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

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.