|
|
 |
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:27 PM We all know how Adam feels about it. I was just over at Dictionary-dot-com and they had an AdCouncil sponsored animated gif (below) 
The thing that struck me (and the reason that I'm posting here) is that it claims that "each year 1 in 5 children is sexually solicited online". That just seemed way outta whack to me (I could buy something like 1 in 25, but even assuming that pedophiles get around, I can't fathom 20% of kids being solicited by them). After a bit of poking around, I was able to find the study they were talking about (why is it that nobody making claims like that ever wants to link to or at least cite a reference?) Anyway, the gist is that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (by a remarkable coincidence, the group who the AdCouncil PSA linked to) paid for a survey that took place between August 1999 and February 2000. They called 1501 kids between 10 and 17 years old, and spent a half hour asking them about their online experiences. Of those surveyed, 19% said they were the targets of unwanted sexual solicitation in the last year. Naturally, the JAMA article doesn't go into details about what questions they were asked, or what they considered to be "unwanted sexual solicitation". As far as I could tell, they made no effort whatsoever to discriminate between 17 year old girls being teased by horny 17 year old boys, and 10 year olds being solicited by 50 year old sexual predators. They did say that only 1 in 33 (3%) of those surveyed reported "aggressive solicitation" (which seems a lot more in line to me, but it's still including solicitation by peers in addition to adult would-be child molesters, and it's still including 17-year-olds acting against 17-year-old, in addition to 17-year-olds acting against 10-year-olds). Nobody likes child molesters, but I really hate somebody manipulating figures and using scare tactics like this. I'm sure they justify it to themselves with some bullshit about how since they were victims when they were kids, it happens to everybody, and that even though they're spinning things, they're doing it for the greater good (and if, as a side-benifit, that happens to keep people scared enough to keep funding their salaries, well... that's just a happy coincidence). I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but bullshit like this is counterproductive. Not only does it needlessly scare parents, it also is so far outside of reasonable expectations and experience that it discredits the people who think they're trying to help, and could actually end up hurting their cause more than helping (then again, that did seem to work quite well for eliminating pot). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
viper66_2020 |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM That makes about as much sense as the numbers quoted by the 2nd-hand smoke people. Just like with the smoking, wouldn't all of us have family members who had been solicited, then brutally raped or something, via the internets? I'm sure we all have. Probably that cousin... you know Jimmy, son of your non-smoking uncle who died of lung cancer at 33. —viper66_2020 |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM I don't think it's any threat, but I also don't think it's an exaggeration. I can't even count the number of times I was sexually solicited between the age of 11 and 17, and I didn't even hang out in chat rooms (although I guess a MMORPG could be the equivalent). You also have to consider the fact that "solicited" doesn't necessarily mean they were even invited to meet with the predator. The best part of that ad is that no one uses those acronyms, anyway. My favorite: IANAL. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM That makes about as much sense as the numbers quoted by the 2nd-hand smoke people Absolutely. You also have to consider the fact that "solicited" doesn't necessarily mean they were even invited to meet with the predator. My point exactly. They're including everything to inflate their numbers so that they can come up with 19% (1-in-5). It's a scare tactic and horribly inflated number to serve their purposes. They say 1-in-5 without mentioning that they're including that and the implication is that if your kid is on the internet, there's a 1-in-5 chance that a sexual predator is going to contact them. The best part of that ad is that no one uses those acronyms, anyway. My favorite: IANAL. Apparently you don't frequent /. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
viper66_2020 |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM Chix0r called me ugly!!! Just because predators don't try to exploit me. I mean I hear 25 y/o unshaven (drapes & carpet!) white males who's hobbies include shooting handguns & assault rifles while binge drinking & smoking are very popular targets! I've been told I could pass for 22 1/2 anyway! Jail Bait!!! [rubbing nipple] —viper66_2020 |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM I still think anyone making unwanted sexual advances on the internet counts as "soliciation," whether they try to meet you in person or not. Edit: Uh..viper, you don't count as a child anymore and neither do I. Although maybe you do mentally. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
viper66_2020 |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM Very kind of you to say, most place me at toddler level.
Honestly I do think there is something there, but I am not such a fan of spending millions spreading the word. Kids seem to know what's up. The internet is not a new phenomenon anymore, kids today have grown up with it, learning the rules. Basically that makes me think the certain % who will act with these predators will do it no matter how many PSAs they hear. A lot like smoking. Those that smoke have been hearing the risks for years. Why spend so much money advertising long ago established facts. Maybe not totally stop, but certainly turn it down; spend that money in a more effective way. There shouldn't be a consensus that until no predatory solicitations (or smokers) exist, the Ad Council must keep upping the volume. —viper66_2020 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM I still think anyone making unwanted sexual advances on the internet counts as "soliciation," whether they try to meet you in person or not. Come on! There is a huge difference between flirting with peers (especially when you're talking about a bunch of nerds doing their best to hit on a chick character in an MMPOG) and actual predatory sexual advances or solicitation. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM That's like saying workplace harrassment isn't so bad because you know the person. I agree there's a huge difference between being molested and being cyber-raped, but advances are advances and it's all unwanted solicitation to me. "Flirting with peers" seems to imply that it's mutual, too. And I'm not sure I'd rank 30 year-olds in a MMORPG as "peers" with an 11 year-old in the same game. Again, I'm not saying this unwanted solicitation is any sort of threat - but it is unwanted solicitation. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM That's like saying workplace harrassment isn't so bad because you know the person. I agree there's a huge difference between being molested and being cyber-raped, but advances are advances and it's all unwanted solicitation to me. No no no no no. That's not what it's like and what the hell is Cyber-raped? How can you even do that? Are you effing serious? Give me a break. Why am I picturing something closer to a bunch of dufii making lame jokes about your virtual rack? "Flirting with peers" seems to imply that it's mutual, too. And I'm not sure I'd rank 30 year-olds in a MMORPG as "peers" with an 11 year-old in the same game. First - do you know they were 30 and did they know you were 11? Second - you're in an MMPOG - it's a testosterone laden world filled with desperate and horny nerds. You've got a bunch of social misfits who can't get it together to ask a girl out in the real world. I'd imagine that in WoW playing a female character warrants plenty of harassment. There is a certain amount of implied consent when you're going into that situation (I'll give you not knowing any better the first time, but when it happens repeatedly, you're putting yourself back into the same place and circumstances, you might not be asking for it, but it shouldn't exactly come as a surprise when it happens). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:52 PM >>First - do you know they were 30 and did they know you were 11? Yes and yes. >>what the hell is Cyber-raped? How can you even do that? It can happen the same way as in the real world - you're 11, you trust and care about this older person, and you want to do whatever it is that they're guiding you into, whether you know what's going on or not. Your "well you know what you're getting into, everyone knows it happens all the time" argument proves my point perfectly. I think you open yourself up to the same kind of people by going into a chat room or having a MySpace account. I'm also pretty sure no one ever made a joke about my rack. But they did say some pretty lewd things and manage to be rather persistent in trying to get me to cyber with them. You also have people seriously roleplaying that they think your character is the most awesome/beautiful person in the world, and it's kind of creepy. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 1:58 PM It can happen the same way as in the real world - you're 11, you trust and care about this older person, and you want to do whatever it is that they're guiding you into, whether you know what's going on or not. Well that is effed up. Your "well you know what you're getting into, everyone knows it happens all the time" argument proves my point perfectly. I think you open yourself up to the same kind of people by going into a chat room or having a MySpace account. To a certain extent - yeah. I don't think it's a great idea for kids to be going into a chat room or to have a MySpace account (at least until they're mature enough to understand that there are bad people out there). they did say some pretty lewd things and manage to be rather persistent in trying to get me to cyber with them The lewd stuff is what I was expecting (though somehow I wasn't aware that 'cybering' was all that common). You also have people seriously roleplaying that they think your character is the most awesome/beautiful person in the world, and it's kind of creepy. That would have put me off playing one of those games instantly.
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM >>though somehow I wasn't aware that 'cybering' was all that common Cybering is insanely common. There are a lot of people that vehemently hate it, but especially in the second MMORPG I picked up, I'd say at least 60% of people do it - and you've got all kinds of fun bondage gear and dildos and whatnot to play with in that game, too. Oo, and visible clit piercings. Those are fun. Or at least they were until someone finally decided they should code clothing to cover that stuff. I don't care if it's a good idea for a kid to have a MySpace or not. All I'm saying is the 1/5 solicitation number isn't that far off base. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM Cybering is insanely common What the hell? It's stupider than phone sex. All I'm saying is the 1/5 solicitation number isn't that far off base. Your experiences notwithstanding, I'm still not convinced (I just don't think you're representative and what you're saying doesn't jive with the study, as I read it) in the second MMORPG I picked up, I'd say at least 60% of people do it - and you've got all kinds of fun bondage gear and dildos and whatnot to play with in that game, too. Oo, and visible clit piercings. Those are fun. Or at least they were until someone finally decided they should code clothing to cover that stuff. What the fuck kind of games were your parents letting you play? ... if you're telling me your avatar was wearing bondage gear or visible clit piercings, I'm afraid I've gotta go back to "blaming the victim" here. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM It's not an avatar and no, I never wore any of that stuff. I was 16 or 17 when I started playing that one; the one I played before (and got the most solicitations from, while being an actual child) made you cyber in private. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:34 PM It's not an avatar Avatar (n)
1.Hindu Mythology. the descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form or some manifest shape; the incarnation of a god.
2. an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life.
3. Computers. a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet. I see your point. [rolls eyes] I was 16 or 17 when I started playing that one Well that's.... a little better... I guess. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM >>a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet. Both of the MMORPGs I played were text-based. Not an avatar. The only time I've ever heard avatar used is for a message board. I've never played a visual RPG, but I can only assume that even then people refer to their characters as..characters. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM Both of the MMORPGs I played were text-based. Not an avatar. What the hell? How can you wear a visible clit piercing in a text-based MMORPG? What kind of person gets turned on by the description of that? (I don't know why, but that actually seems even worse than being turned on by a picture of it) I feel like I was walking down the street in the middle of the night, and saw a normal looking bush down the street. Then, as I walked closer to it, I noticed that it was covered in a black cape. A little closer, and I see the goat's tail sticking out from the side. Then the silhouette of a clown and a midget stripper. Then I get within throwing distance and that's when things start getting weird. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 3:07 PM >>How can you wear a visible clit piercing in a text-based MMORPG? When you looked at the person, it would come up in their description that they were wearing a clit ring. Hence, "visible." The genital jewelery had fun sayings on it that you could toggle, too - wait, I just found my list, there were 72 - stuff like "cum here," "slippery when wet," and "orgasm donor." Ah, good old "muff diver" - the jewlery could go in your tongue and other places, too. I never got turned on by jewelry, it was just for fun. I'm sure some people did; just like if you read the description of a sexy woman in a book and you get turned on or something. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
doingdoingdoing |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 3:13 PM Second - you're in an MMPOG - it's a testosterone laden world filled with desperate and horny nerds. You've got a bunch of social misfits who can't get it together to ask a girl out in the real world. I'd imagine that in WoW playing a female character warrants plenty of harassment. testosterone laden world of desperate and horny nerds... hmm. Anyway I don't get this argument.. so where exactly is a female supposed to go when she's young where she isn't giving implied consent to be propositioned? Nerds aren't safe... and of course your argument is more commonly used in sports type guys. Also the mall should be off... we all know those testosterone laden 13 year old boy gangs that like to hang out there... Maybe girls should just stick to sewing and basket-weaving?
I've noticed this myself playing games on yahoo.. when I naively picked a female avatar I'd say 9/10 times I'd get anything from subtle to outright vulgar "propositions" from guys I was playing against. I changed to a non-gender specific avatar and it stopped, but... will a girl just looking to play games online know to do that? If you think it's a low estimate- go to a game forum, choose a female avatar and see for yourself. —doingdoingdoing |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 3:16 PM Hence, "visible." The genital jewelery had fun sayings on it that you could toggle, too - wait, I just found my list, there were 72 - stuff like "cum here," "slippery when wet," and "orgasm donor." Ah, good old "muff diver" - the jewlery could go in your tongue and other places, too. Nice (scary). just like if you read the description of a sexy woman in a book and you get turned on or something. Does this book have pictures? I didn't think so. I guess that in a pinch that might work, but for me (and I assume most guys) the visual aspect is important (and, since I'm assuming that it's generally guys playing these things, I don't get them being turned on by reading a description - which is why it seems even more warped to me than a simple bondage site with pictures). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM Anyway I don't get this argument.. so where exactly is a female supposed to go when she's young where she isn't giving implied consent to be propositioned? Presumably not an MMPORG like WoW or some weird text-based game that includes "jewelry" like what she described. Nerds aren't safe... sports type guys ... the mall ... This isn't a matter of safety. 13 year old guys make lewd and crude jokes. Unless they were sexually abused, they generally don't do anything. I would distinguish that from these games Chix0r is talking about that apparently are a haven for actual predators and deviants. I've noticed this myself playing games on yahoo.. when I naively picked a female avatar I'd say 9/10 times I'd get anything from subtle to outright vulgar "propositions" from guys I was playing against I'm sorry, but what do you expect? You're right it was naive. The sex ratio is strongly skewed toward guys and there is a level of anonymity that makes them feel like they can get away following their impulses. You're also in a place that attracts social retards who are likely to be even more vulgar and inappropriate than most. will a girl just looking to play games online know to do that? I think she would if her parents were doing their job. Maybe girls should just stick to sewing and basket-weaving? Yeah - that's what I'm saying. [rolls eyes] Seriously - all you need to do is have a reasonable understanding of how guys operate and what their motivations are. If you're gonna go into the boys locker room, don't be surprised if they act like boys. If you think it's a low estimate- go to a game forum, choose a female avatar and see for yourself. I more or less said this before, but just to clarify - I buy 1 in 5 as far as meaningless remarks (crude jokes / comments / etc). As for the far more serious stuff Chix0r is talking about, I can't imagine that is more common than 1 in 20-30 (which is actually consistent with the study that the 1 in 5 number came from). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:05 PM >>I would distinguish that from these games Chix0r is talking about that apparently are a haven for actual predators and deviants. This literally made me laugh. Now you sound like the people you started this thread to rant about. I would say at least 80% of the people who played both games weren't perverts. Just because you're bound to get propositioned (and taken advantage of if you're not careful), doesn't mean the place is nothing but child molesters. I'm not sure I'd call a "vulgar 'proposition'" a "meaningless remark." Sounds more like solicitation/unwanted advance to me. I'm not talking about somebody randomly going "hey baby, let's get it on" - it's never that simple. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM Just because you're bound to get propositioned (and taken advantage of if you're not careful), doesn't mean the place is nothing but child molesters. Sorry but duh. Total strawman. I never said anything of the sort. The thing is that when you're talking about a game that includes (by design) clit piercings and bondage gear, you're going to attract a certain kind of person. If the general population has a fraction of a percent of child molesters, and a game enriches that to even just a few percent, and doesn't do much to weed them out, I'd call that a haven for deviants. I'm not sure I'd call a "vulgar 'proposition'" a "meaningless remark." Of course you wouldn't. Thing is, calling someone 'sugar tits', or even just throwing out random pickup lines is not quite the same as a vulgar proposition. You're muddling the issue. In your case, we're talking about 30 year olds talking a kid into cybering with them. That's not quite the same as some pimply faced nerd going "hey baby!". We're talking different ends of the spectrum. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:27 PM >>Thing is, calling someone 'sugar tits', or even just throwing out random pickup lines is not quite the same as a vulgar proposition. This is my point. She said that she got "vulgar 'propositions'," and you brushed it off as boys being boys. >>You're muddling the issue. In your case, we're talking about 30 year olds talking a kid into cybering with them. That's not quite the same as some pimply faced nerd going "hey baby!". Um..you're not paying attention. I'm not talking about "my case" anymore, I'm talking about hers, and saying what she's talking about is not just "hey baby." —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:32 PM This is my point. She said that she got "vulgar 'propositions'," and you brushed it off as boys being boys. I suspect that what she experienced was more boys being boys than what you are talking about. If she wants to clarify and describe what she considers a vulgar proposition, I'm glad to recant if I'm proven wrong. Um..you're not paying attention. I'm not talking about "my case" anymore, I'm talking about hers, and saying what she's talking about is not just "hey baby." I am paying attention - I just think that your perspective is colored by your experience and background. I don't think we're doing an apples-to-apples comparison here because you're both using the same word to mean different things. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM quick, someone cyber rape me!!! plz! —plurry |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 4:59 PM Only if you wear a clit ring and an ass-jewel. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:06 PM check, and check! —plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:15 PM age/sex/location —plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:20 PM age/sex/location 18/f/St. Louis 36/24C/36 —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:22 PM I think the question is: did she consider it "unwanted sexual solicitation" or not? And I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:24 PM In which case you win based on a technicality. Problem is that I am quite certain that her idea of that differs *slightly* from yours. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:33 PM 18/f/St. Louis 36/24C/36 hawt! is anal on the table? —plurry |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM But the entire point is that the Ad Council says 1/5 kids receive "unwanted sexual solicitations." Since I've been saying this whole time I don't feel like these solicitations are any sort of threat, I don't think it's terribly undermining to let people have their own definition about what they feel is an unwanted solicitation. To me, a solicitation is becoming synonymous with harrassment, and doesn't, (as I said somewhere around my very first post), have to equal somebody inviting you to meet them in person. I don't think 1/5 kids is approached by a predator who physically wants to molest them, but I do think 1/5 kids comes into contact with people who would, at the least, talk dirty with them online. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that, if this kid followed through on the lead, that same predator would talk about meeting in person whether they planned to follow through with it or not. >>is anal on the table? Warped is Tuesday. 104 degrees, with humidity that makes it feel a full 10 degrees hotter. My boyfriend told me if I pass out he's doing me in the butt. I told him a. keep other people off me and b. I'm going to be very mad if you get me kicked out. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:40 PM we'll need video of that. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM According to the website, you're only allowed to bring disposable cameras. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:51 PM hawt! is anal on the table? Sure baby. To me, a solicitation is becoming synonymous with harassment Exactly. You're wrong. Solicitation is asking for or trying to obtain something (like what happened to you). Not even remotely the same as harassment. I don't think 1/5 kids is approached by a predator who physically wants to molest them, but I do think 1/5 kids comes into contact with people who would, at the least, talk dirty with them online I agree with you there. But it's disingenuous. The Ad Council is using that 1 in 5 figure to imply that 1 in 5 are being solicited by a molester online. That is my effing point. They're deliberately muddling things. To go back to Viper's second-hand smoke issue - this would be roughly the equivalent of saying that nearly everyone who never smoked but died of lung cancer was exposed to second hand smoke in their life. It's a true statement, but it leads the reader to the false conclusion that the second-hand smoke caused the lung cancer (which is pretty much what the Truth campaign specializes in). I actually hate smoke about as much as child molesters, but I'm not about to lie about things or misleading people to strengthen my position (and I am convinced that when the Truth and the AdCouncil do that, they're actually hurting their case). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
doingdoingdoing |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Edited Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 5:55 PM Well Yahoo's game rooms attract a lot of kids but a large amount of adults as well. Lots of adults who work slow jobs spend a good portion of the day in game rooms there. Most of the people I played with were (according to their profiles, and I'm not sure why they would lie about this) older male adults who knew nothing of me other than I was a female based on my icon (I did not fill out my profile). That's the point, I could've been a 10 year kid. I guess I was a bit naive by "outing" myself as a female, but those game rooms are not in any way solely men playing- unless backgammon,spades, hearts, etc. is a testosterone laden arena as well. The point is a girl that just wants to play go fish may not know enough to mask her gender so as to avoid being talked to in a sexual manner. It may never occur to her that she can avoid the harassment by changing her icon. I'm sure that happens constantly. You seem to be excusing any responsibility on the part of the males- writing it off as "boys being boys" while females have to take all sorts of precautionary measures with their behaviors in order to avoid this. Otherwise they are naive and giving "informed consent".
By vulgar proposition, I meant they were using four letter words relating to male and female reproductive organs, as well as the possibility of coitus between us, directed specifically at me. What else would I have meant by that? Also if you don't think cybering is common... you must have never had AOL internet service (consider yourself lucky). There are hundreds of chatrooms with 40 people a piece filled at all hours titled everything from m4mbears to xixnxfxaxnxtxsxex. Of course people our age know enough not to just go into random chats, but AOL is one of the most popular ISPs and kids that sign on and simply hit the "chat now" button end up in rooms where they're going to be propositioned.
—doingdoingdoing |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 6:58 PM why don't we know more about dx3? —plurry |
|
|
|
|
Had To Get It On |
+ |
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 8:18 PM I have a girlfriend in WoW. How do I know she's over 18? She sent me a link to her Facebook. Case closed. —Had To Get It On |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 9:06 AM You're one of the last people I'd expect to play WoW. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 9:29 AM ^ true. not too many blackies like phantasy games.
laith, come over and play neverwinter nights II with me!?
—lexieho |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 9:53 AM >>why don't we know more about dx3? She's annoying and we try not to pay too much attention to her posts. Or at least that's my angle. The more I think about it, the more I think the Ad Council's got a point. I know I've been approached via MySpace by guys in the area a couple times who wanted to hook up, and it was creepy. True, I wasn't 10 and they weren't 30, but there are plenty of pedos out there and I'm sure they wouldn't have any qualms about approaching kids over MySpace. I still think it's likely kids get propositioned, and I'm not saying "go crazy with banning your kids from the internet" or anything, but idiotic parents probably should be notified that this stuff happens and they need to talk to their kids about it. Especially since kids can be so secretive; if they're not told there are people out there trying to con them, it seems likely they'd fall for someone who seems friendly, and never mention it to their parents. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM i've been trying to "con" lexie for the last year with no luck. i told her that our love was special and not to tell her mom about me. she wouldn't understand. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM laith, come over and play neverwinter nights II with me!? —lexieho Well, I have always wanted to play that. Never got around to getting it though. How is it? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM I have a girlfriend in WoW. How do I know she's over 18? She sent me a link to her Facebook. Case closed. That's just sad on so many different levels. That's the point, I could've been a 10 year kid. I don't think it's even remotely fair to assume they'd think that. They're adults, they see (as far as they know) a woman playing. Seems like game on to me. The point is a girl that just wants to play go fish may not know enough to mask her gender so as to avoid being talked to in a sexual manner Just gonna ignore the urge to lecture on the difference between gender and sex. You seem to be excusing any responsibility on the part of the males- writing it off as "boys being boys" while females have to take all sorts of precautionary measures with their behaviors in order to avoid this. Hell no! You might have missed it, but I've been calling guys who do that socially retarded sploozers. I'm not in any way condoning their behavior - it's just reality. Pretending that guys aren't like that doesn't change the fact that they are. Otherwise they are naive and giving "informed consent". Yeah. I stand by that. If you put yourself into a situation where things are a certain way - even if that is unfair or stupid or wrong - you're still putting yourself into that situation. I'd consider that informed consent. By vulgar proposition, I meant they were using four letter words relating to male and female reproductive organs, as well as the possibility of coitus between us, directed specifically at me. Sounds like these guys were real gems. What else would I have meant by that? Simply being vulgar without actually propositioning you? you don't think cybering is common... you must have never had AOL internet service (consider yourself lucky) Luck was not a factor - I've always made a concerted effort to avoid AOhelL. There are hundreds of chatrooms with 40 people a piece filled at all hours titled everything from m4mbears to xixnxfxaxnxtxsxex You mean that if you're in a chatroom dedicated to sex, then people talk about sex? WFT? I'm sorry but if you're a little kid, why the hell would you be going into a chatroom like that in the first place? Again - it's not even reasonable to assume that the people in such a room would have any clue they were talking to kids - they would naturally assume that it's full of consenting adults... that hardly qualifies them as a predator. Of course people our age know enough not to just go into random chats, but AOL is one of the most popular ISPs and kids that sign on and simply hit the "chat now" button end up in rooms where they're going to be propositioned. You've made a compelling argument against AOhelL... but that's about it. The more I think about it, the more I think the Ad Council's got a point Of course you would. I know I've been approached via MySpace by guys in the area a couple times who wanted to hook up, and it was creepy. Creepy to be sure, but unless you were under 18 at the time, we're not *quite* talking about pedophiles here. there are plenty of pedos out there How do you know that? I would argue that your assumption that there are is based more on sensationalized news than actual statistics. In fact - that's exactly my point - this is a scare tactic designed to freak parents out and to encourage people to fund their program. idiotic parents probably should be notified that this stuff happens and they need to talk to their kids about it Somehow I'd doubt that parents who aren't living up to their responsibilities are going to be swayed much by a little banner ad. Could be wrong though. Especially since kids can be so secretive; if they're not told there are people out there trying to con them, it seems likely they'd fall for someone who seems friendly, and never mention it to their parents. Here's a completely different strategy - given the assumption that kids aren't going to tell their parents everything (and, in fact, that it's probably not even healthy for parents to be so enmeshed in their kids lives by the time they start to pull away) why not just instill the ability to make reasonable decisions in them rather than assuming that they need constant invasive supervision? ... but then that would be insane. Right? Yeeaaaah. I hate that crap. It's the same sort of logic that leads people to say things like "if I didn't think God was always watching me, I'd just go out and kill random people for pleasure, rape little girls, and steal lollipops from babies." —anobody |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 5:50 PM Well, I have always wanted to play that. Never got around to getting it though. How is it? —Dark Laith
neither have i. and no.
—lexieho |
|
|
|
|
doingdoingdoing |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 6:04 PM People get too hysterical about kids and sex in the first place, but I just disagree that the 'propositioning' happens much less than the ad states, especially when you define child as anyone under 18. It'd be great if it were that easy to enable a young kid to make reasonable decisions, but they're kids... with far less ability to make sound decisions at their age and that's one reason they're targeted; they're easy prey. I'm sorry but if you're a little kid, why the hell would you be going into a chatroom like that in the first place?
I wasn't saying kids are going to those rooms, just that cybering is wildly popular on the wal-mart of the internet. —doingdoingdoing |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 7:24 PM I wasn't saying kids are going to those rooms, just that cybering is wildly popular on the wal-mart of the internet. I have no doubt that it's popular among certain groups, but barring significant evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to think that those groups are more than a small fringe. I just disagree that the 'propositioning' happens much less than the ad states Unless you've got statistics to back up that claim, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. The thing is that the very study the 1 in 5 number came from also said that age is a risk factor (older "kids" are more likely to be targeted than younger ones), and that only 25% of that 1 in 5 (or just 1 in 20) found their experience "troubling", which leads me to believe that most of that 1 in 5 is not of the sort you (or especially Chix0r) experienced, and most of it is targeted toward older girls. especially when you define child as anyone under 18 I certainly wouldn't, and I don't imagine that many reasonable people would. A 17 year old may not be an adult, but they are vastly more adult than a 10 year old. If you go to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children site that the ad linked to, you'll see pictures of little kids not 17 year olds. Their statistic does not reflect adults targeting young children (except as a small minority of that 1 in 5 number), but they make every effort to imply that it does. It'd be great if it were that easy to enable a young kid to make reasonable decisions, but they're kids... with far less ability to make sound decisions at their age and that's one reason they're targeted; they're easy prey. Again - you're grouping 10 year olds (and younger) with 17 year olds. It absolutely is easy to enable a 17 year old to make reasonable decisions... at least, it's as easy as anything related to properly raising children. Further, I can pretty much guarantee you that by the time my sister and I were 13, we were more than adequately equipped. That's not because we were somehow magically smarter or had more common sense or had more invasive parents than your easy prey - it's because we were raised to be mature and to have a reasonable ability to judge situations and avoid putting ourselves in harm's way. It's not easy and it's not magic, but I'd say that's part of a parent's job. ... but that's actually beside the point which is that the very study that they got the 1 in 5 number from indicates that the actual number is closer to 1 in 20, and that it lumps 10 year olds with 17 year olds. Both of those serve to artificially inflate their numbers and to imply that there are far more victims of child predators than there really are. For any who care to look, the actual numbers seem to be available here (at least, in more detail than in the JAMA article - with the caveat that the authors don't seem to have a firm grasp on statistics, compensating for confounding variables, or presenting data). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
doingdoingdoing |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 7:56 PM I like that one of the acronyms on the ad is IHA: I hate acronyms. We all know how Adam feels about it.
With the way Adam's condemned people that mess with kids tot he point of suggesting we'd all be better off if they were just done away with, I wonder if he'd really be all that bothered by the ads about this issue. He talked to kids who were screwed with nearly every night for ten years. It's rather different than the McGruff and End Elder Abuse campaigns. Again - you're grouping 10 year olds (and younger) with 17 year olds.
I'm not the one doing that, that's the legal definition of a child. I'd love to know how posting a few times every couple of weeks is so terribly annoying. I have no interest in joining the group of regular posters here anyway, just posting when something interests me. —doingdoingdoing |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, August 13, 2007 at 10:09 PM I like that one of the acronyms on the ad is IHA: I hate acronyms. Indeed. With the way Adam's condemned people that mess with kids tot he point of suggesting we'd all be better off if they were just done away with, I wonder if he'd really be all that bothered by the ads about this issue. Somehow I'd suspect so. He talked to kids who were screwed with nearly every night for ten years. It's rather different than the McGruff and End Elder Abuse campaigns. I disagree. Although this ad superficially touches on something closer to screwed up kids, it's focusing on the wrong end of a small part of the problem. To a great extent, kids getting effed with online is a consequence of crappy parenting. With luck, kids are there because their parents just left them too ill-equipped to deal with things. In the worst case, they're there because they were abused as children and have the 'victim' freezing response. Either way, by the time they're in the chat room, most of the damage is done. At best, this is a trifle more reasonable than an ad about keeping your eye on your laptop. I'm not the one doing that, that's the legal definition of a child. Although that is true, in this case, the distinction between older teens, younger teens, and pre-teens is significant. I'd love to know how posting a few times every couple of weeks is so terribly annoying. I have no interest in joining the group of regular posters here anyway, just posting when something interests me. You must not lurk much. That's just Chix0r being Chix0r. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 1:21 PM >>I'd love to know how posting a few times every couple of weeks is so terribly annoying. It's not the quantity of your posts, it's the content. And no, you're not worth me re-reading your posts to cite specific examples. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
doingdoingdoing |
+ |
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Edited Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 2:06 PM Jesus Christ, talk about a pedophile's playground. I'd think half these were grown men if not for all the other parts to the message board.
gurl.com
—doingdoingdoing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 1:44 AM why don't we know more about dx3? member since sept 2005
middle name is stella
likes pharmies?
likes to do nothing and sleep
large part of childhood in towson, maryland
5'6 124lbs
still living with b/f?
works at a desk
likes HTGIO
has a collection of LL shows
lives in NC
is also amused by jj
once went to jail for speeding
dag fan
not into preppy
went to dumbarton
college student
slightly clumsy
attractive
currently just getting by financially
jew? under appreciated hardcore loveline fan / deserves solid poster recognition —plurry |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 5:17 AM member since sept 2005
middle name is stella
likes pharmies?
likes to do nothing and sleep CHECK
large part of childhood in towson, maryland CHECK
5'6 124lbs
still living with b/f?
works at a desk
likes HTGIO CHECK
has a collection of LL shows CHECK
lives in NC
is also amused by jj CHECK
once went to jail for speeding
dag fan CHECK
not into preppy CHECK
went to dumbarton CHECK
college student CHECK
slightly clumsy CHECK
attractive
currently just getting by financially CHECK
jew? CHECK omg i think we're twins —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
John Lennon |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 9:14 AM "Yeah. I stand by that. If you put yourself into a situation where things are a certain way - even if that is unfair or stupid or wrong - you're still putting yourself into that situation. I'd consider that informed consent." - anobody No, it ISN'T informed consent because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REAL SITUATION IS GOING TO BE! You go in to the Yahoo Games chat room expecting to play Old Maid and Old McDonald wants you to milk him! Informed consent: An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. (from Nolo.com) Anyway, my parents wouldn't let me go into chat rooms online until I was 13 or 14. They said they were dangerous. I just remembered, when I turned 13 my dad said something like, "You're old enough now to handle chat rooms", and gave me permission to go in them. Once I went in one when I was 12 and I got caught and my parents grounded me from the computer for a week. They got really angry. I guess they were just scared, but of what? —John Lennon |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 2:05 PM anobody: I actually meant to mention this the other day, but I forgot: I could be wrong, but I think you meant to say "implied consent." —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 3:47 PM Really it's up to parents to responsibly decide when their children are mature enough to understand what they are doing on the internet. Unfortunately we can't trust parents to do this, so it becomes everyone's problem. In other news, everyone should see Hard Candy if they haven't already. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM signs point to yes. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
hash-is-gay |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM well then, time for me to add her to myspace and creep her out —hash-is-gay |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 5:23 PM I think you meant to say "implied consent." God dammit! (although actually both *almost* work here... more or less) No, it ISN'T informed consent because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REAL SITUATION IS GOING TO BE! You go in to the Yahoo Games chat room expecting to play Old Maid and Old McDonald wants you to milk him! You're right - the first time. After that, you know what the place is about. Anyway, my parents wouldn't let me go into chat rooms online until I was 13 or 14. They said they were dangerous. I just remembered, when I turned 13 my dad said something like, "You're old enough now to handle chat rooms", and gave me permission to go in them. Once I went in one when I was 12 and I got caught and my parents grounded me from the computer for a week. They got really angry. I guess they were just scared, but of what? They were scared because things like this National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and news programs exaggerate the risk (so that they can justify their existence / funding and to get more eyeballs).
—anobody |
|
