[Closed] Apparently 1 in 35 adult males...

Makes you question humanity.

Not really. It makes you question how on earth they arrive at these figures.

Did they find that out by an internet survey? Or those women with clipboards on high streets.

"excuse me sir.... do you mind if we ask you a couple of questons...?"

[i]"excuse me sir.... do you mind if we ask you a couple of questons..."[/i]

so you're saying the figures are more like 1 in 10?! 😯

Not really. It makes you question how on earth they arrive at these figures.

Agreed, I'd like to see the methodology before getting too wound up by that figure.

Not really. It makes you question how on earth they arrive at these figures.

17/18 years olds liking 14/15 year olds by any chance ?

Well given that the legal definition of 'child' is anyone under the age of 18 I would say that the figure is more like 100% rather than 2.9%.

Even if we take a more realistic interpretation of 'child', sexual interest in say a 15 year old does not make you a paedophile or even a deviant. Even actually having sex with a 15 year old doesn't make you a paedophile. It might make you a criminal in need of prosecution (though in my view not necessarily in all cases, for example, where a consensual couple are both 15), but that isn’t the same thing.

This is where we run into the huge problem of how the terms used to describe the problem are used naively, interchangeably and incorrectly. If by ‘child’ you mean ‘pre-pubescent’ then that’s where you run into serious problems on all fronts.

In other news, voluntarily listening to 5Live has been officially* classed as self-harm.

officially = someone in an office said it

What's the ncs?

What are they classifying as a child; under 18, under 16 etc? If it's under 18 but over 16 whilst potentially morally objectionable it's not illegal. I guess there's a moral difference between a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old and a 45 year old doing the same. Until you get the details you can't really judge.

I guess there's a moral difference between a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old and a 45 year old doing the same.

Well morality is relative so I can't say you're wrong, but I couldn't disagree with you more. There is however a 'morale' difference - imagine the morale of the 45 year old after that encounter!

No one should really be in a position to judge the morality of who has sex with whom for as long as no laws are broken and no duties of care or professional ethical boundaries are compromised (i.e. teacher/pupil, patient/doctor etc). After all, that was what kept homosexuality illegal for so long.

Can open.

Worms everywhere.

As it should be

so do 1 in 35 adult mails view the daily mail online?
that regularly has sexualised imagery of children and speaks of celebrity's children in sexual terms .Or that classic champion of the rights to a childhood the Sun that had a countdown to a girl reaching the age of consent?

Agree with geetee1972. One persons morals differ from another, which is generally why we have laws. Unless a law has been broken it's just one persons opinion vs another's. But makes a nice headline and that's what matters.

i say this one will make 300 posts easy....

Who published the numbers, not a child abuse charity trying to drum up funds?

Can open.

Worms everywhere.

Under age worms or adult worms?

The problem is that it's impossible to criticise this stuff without people saying "Well he's clearly a nonce" 😕

But I think most people would agree that there is a pretty huge difference in scale between:
- frequenting a gentleman's website which includes the "teen" category (e.g. 18/19 year olds, or at least older models acting as such)
- being attracted to a 17 year old
- being attracted to underage post-pubescent children (hebephilia)
- being attracted to pre-pubescent children ([i]actual[/i] paedophilia)
- being attracted to very young children (infantophilia)

Did they ask in the UK or in Thailand?

Or if they asked in Africa they would find it normal for adult males to have very young brides.

This came up a while ago didn't it? Or was it on More or Less or Radio4?

They showed pbotos of people of vatious ages to the group and got them to say yes/no (bit like tinder then). Then they just filtered the results to see at what age people stopped finding the subjects attractive. IIRC the results were split fairly evenly arround 16-18, then tail off to almost nothing when they got to prepubescents.

What's the definition of "sexual interest in children"?

Liking worms.

The problem is that it's impossible to criticise this stuff without people saying "Well he's clearly a nonce"

Nails everwhere with hammers going ten to the dozen

Stat is useless unless you clearly define what is meant by sexual interest and define child?

My wife's friend's daughter has just had her Prom party, and naturally there are photos on facebook, etc. Some of these 15/16 year old YOUNG WOMEN are simply stunning.

If you want to go for the strictest definitions of the two terms above, is that statement enough to put you in the 1/35? If you showed some of the photos 'blind' (ie without disclosing age) to a group of men and asked if they found the ladies attractive, I'd be amazed if it was as low as 1/35.

I suspect a lot would also recognise that they are of an age where it's very difficult to guess age, and therefore be very cautious about admitting that they find them attractive. But then, i'm 46 and there's also a moral-age gap thing; if you showed the same pictures to a 20 year old i suspect they'd have less reservations.

But that's a whole different thing to how I'd classify 'having a sexual interest in children'.

So if you were, say, 19 and had sex with your 16yr old girlfriend you're okay. Take a picture of her naked and you're a paedophile.

Liking worms.

"Well he's clearly a nonce"

Take a picture of her naked and you're a paedophile.

Even more confusingly, if she takes a picture of herself and sends it to him then [i]she[/i] is "a paedophile" (or at least guilty of producing and distributing child pornography which many would regard as the same thing).

So if you were, say, 19 and had sex with your 16yr old girlfriend you're okay.

But if she's 15 years and 364 days old, you're a nonce. Simples.

Except it isn't, is it. I'm sure there are plenty of 'young adults' who are sexually and emotionally mature before their 16th birthday, and plenty more who still aren't well into their 20s.

And therein lies the problem. We have to have a line in the sand, an almost arbitrary "best fit," to protect the vulnerable from those whose critical thinking and / or moral code is lacking. The counterpoint to this is that it encourages binary thinking instead of critical reasoning. (See also, speed limits.)

See also, speed limits.

At least speed limits can be set based on how much grass is on the track and whether it sees regular traffic.

At least speed limits can be set based on how much grass is on the track and whether it sees regular traffic.

Is that a statement about speed limits or a euphamism for the age of consent?

I think that when you are hammer the whole world is a nail, child protection campaigners and workers will always see things to be much worse than they are. So the simple answer is don't believe this staistic.

loddrik - Member
Makes you question humanity.

I N R A T S but given it is essentially cyclical, do folk really think it will disappear?

How do people feel it should be approached?

At least speed limits can be set based on how much grass is on the track and whether it sees regular traffic.

[quote=dbcooper opined]I think that when you are hammer the whole world is a nail, child protection campaigners and workers will always see things to be much worse than they are. So the simple answer is don't believe this staistic.

THAT IS A PROPER SCIENTIFIC FACT THERE

I think that when you are hammer the whole world is a nail

They are not actually hammers, they just smell like them.

Nspcc estimates 5% of uk children suffer contact child sexual abuse, tens of thousands of individuals contact peer to peer iioc websites from uk.( a rough minimum 25000 in 2014) So figures are quite high.

Not really. It makes you question how on earth they arrive at these figures.

I always wonder about that - ever heard the one about "the average adult eats 1.8 spiders in their sleep during their lifetime" thing? Who's counting?

[img] [/img]

Or the other one....that the average male thinks about sex every 7 seconds, firstly how do they know and what are you supposed to think about the rest of the time ?

17/18 years olds liking 14/15 year olds by any chance

That was my first thought. When we were younger there was always a car(s) or lad on bike etc who were circa 17/18 waiting for their girlfriends.

Or the other one....that the average male thinks about sex every 7 seconds, firstly how do they know and what are you supposed to think about the rest of the time

That is utter rubbish. I'd class myself as reasonably highly-sexed and I don't think of sex anywhere near 7secs. For you to think of ONE subject that much somethings amiss in that persons life.

So it can't be anywhere near the 'average'.

the average male thinks about sex every 7 seconds, firstly how do they know and what are you supposed to think about the rest of the time ?

I was up to a personal record there (more than 5 minutes) and now you've made me think about it again. Git.

[i]That is utter rubbish.[/i]

Wasn't that the point? 😆

Why is it that we can no longer think of the British Isles, without the word paedoph in front of them?

[quote=footflaps ]Under age worms or adult worms?

I don't know - what is the age of consent for worms?

Surely if we weren't supposed to be sexually attracted to children then god wouldn't have made them so sexy.

30 posters on this thread, and I think the other 29 of us can now declare ourselves safe. Phew!