I don't know how popular (or if it is even heard of) outside of the USA but sometimes (for shits and giggles) I watch Dateline NBC's To catch a predator. The show basically catched adults (regardless of orientation) trying to get it on with allegedly under aged children (actually young adult actors) and are caught in the act (well not starting but coming to the house with sole intent). Cops then wait outside and arrest the pedophile (without intervention from NBC of course). The show kinda worries me on how adults can have a 'thing' for innocent underage children. Statutory Rape is a well established law in most modern countries. Minors are deemed incapable of 'consenting' to advances and argues that an adult would be 'corrupting a minor'. This is not only in regards to this matter, but minors aren't considered to have legal standing in contracts for this reason (needs endorsement of a parent/guardian). Kansas law further defines that with its "Romeo & Juliet" law. If someone more than 18 years old has 'relations' with someone underage that is more than 4 years younger, then it qualifies as statutory rape (if not the penalty is lower). I guess in some cultures it is widely accepted. And that is OK I guess if it is acceptable in respect to other's cultures. Some people may also fantasize too I guess. But there is a big distinction between fantasy and reality (like actually doing it). Morality is subjective to the people. But in the US, the majority dictates that this conduct is unacceptable. If and when that changes in the future, no one knows. Traditionally, the US is much more conservative then most places on Earth. I for this discussion will not even touch the topic of religion. But I just feel that younger children should be nurtured and cherished, not exerted upon. I personally have no attraction to young people. I prefer more 'grown up' people who have matured emotionally (and physically). But that is just my orientation. But in the US, shame to those who would cause ruin on the future lives of others (emotional distress, messes up their sense of right and wrong, etc). To me, there is no excuse or justification for this. If you really needed to at least go and 'rent'. That would be infinitely better than this. I would also like to take this chance to see what you guys think on this matter. Poll time! wewt! Poll is totally confidential.
ALso I found it rather humoring that I turned on Foobar2000 and I started listening to Nirvana - Rape Me.
Hmm.. IMHO, baiting is not ethically correct, and should not be done. It's one thing to catch a sexual offender, it's quite another thing to dangle a carrot in front of a non-offender and hope he/she bites. Look at the Internet. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that focus from all sorts of sexual "inclinations", from S&M to teen sex to incest. Evidently, there is a HUGE market for non-standard sex. Maybe regular porn has become boring. LOL.... Be that as it may, it does not mean that those who download and view such materials are necessarily sexual offenders, or intend to be. If it was such the case, then I'm pretty sure there would be many, many times more cases of sexual offences. Case in point - Japan. The Japs are famous for their penchant for schoolgirls and rape (by men, tentacles, aliens, etc.). Videos and photos of those acts (acted or simulated) are legal. But does that mean that Japanese men are rapists or paedophiles? How many cases of rapes and paedophilia are there really in Japan? Can this be read as a sign that porn alleviates such sexual fantasies... or has very little to do with enticing people to do it, instead of merely enjoying the fantasy? Coming back to the US, it's really quite amusing to see lawmakers determine that someone who is old enough to be drafted and sent to war is not old enough to vote or drink or even have sex in certain situations. Is sex really so wrong that it must be strictly regulated and offenders criminally punished (as opposed to a civil punishment)? What happened to make love, not war? LOL! This is even more ironic as it is quite hard to determine how old a girl/boy is these days. Thanks to the hormones in the food we eat, kids are growing up and reaching puberty much earlier than before. When I was in the US, I was stunned to learn that a young lady (whom I thought was at least 18-19) was really just 15!!!! Even more recently, I met a girl who behaved just like a college girl and yet was only 15. Coincidentally, I just watched an episode of Law & Order SVU where a guy was investigated for being a paedophile just because he slept with a girl with Turner's Syndrome (who looked 14 when she was really 17 or 18?). So what does this mean? Should someone be considered a paedophile because he/she sleeps with someone who LOOKS young... or is chronologically young? You can't have it both ways. If you punish those who have sex with chronologically young girls/boys, does that mean their maturity (physically or mentally) is irrelevant? Is chronological age more important than actual physical or mental maturity? But what about those who are chronogically old enough but look or act immaturely (like the mentally-disabled or those who are just immature)? Should they not have the right to have sex? Or are they too immature to decide? Who should decide for them? Who should be the judge and jury? IMHO, this issue is far more important for any one person / party / culture to decide. We can say that it should be determined by the majority of the people, but is there even a referendum or survey of what the people think? What's acceptable or not acceptable differs not only from culture to culture and people to people, but also from time to time. Homosexuality used to be not only illegal but a crime punishable by death. In a way, it was probably looked on as worse than paedophilia or beastiality. But now it's not only legal in the US, it's even celebrated. What does that tell you about the sexual mores of our society or any society? Whether for good or for bad, our society will always change what they perceive to be acceptable or not. If we can move from the acceptable practice of women baring their breasts in ancient Greece/Egypt and even the days of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars; to the current practice of enclosing them in bras (discounting the bra-burning days of the 60s), it is conceivable that what is currently NOT acceptable MAY eventually become acceptable in the future and become unacceptable again. Mankind is fickle-minded. In fact, it's becoming a fad to go bra-less these days! IMHO, one's sexual preference is his/her own business. The most important thing is for both (okay, all parties involved!) to be fully aware of the consequences and fully consensual. If you want to have a menage a troi or quad... or do it with a she-male, transvestite, dog/cat/etc., that's really your business, as long as everyone knows what they are doing.. and fully consent to it. Coming back to Dateline NBC's show, I haven't watched it yet, but IMHO it's in poor taste. Those they caught may not even know they are dating someone under-age. They may be legally under-age, but they may look far more matured. Even if they specifically say they are below 18, it is still wrong. These folks may NEVER have taken the step to sleep with someone so young if no one enticed them. Sometimes it may not even be the fact that they are young. It COULD be the feeling that someone is at least interested in you. For men, nothing is a bigger aphrodisiac (and ego-booster!) than someone saying she is interested in having sex with you. LOL! So, by baiting them, NBC may be incriminating people who would normally never have thought about sleeping with underaged kids. I believe if you bait them with an older but beautiful woman, they would just as easily fall for them. IMHO for some, if not all or many, of these guys, it's the idea of being seduced or the attention that catches them, not the actual idea of sleeping with someone underaged. If NBC wants to be TRULY serious about catching paedophiles, they should at least do a double-blind test. Test the guy or lady out with a beauty or stud of legal age. If he/she is not interested in the older girl/guy but wants to sleep only with a young child, then there is something wrong with him/her. But how can you be sure that this is a paedophile simply because he/she was baited, and only once at that? True paedophiles are repeat offenders, and will not stop at that one bait.
Just a clarification. they are not baited. The team posing as little kids are approached by people followed by descriptions of what they intend to as well as nude poses. The underage status is clearly stated before hand but some people still continue to make advances and want to meet up. Thats when they get caught. its not some random Joe with a hormonal influx. They are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into. That in of itself should prompt people to stop. Why? its illegal here. legality can change but currently, it is what it is. The show is not trickery. People drive a few hours to 'have a go' with these so called underage kids. Thats plenty of time for people to consider their actions. No one that doesn't show up is pursued. People who confess on camera are taken in. its not like the actors go to people's houses asking them if they want to go for a round (that would be entrapment - NBC never leads them on - no questions like do you want to do it?). People solicate, confirm age, declare intent, come equipped, and confess. Thats about as concrete as it gets. Cops handle the rest (NBC doesnt act like cops or anything). And I would like to make a distinction. I know high school girls can be quite the looker. Its one thing to see something beautiful, and its another thing to actively be pursuing one that you willingly know is too young. there is a thin fine line between fantasizing and actually actively pursuing it (its called reality). Distinction is there no matter how blurred it can be at times. As for the young being drafted, Selective Services maintains a list of 18-25 year old male citizens. 18 is considered a legal adult (not drinking adult though). The draft has ceased to exist for quite a while now. But for the purpose of this discussion, lets narrow it down to people you KNOW are underage. I would rather not dabble in the legal complications as I am not qualified for such. And no, if I had a daughter that was 13 and a 30 year old man showed interest while I was away (at my house enticing her with some candy or money or what ever - I would teach my kids better than that though), its time to break out the shotgun (so long as its still in the house and i manage to save her).
to further develop against the entrapment thing. The judge would have thrown out the case (the people are actually prosecuted with felony counts most of the time) if there was any indication of entrapment but like I said, the people are never led to do anything. Its all willful on their own. they know that the alleged person is under aged but still continue their advances. most of these people are kinda weirdos who are repeat offenders anyways. The level of Consideration on the part of the alleged molestor is very high (not led to do anything, had plenty of time to change their mind or not come to the house). Not defending the show or anything (I have no stake in it). It's just what it is (I find it unique how they and undercover officers can ride the fine thin line).
Oii.. Not asleep yet??? Hahaha.. I love playing the devil's advocate. Heheh.. Oh well, I haven't seen it yet, so I really cannot comment on it beyond what I read here. Hmm.. It would be quite different if that was the case, although I personally believe there should be at least a double-blind test. There is still a difference in someone being curious about having sex with an underage child and a real paedophile. BTW, are there pictures of how these young girls/guys look like? I mean, it would really make a BIG difference if they look young.. or much older. When I saw the two 15 year-old girls I mentioned earlier, I sure was attracted. Heck, everyone who saw them were equally as attracted. Who wouldn't be attracted by two pretty, "college" girls? But does that make them paedophiles? If so, then we are ALL in trouble! Even though I'm not a parent, I understand how parents would look at the matter from their POV. Putting myself in their shoes, I would also bring out the parang (machete) and go after the 30-year old guy or woman who is after my 13-year old daughter or son. But I also have to temper that "basic instinct" with the fact that I want my children to learn and understand the responsibility and consequences of their own actions. It is far more important for me to educate them about making the right choices for themselves (not for me) than it is for me to hover over them like a Predator UAV (pun intended)! Frankly, even as parents, we cannot always be there for the children. They must learn to make their own choices and learn from the consequences. Granted, getting raped or having sex against your will is one consequence no children should have to learn from. This makes it even more important that they should be properly informed and educated. We must remember that children will always rebel at some point in time. It would be best for them to make the right choices on their own, rather than have it imposed on them. Who knows... some children may even consent to having sex with paedophiles just to spite their parents. So, IMHO, parents should think more about arming their children with information and teaching them to make the right, informed choices; rather than imposing our values on them.
Oh yes, I totally agree that education is equally needed from the parents. though education is not a safe guarantee. But a predator is one that feeds for soley their own benefit. And to reiterate, I'm not saying I don't go against natural instinct. Sometimes when I walk around I see high schoolers that have 'developed' pretty well and I'd be like wow. Does that make me a predator? No. Just the nature of me being a functional male. However, with me knowing full well that they are 'jail bait', would I ever knowingly go out and engage with them? It's on thing to admire beauty, and its a totally different thing to try and prey off of them. But no one should feel dirty just because they find a teen attractive. I appreciate beauty but thats where it ends for me. A flag pops up saying "No Touchy" (quite literally ). Plus, you know if one is underage. I'm very good at spotting them on first glance, but I guess I am more intuitive... All one has to do really is take into account more than just the visual cues. Also we were all young, we were all curious. Did we know any of the ramifications of half of the things we do? Nope. So if a predator comes in and capitalizes on that. So if a predator comes in and tries to feed off children, who's at fault? Who's at fault when someone forces themselves to another? Who's at fault when a trusted guardian breaches their fiduciary duties? No amount of education can trully prevent that. When it comes to being preyed upon, regardless of education, these people try and bypass that (any type of predator for that matter). As for the actors, they look real young. LOL! And they use these funny ass voices too.. And no, I won't be hounding over my kids when/if I have any. It will be hard (oh boy was I a full time job LMAO!) but one can only do their best and hope for it as well.
Thats the kinda crap I'm talking about. Predators. It is beyond the simple concept of attraction. Its on who puts on sheeps clothing for a sole purpose.
You must have a good eye. Damn, sometimes I can't tell one from the other. Some girls dress up like college girls so well, you just can't tell them apart from schoolgirls. That's the thing. How do you determine if it was consensual or not? But right now, I believe the law does not take that into account. As long as chronologically you are too young, the law says it's wrong and that's the end of it. Then again, over here in Malaysia, if you have the parents' permission, you CAN legally marry and have sex with a 16-year old. Should the 16-year old girl not have the right to decide whether she wants to marry the guy or not? Apparently not. So, does this not constitute rape and paedophilia? I think it does, if the girl does not consent. But at that age, her parents have the right to decide for her. IMHO, that's just wrong. But like many have said, the law is not meant to be fair or just. There are cut-and-dry examples of paedophilia and rape, like this case of a Russian girl who was adopted by a guy who forced her to be his sex slave against her will. Now, that's just plain wrong. On the other hand, there have been many cases where young girls have gotten older men in trouble by enticing them to have sex with them... and later, when jilted or something goes wrong, points the finger at them and gets them jailed. IMHO, the law may say that they are wrong but I think it's a gray area and the girls are definitely just as guilty as the guys. If I were their parents, I would be the first to whip their asses. Or take the case of the older woman and a young boy. That has happened on quite a few occasions as well... even on Desperate Housewives. Okay, so John Rowland was supposed to be a 17-year old teenager, but how do you decide a cut-off point? Let's say it's 16. Why 16? Do you automatically become physically or mentally adult when you cross over to 16? I believe there is also some kind of underground community advocating the difference between paedophilia and young love. Or something like that. I guess the difference would be something along the line I mentioned - mainly consent between all involved parties. Whether right or wrong, I think some innocent people will be hurt. As our society grapples with the issue, some will inevitably get caught in the crossfire. I don't envy them. In fact, I think sometimes it would be good for society to take a couple of steps back and think clearly. We need more devil's advocates. Why? Because in today's society (well at least in the US), paedophilia is considered a big sin. So, anyone even accused of it is automatically disgraced. Even if he/she is later found to be completely innocent, there is no way to retract what had been said. In a way, raping underage girls/boys is now a crime far worse than murdering a person. So much so that some of us seem more than willing to throw out the precept of innocent until proven guilty, preferring instead to believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire. I really pity anyone caught up in this mess. I would prefer to be accused of murder. I remember reading sometime ago that it was customary for Ancient Greek (scholars?) and Japanese samurai to have sex with their young (I presume underage!) students. I'm glad I didn't live in those times! Hahaha.. But I suppose that if it was acceptable for both homosexuality AND paedophilia to be practiced in the open in those days, it could be conceivable for paedophilia to be acceptable in the future. Of course, there's always the argument that we learn from our mistakes. Paedophilia is probably one of those mistakes we should not relearn. But it would be interesting to see an ancient Greek scholar or a Japanese samurai explain his side of the story to the FBI!!! Oh, I would like to add quite righteously that we MEN have been grossly maligned in this issue. In today's society, it's okay for kids to talk to women but not to men. Oh, no... we men are evil beasts, and will rape any kids that do not have a parent to protect them. Hahaha... Seriously. Yes, there are more male sexual predators than female ones. But that does not mean the other 99.999% of the male population are equally as evil. Which is why I think it's important to teach the kids to protect themselves, instead of considering all adult males as evil beasts. Not only will this help them protect themselves when we are not around, they will not be discouraged from approaching other adults for help, esp. if the predator is a WOMAN! On a more serious and local note, I'm not sure if you read about the Nurin case, where the poor girl died after her demented kidnapper stuffed a cucumber and a brinjal (eggplant) up her privates, rupturing her intestines in the process. IMHO, THIS is the kind of paedophile and rapist you want to be looking for. This is the kind of person we should be concentrating on... We need to hunt down and lock these bastards away for life. If I was up to me, I would focus on these bastards before I even bother about someone who slept with a girl/boy 4 years younger.
Hmm.. That is too much. The guy should be hunted down, although I'm glad she was not harmed. That is a big relief. No matter whether she was raped or had sex with the man, it is far more important (to me at least) that she is ALIVE! But IMHO, this case is proof that educating the kids is key to "prevention". No one can protect the kids by monitoring everything they do. They will always find a way around your monitoring. It's best to teach them to think for themselves. That way, they can protect themselves whenever we are not around. Even the strictest parent cannot always be there for the child.
Like I said, what people do is their business (who they are attracted to). My focal point is these people who commit these heinous crimes. People who actually prey on others. No amount of education can prevent that. Sheep dogs protect the sheep (and educate them in this case). But the wolves always manage to pick one out once in a while. I don't care about what people feel about ooh that teenage actor or this or that. Those are harmless and besides the point (for we are mere humans). These predators on the other hand, are the lowest of life forms. What human with half a mind could possibly do that to a young one? Like I said, its one thing to find a younger person attractive. Its a totally different thing to actively prey on them. Very strong distinction between the too. Absolutely nothing wrong with the former. As for the latter, they should be shot. As for marrying why is it a problem? Minors cannot engage in a legally binding contract (which what marriage is - Prenuptual agreement). Relating back to the show, they catch these types of criminals. People who are trying to prey on little kids. Not peeping toms or people who glance, but predators (hence the title of the show).
What Adrian is trying to about about minors marrying is that, they should have the rights to agree instead of their parents signing the contract for them completely. If the minors say no, the parents should at least oblige.
Eh PsY, the prenup is different. That's a pre-marital agreement between two parties in the event they divorce later. Yeah, if that's what they really do, then yeah, it could possibly help the police nab these guys before they do any harm to another kid. But I can't help wondering how the bait was set. IMHO it would be okay if they set up the sting in an Internet medium that the "predator" frequents, like an IRC channel, or a forum. But it would not be quite ethical if they directly e-mail him to entice him. BTW, do they target women? Or just men?
Yup, that's what I meant. Some girls are married out to total strangers, sometimes over 50 years old. I don't think the girls would agree to such a marriage, but they don't have the right to refuse the marriage. IMHO, children should be empowered to make informed decisions. That includes deciding on the person they want to marry and live with. It would be a double-standard if we were to strictly regulate sexual relations, while allowing the practice of forcibly marrying off underage girls to continue. Again, my opinion is always of informed consent. No matter what your sexual preference is, it's your business as long as everyone involved consents. IMHO, sex should be fun and free (as in unencumbered by restrictions!!)!
BTW, is there a grade for sexual offenders??? Maybe something like this? Grade 0a - Curious about young boys / girls of 16-18 years. Grade 0b - Curious about young boys / girls younger than 16 years. Grade 1a - Fantasizes about young boys / girls of 16-18 years. Grade 1b - Fantasizes about young boys / girls younger than 16 years. ... ... ... Grade 9 - Violent. Tortures children. Grade 10 - Violent. Kills children. Etc...?? IMHO, a grading system will help law enforcement officers focus on the more severe cases like the recent Nurin case. It will also help the public distinguish between really sick homocidal killers, "plain jane" sexual predators and the just curious.
