NYT reporter is clearly trying to confuse in the reporting.

I searched out the mother's blog and she does confirm that the "girl" explicitly told him on a second occasion she was only 13.

Reporter and mother trying to cover for a Paedophile.

https://ladyjusticemyth.blog/just-the-facts/

Irishman80

Irishman80 wrote: »

The NYT reporter is clearly trying to confuse in the reporting.

I searched out the mother's blog and she does confirm that the "girl" explicitly told him on a second occasion she was only 13.

Reporter and mother trying to cover for a Paedophile.

https://ladyjusticemyth.blog/just-the-facts/

Manner in which reporter states this is extremely confusing. And the mother tries to justify the son's belief that he thought she was older because she was playing a "scary, over 17s game."

She raised a Paedo and she can't accept it. I'm not sure what the reporters agenda is.

Edit: I'm actually pretty confident the reporter is a Paedophile Apologist now. The article intentionally tries to mislead, manipulate, and add complexity to a simple story. This is an NYT reporter not some college student who is making simple mistakes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

That was a completely different incident and different time, nothing to do with the police sting at all.


The guy had online contact with a 21-year old woman, turned up at her door, only for an older man to answer, and he left immediately.


In the Gamer Gurl communication, there was never any mention of her being 21. She said she was 13, he initially questioned it as 23 (maybe he thought it was a typo?) as Craigslist is 18+, she didn't respond then, but later said again she was 13.

Ah, fair point, my bad. But even being on an 18+ website would nullify any court case.

The photo is also blatantly obbiously not a child though.

Still s very badly organised sting though. And a long way from ’endorsing pedophilia’.