I came across this after someone I know made some claims about pedophilia prevalence I found unbelievable. Leading me to the survey.
Surveys are hard, there’s always some percentage of people that say strange things, and self reports could be over or underestimates of prevalence.
I think that the way the results bundle 19 year old who watch a porn video that had a 17 year old in it, and 50 year old that watched a porn video of a 5 year old together is needlessly inflammatory. While neither is good I think culturally we are generally vastly more worried about what leads to the second, or even what makes the 50 year old look for 17 year olds (i.e. cases where the 19 year old didn’t grow out of it).
Still, some of these stats are extremely troubling to me, and I’m interested in what people make of it.
It is hardly surprising that 1 in 6 men have found someone under the age of 18 attractive. There are many attractive people aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days. Nature made people attracted to secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and wide hips on women, and muscles and facial hair on men. If these develop earlier, it’s quite normal to be attracted to that. In Australia, the age of consent is 16, so it’s even legal to act on that.
To be honest I think the real percentage is much higher. Men are just afraid to admit that because they could be incorrectly labelled a pedophile.
that’s not pedophilia though. Pedophilia is being attracted to those with NO adult sexual characteristics eg: prepubescent.
checking out a fully formed adult body on a 17 year old doesn’t make you a pedo, but you feel grody because you know legally, mentally and experience-wise they ain’t there yet.
I have no idea why you are being downvoted for the literal definition
😬😬😬
Use your words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu6C2KL_S9o
I’m not sure what you’re doing here?
Did you take a look in the report though? Like 1 in 25 men surveyed saying they’d rape a 10 year old of nobody found out
deleted by creator
page 12, midwit.
Okay thanks for citing the page. I found it and that’s abhorrent. Way to bury the lede though. Why not use that as the title instead of what you did?
Why did you have to be so rude and smug earlier? you hadn’t read that part of the report so you didn’t have a good reason to assume I was making shit up.
I copied the title of the authors in that piece, I don’t want to inflame people, I wanted a discussion of something I found extraordinarily shocking.
Because you were rude and smug. Your comment didn’t address my comment at all.
But… you didn’t take a look at the report and were talking about the most anodyne interpretation when they
a) explain why 18 b) explain the scope c) break down the kinds of attraction by age group d) break down the kinds of offences
Asking if you looked at the report and what you thought about one of the most shocking things is completely reasonable.