Wall Street Journal: Men Getting Cast as Pedo-Predators

[Darth Wong]

How often are men actually charged with sexual assault for getting anywhere near a kid? I'm not talking about the sort of anecdotal evidence that people normally rely on for "society is falling apart" articles of this nature; I'm talking about real statistics.

I would be surprised if it wasn't extremely rare, it is mainly fear since being branded a paedophile is going to elicit guilty until ... well just guilty once the accusation is out there.

On top of that being a paedophile is viewed (with fairly good reason) as one of the worst things possible (certainly worse than the run of the mill murderer).

Add in the oft mentioned accusatory glances and it just seems like a good idea to avoid kids (although extending that to kids who are seemingly in danger is rather morally dubious).

It is simply about weighing the possibility and magnitude of the risk against the advantages to be gained from contact with children (or hitch hikers, people broken down at the side of the road or any of the other things people refrain from doing out of fear).

And yet there are thousands of Boy Scout troops across America, filled with young boys whose parents almost never stick around to see what is actually being done with their kids. How is this possible, in such an environment of fear and drop-of-the-hat accusations?

[Flagg]

How often are men actually charged with sexual assault for getting anywhere near a kid? I'm not talking about the sort of anecdotal evidence that people normally rely on for "society is falling apart" articles of this nature; I'm talking about real statistics.

I would be surprised if it wasn't extremely rare, it is mainly fear since being branded a paedophile is going to elicit guilty until ... well just guilty once the accusation is out there.

On top of that being a paedophile is viewed (with fairly good reason) as one of the worst things possible (certainly worse than the run of the mill murderer).

Add in the oft mentioned accusatory glances and it just seems like a good idea to avoid kids (although extending that to kids who are seemingly in danger is rather morally dubious).

It is simply about weighing the possibility and magnitude of the risk against the advantages to be gained from contact with children (or hitch hikers, people broken down at the side of the road or any of the other things people refrain from doing out of fear).

And yet there are thousands of Boy Scout troops across America, filled with young boys whose parents almost never stick around to see what is actually being done with their kids. How is this possible, in such an environment of fear and drop-of-the-hat accusations?

There were always parents around in my scout troop. And one of the rules was that no adult could be alone with a single kid at any given time that wasn't theirs, unless it was an emergency of some sort. Granted, that's anecdotal.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

And yet there are thousands of Boy Scout troops across America, filled with young boys whose parents almost never stick around to see what is actually being done with their kids. How is this possible, in such an environment of fear and drop-of-the-hat accusations?

Simple, they don't admit gays or atheists, so you've just cut down the major risk factors for pedophilia, leaving just the odd pervert somehow faking the indwelling of the holy spirit among so many good Christian folk.

[Darth Wong]

There were always parents around in my scout troop. And one of the rules was that no adult could be alone with a single kid at any given time that wasn't theirs, unless it was an emergency of some sort. Granted, that's anecdotal.

Yes, the Boy Scouts have rules about a leader being alone with a child out of view of others (I know; I volunteer for the organization). However, we're talking about men who are afraid to help kids in broad daylight on public streets for fear of being accused of sexual assault. That is not an "alone and out of view" situation either.

[Flagg]

There were always parents around in my scout troop. And one of the rules was that no adult could be alone with a single kid at any given time that wasn't theirs, unless it was an emergency of some sort. Granted, that's anecdotal.

Yes, the Boy Scouts have rules about a leader being alone with a child out of view of others (I know; I volunteer for the organization). However, we're talking about men who are afraid to help kids in broad daylight on public streets for fear of being accused of sexual assault. That is not an "alone and out of view" situation either.

Yeah, that's an extreme that goes beyond stupid. I mean I think twice about going into the toy section of a department store, but I'm not gonna let a kid who is lost continue be in jeopardy because of my personal concerns. There's being cautious and then there's being paranoid.

[Big Orange]

Now children that age, as some of you will know, are like roaches or flies in that they have little hairs on their heads that detect incoming adults and cause the child to automatically veer away from them. In this case, the child steers away from me and is about to head onto the street. I snatch the kid's arm (as gently as possible) to stop him. The kid, totally oblivious to the danger, turns right around and heads back towards his mother, smiling. A second later, a car passes at ~40mph.

Do I get a thank you? Of course not, I got a really nasty and accusatory look.

That mother was obviously a complete dipstick who was also an appalling mother and has no real feelings towards other people. If I was in your position I probably would've shot a nasty look back or even told the ungrateful bitch to fuck off. But that sounds like a extreme case and I doubt most people are that ridiculously leery of anybody not them - I can remember being in a similar situation in picking up a stray toddler in the middle of a suburban road and giving the little fella back to a worried looking dad, who was actually grateful and not being distrustful to the point of having a broken personality (like that ungrateful, negligent women you helped).

[Eulogy]

I would be surprised if it wasn't extremely rare, it is mainly fear since being branded a paedophile is going to elicit guilty until ... well just guilty once the accusation is out there.

Given this, why don't men simply sue people who falsely accuse them of being a pedo? If nothing else, the accused's name may be somewhat restored if the case is successful.

[Masami von Weizegger]

Given this, why don't men simply sue people who falsely accuse them of being a pedo? If nothing else, the accused's name may be somewhat restored if the case is successful.

Because if you did so and people got wind of it, the connection would be made in their minds.

Why would a man fight so hard against a unsubstantiated claim?, they would ask. The answer a lot of people would sadly come to? Because he is one.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I would be surprised if it wasn't extremely rare, it is mainly fear since being branded a paedophile is going to elicit guilty until ... well just guilty once the accusation is out there.

Given this, why don't men simply sue people who falsely accuse them of being a pedo? If nothing else, the accused's name may be somewhat restored if the case is successful.

Because from a certain point of view (channeling Obi-Wan) they had grounds to accuse you of being a pedophile. So what if it was your daughter and you were having a 'date' like you do every thursday to keep up with what's going on in her life, you seemed like a dirty old man. Even winning won't help, because you'll always be an 'alleged pedophile' because nobody will bother to write 'until he was cleared of all wrongdoing' next to it.

[Adrian Laguna]

The problem is that it seems merely being accused of certain crimes, even if the judge throws the case out, can ruin a person's life enough to force said person to move to somewhere else.

[Adrian Laguna]

GHETTO EDIT - Though from what I understand on the subject it's far more likely to happen in suburban or small town communities. It is also not particularly common, but it has happened and can happen.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How often are men actually charged with sexual assault for getting anywhere near a kid? I'm not talking about the sort of anecdotal evidence that people normally rely on for "society is falling apart" articles of this nature; I'm talking about real statistics.

I would be surprised if it wasn't extremely rare, it is mainly fear since being branded a paedophile is going to elicit guilty until ... well just guilty once the accusation is out there.

On top of that being a paedophile is viewed (with fairly good reason) as one of the worst things possible (certainly worse than the run of the mill murderer).

Add in the oft mentioned accusatory glances and it just seems like a good idea to avoid kids (although extending that to kids who are seemingly in danger is rather morally dubious).

It is simply about weighing the possibility and magnitude of the risk against the advantages to be gained from contact with children (or hitch hikers, people broken down at the side of the road or any of the other things people refrain from doing out of fear).

And yet there are thousands of Boy Scout troops across America, filled with young boys whose parents almost never stick around to see what is actually being done with their kids. How is this possible, in such an environment of fear and drop-of-the-hat accusations?

It is an organization with a certain amount of public trust. A person implicitly trusts an organization like the boy scouts, because they often know the scoutmaster, etc. While they distrust strangers... What is funny (in a sick, ironic way) is that pedophiles gravitate toward those sorts of organizations. Boy scouts, youth groups/sunday school (not just catholics, proties too), swimming lessons, tennis practice, little league. Etc. The kid is at greater risk of being molested in a "safe" place than they are lost on the sidewalk.

[Turin]

But that sounds like a extreme case and I doubt most people are that ridiculously leery of anybody not them - I can remember being in a similar situation in picking up a stray toddler in the middle of a suburban road and giving the little fella back to a worried looking dad, who was actually grateful and not being distrustful to the point of having a broken personality (like that ungrateful, negligent women you helped).

You're probably right, but I think that's why we're seeing an argument over "how prevalent is this, really?" I just had an anecdote warm in my mind, and anecdotes have a bad tendency to mentally overwhelm evidence if you're not careful.

Even winning won't help, because you'll always be an 'alleged pedophile' because nobody will bother to write 'until he was cleared of all wrongdoing' next to it.

I think we see this with a lot of crimes; pedophilia is just an extreme example because it's something that people get (understandably) really upset over. If someone beats a well-publicized murder charge, there are always going to be a segment of the population that says "but we know he did it," evidence notwithstanding.

[Setesh]

The worst part about this is how few child sexual assaults are committed by strangers.

According to the Department of Justice

96% of female rape victims in 1991, younger than 12 years old, knew their attackers. 20% were victimized by their fathers or step-fathers.

This fear of accusation isn't really new its just gotten more ridiculous. There was a short fad in the mid 90's for talkshow hosts to interview men falsely convicted of molesting children. I don't remember his name but there was one guest who was convicted on no evidence whatsoever, there hadn't even been a single complaint. He was charged because a parent thought he 'looked creepy' and worked with kids. He was convicted on that as well.

Here are a bunch of False Accusation articles.

[Big Orange]

You're probably right, but I think that's why we're seeing an argument over "how prevalent is this, really?" I just had an anecdote warm in my mind, and anecdotes have a bad tendency to mentally overwhelm evidence if you're not careful.

You can never use anecdotal evidence to smear an entire group of people (like I've done once before), but it is understandable that such digusting behaviour and the weird attitude displayed by that woman would stick you mind for many months afterwards. I can vaguely remember a mum probably scowling at me when I casually walked past her and her baby in a push chair, but maybe I was being as paranoid as some of these over vigilant parents supposedly are. But it does seem unnerving that some paranoid parents are snitching on men for supposed thought crimes and walking in the wrong direction around children...

[General Zod]

I think we see this with a lot of crimes; pedophilia is just an extreme example because it's something that people get (understandably) really upset over. If someone beats a well-publicized murder charge, there are always going to be a segment of the population that says "but we know he did it," evidence notwithstanding.

Pedophilia is worse, since objectively proving it is so much harder. A lot of the cases can break down into "Your word vs. Theirs" with very little if any physical evidence remaining by the time the accusations are made.

[Honorable Mention]

There's a bar and grill I go to occasionally that'll have random television shows playing if there aren't any games on (it's a sports bar.) Sometimes, "How to Catch a Predator" comes on. Now, I think this show is probably one of the worst things ever all-around, but I don't think I've seen even ONCE a female "predator" on there. I imagine that popular shows like this reinforcing these notions don't help.

[Turin]

You're probably right, but I think that's why we're seeing an argument over "how prevalent is this, really?" I just had an anecdote warm in my mind, and anecdotes have a bad tendency to mentally overwhelm evidence if you're not careful.

You can never use anecdotal evidence to smear an entire group of people (like I've done once before), but it is understandable that such digusting behaviour and the weird attitude displayed by that woman would stick you mind for many months afterwards.

In this case it was more like "a couple days afterwards." But let me be clear, it's not that I'm even remotely saying that all parents do this (or even a majority), or that parents shouldn't be concerned about their kids around adults.

Pedophilia is worse, since objectively proving it is so much harder. A lot of the cases can break down into "Your word vs. Theirs" with very little if any physical evidence remaining by the time the accusations are made.

Hm, good point. To be honest, I've never quite been able to figure out how the courts manage to ever prove pedophilia to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, without physical evidence. Unfortunately children make really lousy witnesses (indeed, this is probably one reason why predators take advantage of them).

[Lagmonster]

I broke this story out to my peers, and I couldn't find one single man among a reasonably wide sampling of individuals who was afraid that if he helped a crying, lost or injured child, he would be accused of pedophilia.

If you're really worried, then loudly advertise the fact that you're a stranger trying to help. Instead of taking a child aside to talk privately with them alone or offering to take them somewhere. Loudly ask who the child's parents are of anyone nearby and look for help from other adults in the area. In other words, do the opposite of what a predator would do: Draw as much attention to the problem as possible.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

So, the fact that there's been a growing cultural thought of blatant misandrony, that basically all male urges are the root of all societal ills, that females are somehow above basic human evils like lying, malice, and vindictiveness... is surprising?

It's been going on for a while now, and likely will continue as the victim card allows one to get away with murder.


As far as the "All men = pedos" goes, I'm sure it goes on quite a bit, even if it only happens in the minds of soccer moms. But like rape allegations, it doesn't go away even if you're found innocent, and is particularly worse. Especially if found falsely guilty, as supposedly they're more likely to be violently assaulted in prison, and once released are on a legal perminant and excessive probation.



Hell, we live in an era where a man has been forced to publicly apologize for acknowledging observed differences between the genders that lead to fewer women pursuing a career in science. That this was somehow, misogynistic...

[Big Orange]

In this case it was more like "a couple days afterwards." But let me be clear, it's not that I'm even remotely saying that all parents do this (or even a majority), or that parents shouldn't be concerned about their kids around adults.

Recently I have had a very bad personal experience with a handful of female institutional Catholics and the Catholic Church itself can be a very bad organisation, with very powerful individuals like Mother Teresa wreaking extreme destruction on society and a disproportionate number of priests having a well ingrained reputation of being sexual predators, but that is not grounds enough to despise one billion+ plus people for the actions of a few and you can't hold a grudge over one bad experience from a representative of a certain group, expecting the same action from everybody else from the same group.

It is quite natural for parents to be wary for their small children around adult strangers, but it sounds like some people are taking advantage of this realistic caution and are just being unpleasant to random strangers they don't like the look of or publicly ruin another adult who has slighted them in some way.

Hm, good point. To be honest, I've never quite been able to figure out how the courts manage to ever prove pedophilia to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, without physical evidence. Unfortunately children make really lousy witnesses (indeed, this is probably one reason why predators take advantage of them).

Most pedophiles are much more crafty than just stepping into a public place then kidnapping or molesting a random child in front of everyone, which make the paranoid soccer moms accusing passing adults of being pedos seem quite stupid. Pedophiles and rapists, like most murderers, know their victims in some way more often than not. This sort of paranoid thinking can be associated with the relatively recent trend of gated communities (you live in a protected compound to avoid street gangs but then get killed in a domestic incident).

[ArmorPierce]

I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't want to have my kids sitting on some man's lap. I'm sure that it was a honest lapse of judgement but you cannot be too careful about it. I think that you people are making this into more than it is for the most part. You can't really trust your child with a stranger at all especially men if the cocern is for him/her getting raped. I have a friend that was raped my multiple men including friend of the family but for the most part it was perpetuated by men/boys in her own family.

[ArmorPierce]

What I mean is that there should be a level of physical and mental distance between an adult (especially a man) and a child. I don't see how this can turn into fear of helping a child, just don't make too much physcial contact and lead the child off to some place private (like your home).

[Darth Wong]

I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't want to have my kids sitting on some man's lap.

So you will run away from the Santa at shopping malls around Christmas?

[ArmorPierce]

No I wouldn't but now that you mention it. Tell me, would you mind your wife sitting on santa's lap?