NYT on pedophilia & the internet

August 22, 2006 12:06 AM

Second of two pieces. Scary. For real? Do pedophiles really wear special jewelry?
posted by ClaudiaCenter (47 comments total)

Sorry, I thought my title would be on the main page. I find the posting interface completely baffling.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 12:08 AM on August 22, 2006

First of two pieces. The jewelry thing is weird.
posted by hortense at 12:25 AM on August 22, 2006

Is there non-login bersion somewhere?
posted by lemonfridge at 12:33 AM on August 22, 2006

Wow, child porn was legal untill the late 1970s?
posted by delmoi at 12:35 AM on August 22, 2006

lemonfridge - yes.
posted by jonson at 12:41 AM on August 22, 2006

Maybe try the one published at IHT: From their own online world, pedophiles extend their reach
posted by dabitch at 12:52 AM on August 22, 2006

bervison version!

Thanks johnson.
posted by lemonfridge at 12:52 AM on August 22, 2006

non-login version for the first article: here.
posted by nickyskye at 1:07 AM on August 22, 2006

ClaudiaCenter, right on the posting page there is an explicit diagram of exactly what goes where.

For your convenience:

posted by The Monkey at 1:30 AM on August 22, 2006

The so-called 8216;girl-love8217; pendants8217; design bears a striking resemblance to the logo used by the British ice-cream brand Walls, which is ubiquitous in the UK8230;
posted by misteraitch at 2:13 AM on August 22, 2006

Crap! I keep forgetting them code thingies don’t work anymore.

The so-called ‘girl-love’ pendants’ design bears a striking resemblance to the logo used by the British ice-cream brand Walls, which is ubiquitous in the UK…
posted by misteraitch at 2:16 AM on August 22, 2006

there's nothing wrong with my link afaik.
posted by dabitch at 2:37 AM on August 22, 2006

Nitpick: Why is it that a pendant of a heart-in-a-heart represents "girl love", but an identical logo represents "girl lovers" (and likewise for "boy love" pendants and identical "boy lovers" logos)? Nuances of meaning depend on the medium?
posted by Bugbread at 3:32 AM on August 22, 2006

Shades of greenlighting (ZOMG meta link) and gel bracelets.
posted by Plutor at 4:32 AM on August 22, 2006

From a hentai magazine: All models depicted here are over 18.

Seriously, people need to worry less about who's masturbating to the pictures and more about the children actually being photographed. If they make child-hentai or virtual child pornography legal, maybe there won't be such a big market for real child pornography. Hell, it should get a government grant.
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:42 AM on August 22, 2006

Is there non-login bersion somewhere?

Registration-free links for nearly all NYT articles are available through the NYT Link Generator, and unlike Bugmenot, it's a service provided to webloggers by the NYT itself.
posted by jack_mo at 4:53 AM on August 22, 2006

I always thought the post-Pedageddon world would be like the Mad Max films, but with creepy old guys on the rusty rigs. But it isn't. Can someone tell me if Pedageddon has already happened, or are we still just getting warnings? Dateline NBC and the New York Times won't give me a straight answer.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:57 AM on August 22, 2006

Seriously, people need to worry less about who's masturbating to the pictures and more about the children actually being photographed.

Except for the case of Holly Jones, where a guy who was a regular viewer of child porn decided to get a little 'live action' one day, scooped up a girl, raped her and killed her. He just got tired of looking at pictures.

So, no. They all need to cut it out.
posted by GuyZero at 4:59 AM on August 22, 2006

She got confused between "Headline/Title" and "Link Title" which is very reasonable for any non-tech savvy user to do.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:05 AM on August 22, 2006

I notice that whenever there's threads on child abuse, somebody or other will get cranky and accuse everyone of being alarmist, no matter what. This may be because there's no way to blame it on Republicans or SUV's.
posted by jonmc at 6:07 AM on August 22, 2006

Paedophiles also disguise themselves as schools to lure in unsuspecting children. I saw this on the telly so it must be true.
posted by meehawl at 6:08 AM on August 22, 2006

From the first article, the fact that there are parents willing to offer up their children on these "modeling" sites is a bit disgusting and disappointing.
posted by chunking express at 7:06 AM on August 22, 2006

Seriously, people need to worry less about who's masturbating to the pictures and more about the children actually being photographed.

From the second article, a point on why this is probably not a good way to go:

“It is rationalization that allows them to avoid admitting that their desires are harmful and illegal,” said Bill Walsh, a former commander of the Crimes Against Children Unit for the Dallas Police Department, who founded the most prominent annual national conference on the issue. “That can allow them to take that final step and cross over from fantasy into real-world offenses.”

posted by chunking express at 7:40 AM on August 22, 2006

I'm sure there is a fair share of scare mongering in this realm, but there is also a kernel of truth. An alert receptionist stopped a man with real-looking inspector's credentials from basically wandering around unescorted in my niece and nephew's school. Many police cars and news vans later he turned out to be a convicted child molester.

I like it when we have to make special arrangements for a non-parent to pick my niece and nephew up because anyone not pre-approved doesn't get past the front door.
posted by Skorgu at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2006

I wouldn't let the consumers of child porn off the hook, but I'd also be wary of listening to the same cops who were running around giving lectures on satanic ritual abuse and killer weed not so long ago.
posted by 2sheets at 8:37 AM on August 22, 2006

It is rationalization that allows them to avoid admitting that their desires are harmful and illegal...

Desires can be illegal?

Thank goodness the NYT is all over this nation's desperate need to be terrified of something.

The root of this national child porn mania is not a fear of child exploitation--although exploitation is tragic and real, the numbers of the affected don't warrant this level of hysteria. The real root of this mania is a puritanical and vindictive national obsession with sex.

The need of some pedophile to pursue some perverse notion of purity for sexual gratification fits yin to yang with the societal need to purge and purify itself of unwholesome urges and thought.

This notion of "illegal desires" is an indicator that the thought police are knocking at our national door. And because of sensational stories like this newly unearthed Ramsey case, we'll run to that door with wringing hands and fling it open.
posted by squirrel at 8:47 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

If the jewelry says 'Children of God' on it, then you are indeed looking at special paedo jewelry.
posted by asok at 9:10 AM on August 22, 2006

Desires can be illegal?

Thank goodness the NYT is all over this nation's desperate need to be terrified of something...The real root of this mania is a puritanical and vindictive national obsession with sex...This notion of "illegal desires" is an indicator that the thought police are knocking at our national door. And because of sensational stories like this newly unearthed Ramsey case, we'll run to that door with wringing hands and fling it open.

Clearly, Squirrel, you don't have kids.

I'm all about free speech and thought as much as the next guy. But as a victim of psychosexual abuse myself, and now the mother of two one year olds, I can tell you that the damage is very real, and very widespread. And that there doesn't need to be any actual physical contact for the damage to be done.

There's a line...and these sickos cross it.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 9:24 AM on August 22, 2006

[changed link to non-login one]
posted by jessamyn at 9:55 AM on August 22, 2006

“My daughter and I have a healthy close relationship,” a person with the screen name Sonali posted. “We have been in a ‘consensual sexual relationship’ almost two months now.”

The daughter, Sonali wrote, is 10.

Oh my lord. I couldn't read beyond that point.

This, however?

asok: The need of some pedophile to pursue some perverse notion of purity for sexual gratification fits yin to yang with the societal need to purge and purify itself of unwholesome urges and thought.

This is very insightful. There's a writer/essayist, Kincaid might be the name, who focuses on the Victorian era and takes the controversial (but not necessarly wrong) stance that an increase in pedophilia is related to societal fears about not being good parents or living in a too-complicated world, which leads to an over-fixation on "protecting" children from any and all dangers, which in turns leads to the increase in numbers of people who fetishize children as desirable because of their supposed purity. That it is in effect our scaremongering about pedophilia that leads, quite possibly, to increased incidence of pedophile thinking.
posted by hincandenza at 10:29 AM on August 22, 2006

Lead Agent: [to NAMBLA leader] We've been after you for a long time, buddy! Do you know your rights?
NAMBLA Leader: Rights? Does anybody know their rights? You see, I've learned something today. Our forefathers came to this country because…they believed in an idea. An idea called "freedom." They wanted to live in a place where a group couldn't be prosecuted for their beliefs. Where a person can live the way he chooses to live. You see us as being perverted because we're different from you. People are afraid of us, because they don't understand. And sometimes it's easier to persecute than to understand.
Kyle: Dude, you have sex with children!
NAMBLA Leader: We are human. Most of us didn't even choose to be attracted to young boys. We were born that way. We can't help the way we are, and if you all can't understand that, well, then, I guess you'll just have to put us away.
Kyle: [slowly] Dude. You have sex with children!
Stan: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you.
Kyle: Seriously.
posted by uosuaq at 10:41 AM on August 22, 2006

I notice that whenever there's threads on child abuse, somebody or other will get cranky and accuse everyone of being alarmist, no matter what. This may be because there's no way to blame it on Republicans or SUV's.

What about Republican pedophiles? It's a big country — I'm sure one or more of them drive SUVs.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:34 AM on August 22, 2006

Damn. This shit makes my blood run cold. I wish I could unread that article.
posted by tkchrist at 11:35 AM on August 22, 2006

Chilling articles, I agree.

But I have to wonder, why are we hearing about this now? Newspapers and reporters don't live in a vacuum. Who is pushing these stories, and what are they hoping to achieve? This is bound to buttress calls for greater regulation of the Internet, at a time when our privacy rights are already being sacrificed to win the "War on Drugs" and the "Long War" on terrorism.

Again, pedophilia is horrible, and stories of pedos plotting to infiltrate summer camps (or set up their own) scary; but who benefits from people being scared by this?
posted by orthogonality at 11:56 AM on August 22, 2006

Has anyone done the datamining on the AOL search data to determine what percent of AOL Search users are pedophiles?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:07 PM on August 22, 2006

it is in effect our scaremongering about pedophilia that leads, quite possibly, to increased incidence of pedophile thinking.

See also: Foucault, The Will to Knowledge contrasted with The Use of Pleasure.

Constraint engenders "creativity".

Also: Eros and Civilisation.
posted by meehawl at 1:15 PM on August 22, 2006

“They point out, correctly, that family members and friends — not strangers — are the most frequent perpetrators of child sexual abuse. They never note, however, that the minors mentioned in their online discussions are most frequently those they know well, like relatives and children of friends.”

Aha! So that means that cracking down on online discussion will...um...pedophiles are evil m’kay? And they use teh internets. Which is therefore also evil.
How is that one bit different than the speech here? (Other than of course in content). Has all the anti-Bush talk incited anyone here to forment revolution? Oh, but it could, couldn’t it? Some guy could be listening and suddenly want to make the fantasy a reality. Shut down metafilter.

Hell, if anything I’d think you’d want those people on the web so as to keep an eye on them. It’s analogous to any community, only we’re so damned insular now we don’t have the neighborhood short eyes around who everyone knows and keeps their kids away from. Or old uncle charley or whomever. Why? Because we don’t talk as much. Socialization - and knowlege of proper social discourse, adult interaction and open communication is a far better protection for kids than this Mickey Mouse bullshit. Heirarchy is what kept the catholic priests safe when they were doing it.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:23 PM on August 22, 2006

/incidentally, my post is limited to the free speech issue. It’s not a free speech matter to engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime. It’s one thing to discuss a given potentially illegal topic even one as volatile as the one at hand or - purely for example - assassinating a president, it’s quite another matter to actively promote methods and give technical assistance. Which, given some of the reportage might well be the case, and so those people should be found and prosecuted.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:26 PM on August 22, 2006

Clearly, Squirrel, you don't have kids.

I'm all about free speech and thought as much as the next guy. But as a victim of psychosexual abuse myself, and now the mother of two one year olds, I can tell you that the damage is very real, and very widespread. And that there doesn't need to be any actual physical contact for the damage to be done.

There's a line...and these sickos cross it.

Kids or no kids, if you believe people should be punished for their desires, you're crossing a line I'm not willing to cross - and I don't want my government crossing it for me, either.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:25 PM on August 22, 2006

Banning desires is a rather Taliban-esque attitude. You wanna think twice before you blur the line between thought and action.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:03 PM on August 22, 2006

I'm all about free speech and thought as much as the next guy. But as a victim of psychosexual abuse myself, and now the mother of two one year olds, I can tell you that the damage is very real, and very widespread.

The damage is indeed real, OPL, but to say it's widespread calls into question what "it" is. If by "it" you mean strangers abducting children and killing them or sexually abusing them, you're wrong: it's not very common. If by "it" you mean children are assaulted by members of their family circle, you're right, it's sadly common.

Notwithstanding your unfortunate experiences of abuse as a child and paranoid terror as a parent, the fact remains that prosecuting people for their thoughts won't make the world any safer. In fact, exactly the oposite.
posted by squirrel at 11:31 PM on August 22, 2006

You wanna think twice before you blur the line between thought and action.

I think the law already thought about this problem a couple of times: "intent," anyone? The place where I get confused is when these guys start using the language of civil rights. I see that South Park episode, and I wonder how easily we might go back to, "Dude, you have sex with other men! You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you." Obviously there's a line... but these assholes are doing their level best to obscure it.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:00 AM on August 23, 2006

@squirrel: paranoid terror

Paranoid? I think not. As I said, spoken by someone who is clearly not a parent.

FWIW my own abuse was perpetrated not by family members but by strangers.

And, you say it's not very common - stats do not bear this out, mostly because so many cases go unreported.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 9:22 AM on August 23, 2006

Cite, please. MLA okay.

And, paranoid? Yeah. Anyone who wants to make what happened to her, personally, a case for a society-wide Orwellian crackdown is both paranoid and self-centered. I await your stats on the preponderance of stranger abductions. I'll match you tenfold with family abuse stats. Not to deminish what happened to you, but it's not that common, and doesn't warrant the current level of national hysteria. You're being used.

Also, leave my family out of this: you clearly don't know much about it. If your argument is that parenthood uniformly transforms people into self-centered, safety-over-libery delusionists then you've provided only one data point for that position.
posted by squirrel at 2:10 PM on August 23, 2006

I would think that inter-family abuse would be the abuse that is less reported anyways.
posted by Iax at 4:57 PM on August 23, 2006

Clearly, Squirrel, you don't have kids.

Clearly you don't have friends. Otherwise you would agree we should outlaw all violent videogames so our friends don't get shot.
posted by Citizen Premier at 7:20 PM on August 23, 2006

Touché, CP.
posted by squirrel at 8:31 AM on August 24, 2006