Would you allow your 13 year old child on this forum?

[Tubub]

btw, I have no idea why anyone would say "no" to this.... This forum isn't half as bad as an online video game or SCHOOL :rofl

 

[Agnapostate]

Some of us live in Candyland. :\

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I would say yes, and I think it would create some great discussions and create more involvement. That way I could supervise and talk more with my hypothetical kid.

And for those of you who think you know what your kids are doing, I have one word for you: sexting.

 

[B L Zeebub]

I would say yes, and I think it would create some great discussions and create more involvement. That way I could supervise and talk more with my hypothetical kid.

And for those of you who think you know what your kids are doing, I have one word for you: sexting.

I concur Mon Capitan, that is what I tried to portray in my post 42

 

[alexa]

I think the more important thing is that your child is aware of what goes on. For me the prime concern would be safety from pedophiles. The were not operating on the net when she was 13. She has never had much interest in the net but even when she was 13 she had an ability to protect herself by not giving her phone no to anyone except people she knew well and wanted to be friends with. I can remember how aware she and her friends were of all the scams people could get up to at that time and not all of that information came from me. She told me of a few of them!

So I would make sure she was crystal clear aware of dangers and then leave it up to her to make mistakes and then come to me to discuss them.

What I'm saying is safety re such people as pedophiles is paramount but that can be secured by letting your child be very aware of what is going on. The rest is a life learning experience.

 

[Agnapostate]

For me the prime concern would be safety from pedophiles. The were not operating on the net when she was 13.

And for the most part, they aren't now, contrary to popular belief spread through the propaganda of John Walsh and Chris Hansen.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And for the most part, they aren't now, contrary to popular belief spread through the propaganda of John Walsh and Chris Hansen.

That depends how you would defiine "pedophiles operation on the internet". Is it as much of a problem as the media may advertise? Not in as far as pedophiles luring children to them. But it most certainly exists and I have been involved in a number of cases where a child has been victimized. It is not something to be ignored.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Thats simple, throw the TV and Computer out of their bedroom windows, and communicate with them as young adults.

Preferably at a family meal around a dining table.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Thats simple, throw the TV and Computer out of their bedroom windows, and communicate with them as young adults.

Preferably at a family meal around a dining table.

Some of the best advice I've heard...and I have given this advice before, myself.

 

[Mira]

Having been exposed to the harsh reality too early with the civil war that started in Lebanon when I was 11, I wanted my son to fully enjoy his childhood as much as possible.

Only two years ago I subscribed him to a news magazine "Le Monde des Ados" designed for teens and now that he's 13 I encourage him to watch the news and ask questions.

I don't want him to base his political learning on the net because there's too much baseless crap being spread around. A forum such as this one would be too confusing for him even if I supervised.

I believe in the step by step learning and understanding of politics, not all at once.

 

[Agnapostate]

That depends how you would defiine "pedophiles operation on the internet". Is it as much of a problem as the media may advertise? Not in as far as pedophiles luring children to them. But it most certainly exists and I have been involved in a number of cases where a child has been victimized. It is not something to be ignored.

Then it's also necessary to consider the nature of "pedophiles," which you're of course aware of, but those who use the word in its colloquial sense would not be aware of. Pedophilia (as described in DSM-IV and the ICD) is a mental disorder wherein an individual is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Alone, it constitutes no legal offense, and is thus distinct from child sexual abuse (CSA), which is in turn distinct from Internet predation which does not alone prove the existence of either of the other two. For example, that poster that came here a while ago and was eventually banned after he admitted his crimes was both a pedophile and a child sexual abuser, and confessed to being both.

Moreover, while I don't deny the undoubtedly insightful value that your personal experience has brought you, we cannot pretend that anecdotal experiences are equivalent to empirical research based on statistical analysis of large data sets, simply because of the nature of the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors. For a quick analysis based on integration of several sources, I'd refer to sociologist Mike Males's Internet Safer for Kids than Church.

Projected from their random sample to the 10,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, the authors estimated perhaps 25 violent sex crimes against youths from online predators every year. By contrast, the 2006 Child Maltreatment study reports over 80,000 violent crimes, including 35,000 sex crimes, against teens age 12-17 every year perpetrated by their parents or caretakers. The dangers teens encounter online in a year are equal to about 6 hours of the danger they experience at home with their parents. Of course, many crimes against youth by internet predators no doubt go unreported, but so do most household crimes.

But knowing the role of the media in tabloidism and reckless sensationalization of certain stories, it doesn't surprise me to see empirical research simply rejected by the mass majority of people who choose to watch To Catch A Predator instead.

 

[alexa]

Then it's also necessary to consider the nature of "pedophiles," which you're of course aware of, but those who use the word in its colloquial sense would not be aware of. Pedophilia (as described in DSM-IV and the ICD) is a mental disorder wherein an individual is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Alone, it constitutes no legal offense, and is thus distinct from child sexual abuse (CSA), which is in turn distinct from Internet predation which does not alone prove the existence of either of the other two. For example, that poster that came here a while ago and was eventually banned after he admitted his crimes was both a pedophile and a child sexual abuser, and confessed to being both.

Moreover, while I don't deny the undoubtedly insightful value that your personal experience has brought you, we cannot pretend that anecdotal experiences are equivalent to empirical research based on statistical analysis of large data sets, simply because of the nature of the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors. For a quick analysis based on integration of several sources, I'd refer to sociologist Mike Males's Internet Safer for Kids than Church.



But knowing the role of the media in tabloidism and reckless sensationalization of certain stories, it doesn't surprise me to see empirical research simply rejected by the mass majority of people who choose to watch To Catch A Predator instead.

Are you suggesting that because there may be sensationalism which may make a situation appear more prevalent than it is, that we do not inform our children of dangers? I don't think anyone would want their child to be the one who is abused.

 

[Agnapostate]

Are you suggesting that because there may be sensationalism which may make a situation appear more prevalent than it is, that we do not inform our children of dangers? I don't think anyone would want their child to be the one who is abused.

Of course not, but will we be informing our children that they're statistically more likely to receive violent treatment at the hands of their parents than at the hands of "Internet predators" while we're at it? :shrug:

 

[alexa]

Of course not, but will we be informing our children that they're statistically more likely to receive violent treatment at the hands of their parents than at the hands of "Internet predators" while we're at it? :shrug:

Children can watch tv and gather their own information. The point is to protect. If that comes up in conversation then it will. If children are being abused by their parents they will be well aware of it.

Anyone can be anyone on the net and say they are anyone and a child needs to know that, including all the sort of things that child abusers can get up to. That does not mean telling the child everyone is up to it but it means letting the child be aware they may be.

I found it worked well letting my daughter be well aware of the potential dangers.

Ecstasy for instance hardly ever kills and she was aware of this but also that it could kill. The fact that it could kill was a strong deterrent to her experimenting. For me, as her Mum, I do not want my child to be the one killed by ecstasy so I piled on that it did happen and did also say but extremely rarely and did also say, but you never know whether you will be the one.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Then it's also necessary to consider the nature of "pedophiles," which you're of course aware of, but those who use the word in its colloquial sense would not be aware of. Pedophilia (as described in DSM-IV and the ICD) is a mental disorder wherein an individual is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Alone, it constitutes no legal offense, and is thus distinct from child sexual abuse (CSA), which is in turn distinct from Internet predation which does not alone prove the existence of either of the other two. For example, that poster that came here a while ago and was eventually banned after he admitted his crimes was both a pedophile and a child sexual abuser, and confessed to being both.

This is somewhat true, but muddies the issue a bit. Being a pedophile, as defined by the DSM-IV is NOT a legal offense. Acting on that disorder, in all jurisdictions that I know of IS a legal offense. Internet predation of an adult towards a prepubescent child may not definitively indicate the disorder. However, if that predation is sexual in nature, diagnostically, the diagnosis can be given, ethically. Again, unless these issues are acted on, nothing illegal is happening.

Moreover, while I don't deny the undoubtedly insightful value that your personal experience has brought you, we cannot pretend that anecdotal experiences are equivalent to empirical research based on statistical analysis of large data sets, simply because of the nature of the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors. For a quick analysis based on integration of several sources, I'd refer to sociologist Mike Males's Internet Safer for Kids than Church.

Note the comments in my post. I did not claim that my anectodal evidence supported the theory that internet pedophiles were as much as a problem as the media portrays them. In fact, I disputed that. My claim is that the problem exists, perhaps not as much as folks believe, but it is there.

And I would agree that places where pedophiles have easier physical access to children would be places where illegal activities would more likely occur.

But knowing the role of the media in tabloidism and reckless sensationalization of certain stories, it doesn't surprise me to see empirical research simply rejected by the mass majority of people who choose to watch To Catch A Predator instead.

Again, my position is NOT that the internet is rampant with pedophiles. Not what I claimed. My position is that these folks are not non-existent and are a danger, abait a lesser one that advertised.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Of course not, but will we be informing our children that they're statistically more likely to receive violent treatment at the hands of their parents than at the hands of "Internet predators" while we're at it? :shrug:

This is a bit of a fallacy. An individual whose parents have never been violent towards them is not more likely to be victimized by violent parents than an internet predator. One must look at this situation in relative terms.

 

[Agnapostate]

Children can watch tv and gather their own information. The point is to protect. If that comes up in conversation then it will. If children are being abused by their parents they will be well aware of it.

Anyone can be anyone on the net and say they are anyone and a child needs to know that, including all the sort of things that child abusers can get up to. That does not mean telling the child everyone is up to it but it means letting the child be aware they may be.

But that's the precise point. For the most part, extremely few people are deliberately concealing their identities on the Internet in order to conceal their intents of predation also. It's to that point that I generally don't believe that children or minors should suffer the imposition of excessive regulation or restriction of their Internet usage, just as one wouldn't reasonably expect women to suffer such, despite their physical vulnerability to more powerful men and potential for suffering predation in that regard.

I found it worked well letting my daughter be well aware of the potential dangers.

Ecstasy for instance hardly ever kills and she was aware of this but also that it could kill. The fact that it could kill was a strong deterrent to her experimenting. For me, as her Mum, I do not want my child to be the one killed by ecstasy so I piled on that it did happen and did also say but extremely rarely and did also say, but you never know whether you will be the one.

Fear of extreme statistical rarities probably prevents us from enjoying life more than dismissal of them as incredibly unlikely would. While that's not an excuse to live dangerously or recklessly (which would render those extreme statistical rarities less so), there's a risk of crashing your car and dying on the highway, of slipping on a bar of soap in the shower and breaking your neck, of your house's roof inexplicably crashing in on you, etc. Irrational fear of those possibilities won't eliminate them anyway, and there is such a things as being excessively "involved" in that sense.

 

[alexa]

But that's the precise point. For the most part, extremely few people are deliberately concealing their identities on the Internet in order to conceal their intents of predation also. It's to that point that I generally don't believe that children or minors should suffer the imposition of excessive regulation or restriction of their Internet usage, just as one wouldn't reasonably expect women to suffer such, despite their physical vulnerability to more powerful men and potential for suffering predation in that regard.

And if children are aware of potential dangers then there is no need to regulate their internet activity when they are 13.

Fear of extreme statistical rarities probably prevents us from enjoying life more than dismissal of them as incredibly unlikely would. While that's not an excuse to live dangerously or recklessly (which would render those extreme statistical rarities less so), there's a risk of crashing your car and dying on the highway, of slipping on a bar of soap in the shower and breaking your neck, of your house's roof inexplicably crashing in on you, etc. Irrational fear of those possibilities won't eliminate them anyway, and there is such a things as being excessively "involved" in that sense.

I knew that one was coming! I never told my daughter anything which was not the truth. She was doing gymnastics at 6 which is extremely dangerous - in fact too dangerous for her but when she developed a love of dance the constant danger of injury was not enough to stop her. She now teaches ballet and contemporary dance at a Professional college.

You cannot get through life without taking risks but there are some risks there is no point in taking.

 

[Agnapostate]

This is somewhat true, but muddies the issue a bit. Being a pedophile, as defined by the DSM-IV is NOT a legal offense. Acting on that disorder, in all jurisdictions that I know of IS a legal offense. Internet predation of an adult towards a prepubescent child may not definitively indicate the disorder. However, if that predation is sexual in nature, diagnostically, the diagnosis can be given, ethically. Again, unless these issues are acted on, nothing illegal is happening.

Actually, this itself muddles the issue somewhat, IMO. Internet sexual predation (which is more limited in scope even when it occurs than indicated by popular misconception, as previously mentioned; I don't believe that mere mention of sexual topics constitutes predation, and even rates of direct solicitation are inflated somewhat by researchers) directed toward prepubescent children (which typically isn't the issue focused on as much as Internet predation directed toward adolescent minors is, at any rate) is an indication of the disorder, but certainly not definitive proof, as you mentioned. However, even engagement in actual CSA is not necessarily sufficient for diagnosis, since the potential to be a situational offender without suffering from the disorder also exists. But nonetheless, you'll of course understand that it was necessary for me to make the clarification. The term "pedophile" is inaccurately used as being synonymous with any individual who engages in a sexual interaction with someone under the age of majority. As with the term "terrorist," disingenuous misrepresentations and distortions of accurate definitions can create the possibility for the usage of "amended" terms in ideological warfare.

Note the comments in my post. I did not claim that my anectodal evidence supported the theory that internet pedophiles were as much as a problem as the media portrays them. In fact, I disputed that. My claim is that the problem exists, perhaps not as much as folks believe, but it is there.

And I would agree that places where pedophiles have easier physical access to children would be places where illegal activities would more likely occur.

...

Again, my position is NOT that the internet is rampant with pedophiles. Not what I claimed. My position is that these folks are not non-existent and are a danger, abait a lesser one that advertised.

It's not a matter of slight distortion by media interests; it's a matter of the effective manufacture of alleged "realities" that are actually nonexistent through the utilization of mendaciously crafted propaganda designed to prey on primal fears. Do you have empirical data that indicates that Internet-based sexual predation is at least a relatively major phenomenon?

This is a bit of a fallacy. An individual whose parents have never been violent towards them is not more likely to be victimized by violent parents than an internet predator. One must look at this situation in relative terms.

I didn't claim otherwise; it's not necessary in order for us to still acknowledge the general reality of parents as a whole being more likely to commit violent actions against their children than Internet predators.

 

[Agnapostate]

And if children are aware of potential dangers then there is no need to regulate their internet activity when they are 13.

I agree (and wouldn't even recommend extensive regulation prior to that, actually), but I strongly doubt that others here would.

You cannot get through life without taking risks but there are some risks there is no point in taking.

Of course not. But even claiming that Internet sexual predation against children is a relatively major risk seems statistically dubious to me.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually, this itself muddles the issue somewhat, IMO. Internet sexual predation (which is more limited in scope even when it occurs than indicated by popular misconception, as previously mentioned; I don't believe that mere mention of sexual topics constitutes predation, and even rates of direct solicitation are inflated somewhat by researchers) directed toward prepubescent children (which typically isn't the issue focused on as much as Internet predation directed toward adolescent minors is, at any rate) is an indication of the disorder, but certainly not definitive proof, as you mentioned. However, even engagement in actual CSA is not necessarily sufficient for diagnosis, since the potential to be a situational offender without suffering from the disorder also exists. But nonetheless, you'll of course understand that it was necessary for me to make the clarification. The term "pedophile" is inaccurately used as being synonymous with any individual who engages in a sexual interaction with someone under the age of majority. As with the term "terrorist," disingenuous misrepresentations and distortions of accurate definitions can create the possibility for the usage of "amended" terms in ideological warfare.

It is true that the term pedophile is often misused. Much of what you say is accurate, though some clarifications are necessary. Mentioning sexual topics towards a prepubescent child, in a specific context, is a strong indicator of internet predation. I am not claiming absolutes. here, but these kinds of behaviors are warning signs. Also, a situational offender may or may not be a diagnosable pedophile. It depends on the co-morbidity of other disorders, but also depends on other symptoms. Again, this is not so clear cut and dry.

This is not an epidemic, but the problem certainly exists.

It's not a matter of slight distortion by media interests; it's a matter of the effective manufacture of alleged "realities" that are actually nonexistent through the utilization of mendaciously crafted propaganda designed to prey on primal fears. Do you have empirical data that indicates that Internet-based sexual predation is at least a relatively major phenomenon?

I don't agree that it's been manufactured. The problem exists. I also don't agree that it is a major phenomenon...I never claimed that it was.

I didn't claim otherwise; it's not necessary in order for us to still acknowledge the general reality of parents as a whole being more likely to commit violent actions against their children than Internet predators.

This may be true, but from a relative standpoint, for some it is more likely to be harmed by an internet predator than a violent parent. Kinda like the warning about the likelihood of hearing gun shots in Beverly Hills vs. downtown Detroit.

 

[alexa]

I agree (and wouldn't even recommend extensive regulation prior to that, actually), but I strongly doubt that others here would.

Obviously this would depend on the child's age and ability.

Of course not. But even claiming that Internet sexual predation against children is a relatively major risk seems statistically dubious to me.

No, the point is not to say that half the people they meet on the net will be pedophiles but simply that because you don't know who they are they could be anyone including pedophiles or any other kind of pervert or nutter. Stories come out on the news for discussion.

Really I think it just comes under basic understanding of the internet and self preservation.

 

[Agnapostate]

It is true that the term pedophile is often misused. Much of what you say is accurate, though some clarifications are necessary. Mentioning sexual topics towards a prepubescent child, in a specific context, is a strong indicator of internet predation. I am not claiming absolutes. here, but these kinds of behaviors are warning signs. Also, a situational offender may or may not be a diagnosable pedophile. It depends on the co-morbidity of other disorders, but also depends on other symptoms. Again, this is not so clear cut and dry.

In terms of discussion of such topics being an "indicator of internet predation," my libertarian sentiments of course also incline me to realize that application of such labels is merely one step closer to censorship empowered by disingenuous intellectual warfare that could ultimately constitute a far more negative element than mere discussion of said topics. I certainly didn't claim that anything was "clear cut and dry"; I merely thought it necessary to offer a clarification. Not all pedophiles are sexual offenders and not all sexual offenders against children are pedophiles. Even if the former assertion is accepted, some are prone to challenge the latter assertion no matter how detailed the explanation provided to them is, which is unfortunate.

I don't agree that it's been manufactured. The problem exists. I also don't agree that it is a major phenomenon...I never claimed that it was.

Then I suppose it's a matter of mere subjectivity. I think the phenomenon is minor enough to warrant conversational mention of it anomalous. But then again, I also don't believe that restricting children's access to information of any sort serves any meaningful purpose to begin with, and am more often greeted with anecdotal speculation than legitimate responses when I request the provision of empirical evidence that indicates that some legitimate harm is caused to children through exposure to certain media. IMO, the converse is more likely to be true. As put by Richard Farson, "a child's ignorance is a strong political ally of adult society, and adults have learned to rely heavily on it...Women have now come to recognize how being excluded from businessmen's luncheon clubs where the power elite of the business world plan and decide, has systematically denied them access to the kinds of information they need to gain leadership positions. The same kind of exclusion takes place with children, only more so."

This may be true, but from a relative standpoint, for some it is more likely to be harmed by an internet predator than a violent parent. Kinda like the warning about the likelihood of hearing gun shots in Beverly Hills vs. downtown Detroit.

Again, I don't disagree. The problem that I identify is that operating primarily from that approach may create an incomplete and ultimately incorrect depiction of the actual dangers that children face in both their homes and the Internet. I believe it should be made clear that as a whole, children are frankly far more likely to encounter violent abuse in the former.

Obviously this would depend on the child's age and ability.

I'd entirely scrap the former based on individual appraisal of the latter.

No, the point is not to say that half the people they meet on the net will be pedophiles but simply that because you don't know who they are they could be anyone including pedophiles or any other kind of pervert or nutter. Stories come out on the news for discussion.

We return to reliance on the television and print media, where obvious interests lie in attacking the credibility and the nature of the Internet, an increasingly powerful competitor. No, we technically *don't* know who many people on the Internet are, but I'm of the opinion that the premise that it's truly necessary for us to know because of safety concerns is ridiculously overinflated to begin with.

Really I think it just comes under basic understanding of the internet and self preservation.

No, I don't agree. I understand that you're trying to base this matter in "common sense" terms, but frankly, depicting an extreme statistical rarity as even a relatively moderate danger is inaccurate and we ought to acknowledge that reality.

 

[B L Zeebub]

one of the thing I find interesting is that as a 58yrs old father having fought in a war in 67, I was having a conversation with some American vets who asked if it was in Vietnam, I replied unfortunately not we did not have child prostitutes and ganja, they then took my response literally and regaled me with various tales they seemed proud of.

This is not unique to that war.

It also does not seem to emerge when they return home, in fact quite the reverse on face value, two vets of the Malaysian conflict in my area that I new when younger,also regaled me with these stories.

They as grandparents lead a protest to have a registered sex offender removed from the area.

Port Limon Costa Rica is a very popular Cruise Ship destination, security on some ships I know keep a very close eye on the passengers children right through the cruise, because they know why some passengers visit that place.


I will not set foot in Thailand, the sight of some fat Westerner on a moped with a very young child on the pillion is to much for me.

I have to much respect for myself to lend the slightest credibility to countries that have thriving sex tourism industries.

Do you visit these countries?

 

[alexa]

I'd entirely scrap the former based on individual appraisal of the latter.

what are you talking about?

We return to reliance on the television and print media, where obvious interests lie in attacking the credibility and the nature of the Internet, an increasingly powerful competitor. No, we technically *don't* know who many people on the Internet are, but I'm of the opinion that the premise that it's truly necessary for us to know because of safety concerns is ridiculously overinflated to begin with.

we rely on hearing of news that this has happened and discussing this with our children. It is you who has the problem with the number.

No, I don't agree. I understand that you're trying to base this matter in "common sense" terms, but frankly, depicting an extreme statistical rarity as even a relatively moderate danger is inaccurate and we ought to acknowledge that reality.

Again it is you who has the problem with the number. Not making your child aware of situations which could be dangerous to that child is negligence.