this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
16 points (80.8% liked)

Australian News

771 readers
22 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
DemSpud@lemmy.dbzer0.com
16
A survey found 1 in 6 men admit sexual feelings for children. So is paedophilia increasing? (2023, linked study is worth a read). (theconversation.com)
submitted 4 days ago by naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/news@aussie.zone
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because you were rude and smug. Your comment didn’t address my comment at all.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

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.