My question is this... there is a 5 year old here - not even 50 feet away from his place of residence. At first I didn't stop to think about "what could happen" or "what might happen".. or even if he was just curious. I'm really mentally fried right now thinking about all this and would like some outside comments. Should I flat out tell him and her that neither are welcome here anymore? Could he just be "exploring" things? What would you do?

Please, gimme some advice.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Varnsen:
Kids can be curious...

---

Yes, the can be curious but this wasn't just one site, it was more than 40 of them. If I were a 15 year old boy I know damn sure I'd be looking for naked chicks not kids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert W Greene:
I would probably set them up and make a movie of them and sell it,that way i could finance my crack habit on some one else's misery....

---

You know - it's pricks like you that make me sick. I am asking a serious question that could impact a CHILDS life... that child being my own. Where the FUCK do you get off cracking jokes about shit like that? It's pretty obvious that you don't have kids - or else you would at least have the respect of taking your mind droning pathetic attempt at humor and post it some place else - no go fuck off and die you piece of shit.

Tricky situation, play it light and dont go in directly to approach things...

Try not to explode next time the kid is around, keep it in the back of your mind and watch for signs in your kids...Does he hang out around your house alot? I would def put an end to that if he did

The sad thing is, you can't censor their desires or even control them, but if it was me..I'm a straight out person. I would tell the kid why he was not allowed over...I would say "this is why...and if I even catch you sniffing anywhere near a kid you will wish you had never been born".
Then I would call the cops and tell them. I believe here (I dont know in America) the automatically open a file on any reportings of child porn.

He's a pervert, keep him away.

it may be his mothers fault that he went to extremes, but being her fault wouldnt erase you having a molested child

plz ban him from your house and speak to his mother about him. parents need to take initiative in this situation

will it be embarassing ? fuck yeah, but you have a right to keep that sick fuck out of your house and away from your kid permanently

------------------
FUCK YOU IF YOU THINK JOHN GOTTI SHOULD BE IN PRISON.

DONT ASK ME TWICE,UNLESS YOU WANT TWO BLACK EYES.

YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

WHEN I HOLD THE DECK OF CARDS,PEOPLE BACK DOWN.I HAVE NO OPPOSITION.

quote:

---

Originally posted by plifter:
I have an adult check password and I know those sites don't contain kiddie porn. The worst you may see are 13 or 14 year olds at a nude beach, which isn'r pornograpgy in my book, it's just a naked person. They even state that they don't show explicit pictures of minors. So I doubt there was anything terrible that he could have seen even if he got through with a password. I understand being concerned, but I can also identify with a curious 15 year old.

---

I said a FEW of them, but not the majority. Do a search on NAMBLA and see what sick shit comes up. Grown men who want "their right" to have sex with boys. Sorry man, but I saw the shit he was looking at. Dig through the history files on your computer and you'll see that you can go back to an exact page of a website previously viewed.

------------------

THeMaCHinE is a registered trademark of TheMachine Company, Inc., in the U.S. and/or other countries.

child molesters this and that blah blah Sounds like the US is just full of pedophiles judging from people's hysteria.

There's a difference. If he's trying to find 13-15 year old girls, that's normal for him. But 5 is sick, and if you don't think so, you're a pervert.

rimmer...OK, so along with the Angel of Death, you're just another jealous foreigner who obviously has no children, and most likely not a wife, since you think the possibility of a young child being hurt isn't a big deal...

Steel Beast...come on, a 15 year old knows the difference between kiddie porn and Playboy...even he is just "experimenting" if you can call it that, it's F*CKING SICK AND I WOULN'T WANT MY KIDS AROUND HIM!! No doubt...

Maybe the parents should instead look better after their kids that they are not run over by a car, than be afraid of the imaginary molesters. Give me some stats about kid molesting in the US and I'll believe you.

As a parent shrebly could just tell the kid not to hang out with the guy.

By the way, yes I envy the US because you have:

rimmer, you asked why they weren't making a big deal about gay porm...well my foreign friend, being gay is not illegal and--contrary to most people's opinions--is not wrong! As gross and odd as I personally think it is, I have no problem with it in 99% of cases...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rimmer:
To me it sounds the kid is pretty inventive using search engines and the like. Why nobody is alarmed about the fact that the guy looked gay porn?

Maybe the parents should instead look better after their kids that they are not run over by a car, than be afraid of the imaginary molesters. Give me some stats about kid molesting in the US and I'll believe you.

As a parent shrebly could just tell the kid not to hang out with the guy.

By the way, yes I envy the US because you have:

- SMALL DARK ASIAN WOMEN
- DARK SEXY BLACK WOMEN
- HIGH SALARIES
- CHEAP CARS AND MOTORCYCLES

---

Here are some stats for boys only (doesn't even include women) from a number of different sources.

The stats (boys) only range from a low end of about 5% (1 in 20) all the way to a high end of 20% (1 in 5) depending on how the information was gathered. Remember, this doesn't even take into account girls. These are some pretty significant numbers.

So here's your stats, do you believe yet?

------

Studies of male college students have found prevalence rates from 4.8% to 28%. At the lower extreme of 4.8% is a study by Fritz, Stoll and Wagner (1981) in which 412 students responded to a self-report questionnaire that required them to label their experiences as "abusive"--a method guaranteed to cause under-reporting. Risin and Koss (1987) obtained a rate of 7.3% in a national sample of 2,972 male college students. They used eight self-report behavioral descriptions about sexual behaviors before age 14. As pure behavioral descriptions, none of the items included the word "abuse." Finkelhor (1979) used a similar list of behavioral self-report items in a study of 266 college students and found an 8.3% prevalence rate; he included non-contact experiences and used specific age criteria (if under 14 there had to be a 5 year age difference with the perpetrator, if 14-15, a 10 year difference).

Higher prevalence rates of 20% and 24% came from Fromuth and Burkhart's (1987) study of students in two separate schools. They compared the effect of different definitions of sexual abuse on prevalence rates. However, their questionnaire utilized a gate question. The highest rates of 20% and 24% came from the most inclusive definition: the same as Finkelhor's 1979 study (including non-contact and age differential criteria), but with the addition that sexual contact between peers involving force or threat was categorized as abuse.

Research on college students also has been conducted by David Lisak and his colleagues, including myself (Lisak & Luster, 1994; Lisak, Hopper, & Song, 1996). The college samples in these studies were not typical, but consisted of men who commuted to an urban university, were an average of 25 years old, and from socioeconomic background more typical of the surrounding community than many college student populations used in this research. This work yielded prevalence rates of:

* Approximately 17% for child sexual abuse of males involving physical contact.

* Over 25% when non-contact forms of abuse were included.

Non-contact experiences (e.g., a relative exposing her or his genitals to a child) were investigated because such acts are sexually exploitive and can have negative long-term psychological and interpersonal effects. However, this definition also includes experiences, like a single "flashing" episode involving a stranger, that many would argue are not abusive because the subject suffered no significant or lasting harm, if any at all. As clarified below, Lisak and his colleagues (1994, 1996) deliberately chose to weight their definition of sexual abuse in terms of the power differential accompanying significant age differences and the older person's presumed deliberate sexual use and exploitation of the younger subject. So long as significant differences in age and power existed, Lisak and his colleagues defined incidents as abusive, regardless of subjects' emotional appraisal or lasting effects (the latter were not measured).

Lisak and his colleagues (1994, 1996) used an anonymous questionnaire which has 17 behavioral descriptions of possible experiences and an 18th item for "other" experiences subjects describe. If subjects endorsed an item, they were then directed to provide further information about the experience, which was used to categorize the experience as abusive or not. If the subject was age 13 or younger when the incident occurred and the other person was at least 5 years older, the incident was classified as sexually abusive. If the subject was age 13 or younger when the incident occurred and the other person was less than 5 years older, two criteria had to be met for the incident to be classified as abusive: the subject reported feeling "negative" about it and reported that some degree of coercion was used by the other person. Similar principles apply to incidents occurring when the subject was age 14-15: the incident was classified as abusive if the other person was at least 10 years older; if the other person was less than 10 years older, the abuse classification was assigned only if the subject reported feeling negative about it and reported some level of coercion by the other person.

Though the definitional criteria in Lisak and his colleagues' studies are complex, they address two important issues.

1. The reality of the power differential which characterizes relationships between adults and children, and between young children and adolescents, because whether or not a sexual experience is abusive can depend on this dynamic.

2. The fact that whether or not a sexual experience is abusive can also depend on one's subjective appraisal and emotional response to the incident.

Lisak and his colleagues argue that the criteria they employed to assess sexual abuse are clear and relatively conservative in their treatment of the issues of power and subjects' responses.

A prevalence rate similar to the Lisak et al. studies was found in another study of college males. Collings (1995) used an anonymous questionnaire and defined sexual abuse as "unwanted" sexual experiences taking place before the age of 18. The term "unwanted" is likely to bias rates downward, as noted above, but the inclusion of subjects aged 16 and 17 is likely to increase the found prevalence rate. Not surprisingly, Collings found that 29% of the 284 male respondents had been sexually abused, with 20% reporting non-contact abuse and 6% reporting abuse experiences involving physical contact.

Studies with community samples have ranged in their prevalence rates from 2.8% to 16%. Again, methodology has been crucial. Kercher and McShane (1984) mailed a single self-report question including the word "abuse" to a random sample of Texas drivers. They found a prevalence rate of 3%. Given the wording of their single question, this rate is not surprising.

Two random-sample telephone interview studies by Murphy (1987, 1989, cited in Urquiza & Keating, 1990) also demonstrate the profound effects of single questions including the word "abuse" rather than instruments with multiple behavioral descriptions. In one of the studies (1987) the former method was employed, and it produced a rate of 2.8% with a sample of 357; in the other study (1989) the latter method yielded a prevalence rate of 11% with a sample of 777.

Bagley, Wood and Young (1994) conducted a community study of men aged 18 to 27 in the Canadian city of Calgary. They first contacted subjects by phone, then administered anonymous questionnaires in their homes via programs on portable computers. Their questionnaire asked about "unwanted" experiences before the age of 17. This wording is likely to result in under-reporting because people who have been sexually abused, but especially males, are sometimes convinced that they wanted and were responsible for the sexual contact. Bagley and his colleagues found a prevalence rate of 15.5%, and that 6.9% of their subjects had experienced multiple episodes of sexual abuse. Interestingly, this rate for multiple episodes was identical to that found for women in a previous study that employed the same methodology, despite the fact that the prevalence rate for any unwanted sexual experiences in that study was 32%, or double that found for males (Bagley, 1991).

The highest community-sample prevalence rate of 16% was found in a random telephone survey of 2,626 men, known as the "L.A. Times survey" (Finkelhor, 1990). However, these findings are very difficult to interpret, since the wording of the questions would be expected to produce contradictory effects: each question used the word "abuse," but ended with the phrase, "or anything like that?"

In contrast to studies with women, published studies using face-to-face interviews with men have yielded very low prevalence rates, perhaps due to subjects' adherence to stereotypes about males not being victims (Urquiza & Keating, 1990). Finkelhor's (1984) face-to-face interview with Boston-area fathers yielded a rate of 6%. Siegel and colleagues (1987), using gate-question interviews with 1,480 Los Angeles-area men, found a prevalence rate of 3.8%. Baker and Duncan (1985) used a single question that described various sexual acts and found the highest face-to-face prevalence rate of 8% in their random sample of 970 men in Great Britain.

Finally, studies with clinical samples have obtained prevalence rates from 3% to 23%. The lowest rate was reported from a study that used psychological records of 954 male and female patients of a large regional medical center (Belkin, Greene, Rodrique, & Boggs, 1994). In a chart review of emergency room records of a Buffalo, New York hospital, Ellerstein and Canavan (1980) found an 11% prevalence rate. DeJong and colleagues (DeJong, Emmett, & Hervada, 1982) reviewed several clinical studies and found rates from 11% to 17%, and in their own hospital population found a rate of just under 14% (1982). Metcalfe and his associates (1990) found a prevalence of 23% in their survey of 100 male psychiatric inpatients.

However, it is important to note here that assessment for sexual abuse histories in hospitals has traditionally been extremely poor, and remains so in many settings. Thus these rates, based on reviews of records, are likely to be vast underestimates. For example, Briere and Zaidi (1989) reviewed intake reports on women presenting to an urban psychiatric emergency room. They randomly reviewed 50 charts before and 50 after the intake staff were instructed to question clients about previous sexual victimization. The first 50 charts had recorded rates of 6%, and the second set, 70%.

------------------

THeMaCHinE is a registered trademark of TheMachine Company, Inc., in the U.S. and/or other countries.

Anyway, I don't know if it was the writers intent to favor studies with higher prevalence. Also seemed like they preferred to interpret sexual encounters as abuse:

"This wording is likely to result in under-reporting because people who have been sexually abused, but especially males, are sometimes convinced that they wanted and were responsible for the sexual contact."

Maybe if people would read the entire thread before they post they wouldn't look like fucking morons.

As far as people saying "it's just porn, leave it alone" I'd like to see your reaction if you were in this situation - but most of you don't have kids and if you do have kids I really feel sorry for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bignate73:
ask the kid. maybe he was looking for regular porn. anyone ever heard of popups? once you get stuck in one porn "webring" they bombard you with all of their friends sites as popups. one false click can lead to 3,4,7 popups. kids are curious, he may have clicked on an animal site or this or that just to see it and got bombed. the majority of britney spears sites that advertise nudes of her are riddled with popups and blind links.
the kid is young and curious, have his PARENTS steer him in the right direction by having a talk with him. keep an eye on the 5 year old. tell you what though, tell that 15 year old you are concerned he may have messed with a 5 year old, and hes innocent? youre gonna fuck with his head bigtime. not cool to mess someone up by being over sensitive and accusatory.

---

Well, it wasn't just a few sites, it was over 40 and when I looked in the history files it wasn't just one or two pages, it was at least 10 and sometime opwards of 50 per site that he looked at. Given his past track record with porn on the internet, his lying, stealing and overall fuck ups I am leaning away from what everyone is using as an excuse "he is just a kid" or " he is just ecploring". Fuck that noise. He is 15, he knows that kiddie porn is wrong. Does this really have to be an arguement? Now, if her were going to teen sites or barely legal site that would be a different ball game. I'm sorry but when you see a little girl wearing pink underwear and it says "click here to see what's under Missy panites" that's just fucking out and out wrong. Those are the sites he went to. I could even excuse a few sites as pop ups or blind links but when you go back though the AOL history and see the chat rooms he was in - xxunderxx10xxnudexx being just one that I can recall - well then you tell me if he was looking for naked pics of Ms.Spears or not. The real kicker here is his mother put the parental block into effect so he couldn't access those types of web sites - and I am not sure how much control AOL has over the sites - so what did he do? He went on under his mothers screen name. Now, for those that say "she might have been looking at that stuff then".. wrong. The times the sites were access were after he came home from school and before he came home from work.

Until you have kids you'll never know what fear is - you worry about shit like this and pray you'll never have to encounter it. I have given that kid every benefit of the doubt but when everything is added up it's pretty fucking obvious - he wasn't just curious - he was intentionally searching for it. Imagine what a kid will have to carry for the rest of his or her life if he or she were exploited in such a way. Not to mention the parents utter disgust and regret. I came on here asking for advice and it seems that all I get is the same excuse "he is just a kid" and "he is just exploring". Sorry but if I was a 15 year old boy I'd be looking at chicks with big tits not little kids.

I think you can judge from the guys habitus if it's really a threat. Just keep eye on the guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wombat:
O.K.-----Go up to his mom and be straight forward---Dont do it tomorrow, do it now---tell her that you didnt like what you saw. Get a feel from her. Lets assume this kid is in to little kids. The apple does not fall far from the tree----Even if you think im way out on a limb, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO ASSUME, WHEN YOU COULD KNOW FOR SURE--JUST BY ASKING A FEW QUESTIONS----Kids that fuck around with others have been fucked with themselves----PERIOD----DONT DANCE AROUND THIS ---YOUR KID IS COUNTING ON YOU AS ARE WE!

---

You brought up a good point about kids that do things like this usually have had it done to them. His dad has never been around and his mom makes him go to church, limits his activities etc. She's a real control freak and I've seen her blow up at him for no reason. I went head to head with some NAMBLA people a year or so ago and what I learned from that whole ordeal was enough to make most people want to puke. In thier minds what they are doing isn't wrong. As far as confronting the mother - well - she lives in her own little world where her son is everything. She doesn't date, go out or have any hobbies. She is really preparing this kid to be a real social outcast. I guess it is hard to try to present all the facts without going on for pages and pages but I have to do what is best not only for my child but for other little kids in the area. While she does try to keep a tight leash on him I'm afraid that that leash might just be what hangs them both.

Does anyone know of any place that actively tracks visitors to kid porn sites? I saw a few but the links were broken.