Talk:Child predators on the Internet

	This Crime related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs updating and cleanup.

Not too bad

Not too bad for a atart! Could use a few footnotes though, I think. If you need help putting them in wikistyle just ask. human^{be in} 21:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I found one!

Over here Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol, nice. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Power imbalance

See also: Essay:Grand unified anti-feminist manifesto

One of the arguments for statutory rape laws is that there's a power imbalance between an underage minor and an adult. In a scenario where a 13-year-old is approaching an adult online, volunteering his address, and inviting the guy to travel across the U.S. to have sex with him, is there a power imbalance? What is preventing the teen from fending the predator off by saying, "No thanks" and blocking him, as opposed to saying "Here's where I live; don't forget to bring the condoms, and remember, I like strawberry peach-flavored wine coolers"? To me, that sounds like it's the teen who's really calling the shots and getting the adult to do what he wants.

The son of a friend of my mine used to brag to his mom about how he could easily find gay men who would pay him several hundred dollars a night for sex. In that way, he was able to afford a lifestyle where he wasn't financially dependent on his mom, and she couldn't tell him any longer, "As long as you're under my roof, you obey my rules." (His mom was a lesbian who had him by some random guy she got to fuck her so she could have a kid, which adds further support for my argument that dads are NOT as dispensable as feminists would have people believe.)

At what point do we have to conclude that it's really the teens who are in the driver's seat, and behaving in a way that borders on exploitation of horny adults who have no choice but to obey their instructions and pay exorbitant prices if they want to fulfill their fantasies?

People often say it's adults who are able to prey on teens' desire for affection, approval, etc. How is that a stronger drive, that renders people more susceptible to manipulation, than adults' sexual urges? It's one thing to bring up teens' physical dependence on adults for the necessities of life, but once we get into the territory of factors that make people susceptible to psychological coercion, it gets really iffy because some adults have as little self-control as teenagers.

Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you noticed that it's mostly arguments raised by men that result in citations of Poe's Law, as opposed to arguments raised by women? When was the last time someone said, "Wow, that feminist argument is so crazy, it almost seems like parody"? Anything they say has to be taken seriously, as an actionable complaint against a legitimate oppression, because to do otherwise is to engage in misogynistically condescending "mansplaining." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So the only reason why you made this bogus argument based on an anecdote and a bunch of conjecturing is so you could launch a sneery well-you-always-take-women-seriously-when-they-make-crazy-arguments riposte? Pff. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't the ONLY reason. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's subreddit called Tumblr in Action dedicated to exposing "feminists" and similar people whose views are so absurd they are probably Poes. Also,

"(His mom was a lesbian who had him by some random guy she got to fuck her so she could have a kid, which adds further support for my argument that dads are NOT as dispensable as feminists would have people believe.)"

After reading tons of this stuff in your gigantic "essay," either you're absolutely retarded - and I don't even like using that term - or are the most extreme Poe since Assfly himself. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The theoretical situation you suggest is even rarer than the already incredibly rare situation of child sexual abuse online. I'm not sure where you got this incident from, but, uh, purchasing sex from a minor is usually a crime. For a reason. But the youth are unlikely to be prosecuted for this. And the adults have a problem if they can't resist the urge to ask random kids for sex. 45.89.173.196 (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Entrapment

It appears that this article misuses the term "entrapment" as it is used within the context of the practice of law. Merely offering an opportunity to commit a crime is NOT entrapment. Rather, entrapment is accurately defined as conducting one's self in such a way that it causes a person to commit a crime that was not otherwise predisposed to having committed a crime in the first place. I would look to community consensus on how we should go about making the appropriate edits on this point. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I think it is reasonable to suggest we should revisit how the page is covered especially since it was made in 2007 (and it shows with the To Catch a Predator references). The Web is different now; Internet saturation has increased and police now have more on their hands than before. Predators have more advanced tools to evade police, and now collude with one another. We should maybe even place this in draftspace. Chillpilled (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was largely written before the days of Tor and Telegram, as well as there being much more "online" kids these days, leading to much greater opportunities for predators to target them there. (Or, at the very least, leave creepy comments on YouTube videos, one of many sites that have had a "pedo controversy" of some sort since this article was conceived). The "advice for parents" page doesn't even mention things like filtering software (something that I honestly is probably a good idea for parents of young ones these days).

On the other hand, the moral panic over online predators and adjacent (which is really what the current page targets) has grown considerably as well; this web page doesn't mention QAnon, Pizzagate, and Frazzledrip either. BobJohnson (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

To improve the page I would read and relay up-to-date advice for parents given by reliable groups who are familiar with common predatory tactics, which are meticulous so it's beneficial to be just as meticulous in preempting them. In looking real quick, I came across a report by the UK government trying to justify its Online Safety Act 2023 last year which made me think there could be groups putting out info that may not be completely reliable (same government that put out an anti-protest bill the same time). The stuff you mentioned at the end there is about alleging real life trafficking which is less relevant. I noticed in reading this page, it seems to have been written in response to fearmongering 15+ years ago about people from the Internet randomly showing up to kidnap your child if they're allowed to talk to anyone ever (which was dead absurd back then since kids mostly just played heavily-moderated games with their school friends, but things have maybe changed somewhat). Chillpilled (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the original poster's complaints (which I assumed were removed due to linking to Kiwi Farms), as far as I can tell neither Nathan Larson nor Emil Kirkegaard have ever edited the article (though the dubious men's rights extremist account apparently held a fit on the talkpage). The "online predators aren't usually pedophiles" claim was added by User:Analyst after the original version said they were pedophiles and somehow that change slipped under the radar for over 15 years (fortunately, it's now gone). Given the account has done so little else, I'm not sure it's worth taking action on the account, though they have an edit on bestiality that is also a little suspect. Otherwise, the main body of text is largely unchanged from the the original from 2008, which is a bit problematic given that it was completely unsourced. Though I don't think the article is as bad as the ones that got pruned a full rewrite is not out of the question here. Plutocow (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious why that sentence was removed. But some online extortion of children going on these days seems to be financially rather than sexually motivated: they'll get compromising photos then threaten to release them if they don't send money (reportedly rich kids are often the targets). Another type of abuse going on is more motivated by general sadism, and I think that one tells us something about why phallometry tests on child sex offenders don't always turn out how you'd expect. Some child sexual abuse probably is a weird sadistic, misanthropic, or punitive thing, kind of a form of torture or humiliation more than the perpetrator getting their rocks off (though to be clear I'm not downplaying that being the motivation in many cases as well). The kind of people who kick dogs for the thrill I would suppose. Chillpilled (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)