Why do people continually focus on pedophilia? Why is this trend present and where did it arise from?
If you’ve noticed, there is currently a trend of calling many people, if not any unsuspecting individual, a pedophile. It’s basically used as an insult, and that has caused its use to skyrocket, because people love to insult one another. There are some groups I have found this more commonly in, like many places on VRChat and other online multiplayer video games, but this extends beyond that. If you look on YouTube, you will find many channels and videos dedicated to pedophile hunting, and pretending to be a child in order to bring out a predator, and then make a video off of the predator’s reaction. Chris Hansen’s, To Catch a Predator was also very popular, and occurred much before the current trend, or present rush, that we are experiencing now. There are a few reasons for this, and I believe some of them to be more relevant than others. Most notably, Epstein has been a relevant figure for years and the release of his files brought about new outrage, the usage is focused in particular places on the internet, the continued decrease in privacy for adults for the presumed safety of children, and lies by those in power that they wish to protect children.
Before stepping further, one must recognize what a pedophile is and how most people feel towards pedophiles. Pedophilia, simply is, the sexual attraction towards children. This to most, and quite reasonably, is repulsive. However, one must recognize that in being a pedophile does not necessarily mean the consumption of pedophilic material nor does it mean acting upon the sexual urges. The hatred and disgust above all else are directed towards those who do act upon their urges, and those who perpetuate cycles of abuse. Those who create child-abuse material, share it, and then make others also want to share it, and then you find there are these circles of individuals who all participate in something they must keep hidden, but they push each other to share content or act upon their urges.
When someone says pedophile, they are almost always, and if not exclusively, talking about the individual who somehow, in some way, acts upon their urges. In the modern day, if someone calls you a pedophile, they are calling you the most despicable type of person; they are saying you are the worst. A pedophile who acts upon their urges is the worst type of person, the most repulsive type of person, which makes it a great label to direct towards anyone who is antagonistic towards you, or, you want a reaction out of. No one wants to be labeled in such a way, and it is such a terrible thing that you almost intuitively want to defend yourself, or respond in a similar way, or just general anger. In this, there is also the urge to appeal to others’ feelings about pedophiles, such as in content about “catching” pedophiles or baiting them and then calling the police. These shows and videos appeal to our moral compass, and they appeal to our call for justice. This has generally been present in the modern day, but in even more recent times, in our current zeitgeist, there is a particular focus on one individual and his relevance has caused even more of an explosion of focus on this group.
It was not so long ago that Epstein supposedly had killed himself in his cell. There was some amount of outcry, but there wasn’t much the public did, nor was there much they could do. It was almost seen as humorous, as it was almost obvious to everyone that he didn’t kill myself. Whether he was killed by another authority figure or was brought to an unknown location, that’s hard for us to decide or deduce, but what we do know, is that the public is generally untrustworthy of many of the things spread through news sources. Generally, people have begun to distrust medias that were once so powerful, whether it was on the radio or on the television. Yes, they’ve moved to the internet, but on that platform, there is far more competition. Within that whole realm, a news media business must compete with many social medias, of which aren’t going to restrict to a particularly high degree of what can be said and done. Indeed, there are limits, and yes, these platforms will attempt to block certain things from being said, no doubt, but these are not government platforms, they are corporate platforms. This means a politician or group of politicians do not directly have influence over what is going to be said and allowed on that platform, excusing things like bribery.
On basically any social media, Epstein was talked about. Many acted upset at the fact they were being lied to, while others made jokes and memes about the supposed death. An otherwise unknown figure to many was now in the forefront of many minds, and so his face was then remembered. Someone who otherwise didn’t have much relevance to the majority of people was now someone to be angry about, upset about, and worst of all, many of his crimes, of which we only know so much about, were especially depraved and repulsive. What we can gather above all else is that he was a terrible person, one of the most terrible people one could be, and abusing others in such ways that he has, and promoting that behavior to others, makes him especially disgusting. Another very important quality is that thing one might call Epstein’s Island, which is relevant for its known usage as a platform to abuse other people, and especially children. In acknowledging this person, people in general, that have access to social media, now know about him and some of the things he has done, even if only vaguely. The idea of a pedophile is in their mind, and the idea that many other politicians and those of power are also pedophiles might also arise.
As much of everything that is talked about and focused on with such a flurry of emotion, the internet and those using it let go of Epstein. There was a new thing to focus on, a new meme, a new person to burn on a cross, or a new video game to play. Essentially, once one thing has run its course, after the groupthink has finished digesting it, they move on to consuming the next thing. For the majority, this is the case, and will continue to be as long as we are tribal animals. However, just like in tribes, they divert focus and break up; they break apart. It’s already known that a pedophile is the worst thing imaginable to many people, and upon seeing something like Epstein, whether they knew of him or not, brought about more fury, more anger, and more fuel to feed their actions. I believe that event, his supposed suicide, brought about even more content and media directed towards catching and exposing those trying to bring harm to children.
The basic principles of this type of video or show are simple. One must create a false persona or character to catch a predator with, some sort of minor, and then go to places on the internet to try and catch the predator. It is fishing; and the bait is the minor, and the fish is the predator. Upon catching the predator, they keep them going through messages that enable the predator to create a fantasy, and then create a world where that individual can act out their fantasy. It’s usually something about meeting up, but many videos don’t have this aspect. Assuming they do, they meet up, and then expose the person for their intent to abuse a minor. In others, like Chris Hansen’s show, the police will be there to arrest the individual, and then that generally concludes the episode or the segment. In other types of videos, one simply screencaps and records the messages for later use, whether as a means of exposing the individual or something else. These act upon our ethical need for those who intend, or already do, abuse children, to receive repercussions for their actions, and blasting their face for all those to see is not even brought into consideration.
Above all else, these are videos created for entertainment. They exist to create conflict, have action, and finally reach a desirable conclusion: arresting and/or exposing the predator. In this, one must recognize the actual content itself might not be so high tension, high release; it might actually be quite bland for the most part. Actually, finding the predator to take the bait, bringing them along, and finally convincing them to take part in the act, if they needed convincing. The person is seen, cameras film their face, and their identity is out there, for everyone to see. Whether or not justice is served is up to you, but depending on how many people see the video, the life of this individual might be over. Whether or not you think that’s a good thing isn’t the focus here, but what is the focus is that there is a face to the predator. A target has been found, and that target has been brought to some sort of justice, as long as they have been exposed and it is known they are willing to engage, or at least have the intent to engage, in such abusive acts.
One must recognize that some sort of proof is needed, and these usually come in the form of chatlogs. In both videos that end up showing a real person’s face and those that do not, the means of proving the intent of the individual is through the chat they had with that person. Usually, the creator will showcase the clear desire and intent of the predator and minimize all other logs. This, for the most part, is a fine thing to do. In the case that police are involved, they will receive all the logs, so nothing will be hidden from them, and in the case of entertainment, it's unlikely that the viewer wants to see more than what is already shown. In many cases, we, the viewer, don’t see a follow-up. It’s a one and done thing, and there is potential for the viewer to follow up and see what the justice system is up to, if police ever were involved, but otherwise, they peer into seeing the next video or episode to see the same thing with a new individual involved. One particular notable quality is that the logs don’t need to be necessarily “proven.” As in, the logs, if the creator so desired, could be falsified. I would like to imagine, in most cases, this does not happen, but if the creator did not verify the validity of the logs, they absolutely could be faked. Once again, this probably doesn’t happen for most of these videos, but I’m sure there are exceptions, and without a doubt, there will be more exceptions in the future.
For the most part, I have been speaking for videos or episodes that take place in real life. There are real people filmed, real people recording themselves and others, and a place that they all finally meet up at. The predator is exposed, they make comments, they say things, maybe they could even get physical, but that’s essentially the format. However, as you could quite clearly imagine, it doesn’t necessarily need to be bound in the real world, nor does it need any sort of real life exposing. It can be purely held in the virtual world, whether that’s a specific place or generally the internet. To reiterate, this extends to beyond the real world, as you don’t literally need a face to have some level of exposure. It can be a virtual avatar or simply a name.
This brings us into the aspect of particular groups participating in this type of behavior. Not necessarily the pedophilic acts, but more-so the hunting of pedophiles. A place like the internet is a place one could generally start, but getting more specific is ideal. I have generally found places like VRChat attract a wide variety of people, but within that variety, there must always be limitations. Oddities will be found anywhere, and virtual reality is still quite niche, and of course, when someone comes across an unusual community or a group of individuals that act different from the norm, the outsider will take interest to them. This is why you will find a lot of “trolling” videos on YouTube on specifically VRChatters. Do these people actually troll? No, not really, they usually aren’t very good, but if your prey are those who are the least obvious, the least aware, and the one’s most likely to be impulsively emotional; they’re easy targets. I don’t want to divert too greatly from the pedophile-quality, but the idea is that if you find a group of people who are impulsive, and react based on what they hear immediately, then you’ve found a great group to make upset or angry, and it can be as simple as a word.
This brings us back to the word, pedophile, being thrown around constantly. If it is acknowledged by most to be repulsive, the worst thing, a terrible way to define someone or something, then those who are the most emotionally vulnerable are going to freak out, whether that comes out in anger or some other flurry of emotions. I haven’t seen much of the “trolling” content on YouTube, but I doubt they use specific keywords in order to get reactions, they could, but I’m uncertain. Those who don’t make that type of content, however, cannot help themselves. Constantly they use them, and you cannot go a public lobby without hearing it. It is always being used, always targeted at someone, whether or not it is has any relevance. Believe it or not, as long as this goes on, it continually diminishes the quality of the word. The more you hear something, the more something is used, the more it is worn down. If you hear it a million times, it won’t have the same effect it did the first couple of times. However, this is an entirely separate problem we don’t need to exactly focus on, but what we do need to focus on are the groups within VRChat and the types of rare individuals who might arise.
If you’ve seen the exposing videos of real people, it wouldn’t be any surprise to me if you’ve also seen specifically and only virtual alternatives to those types of videos. No faces are exposed, no identities are exposed, only online faces, and only online names. When you start stepping into territory that contains people who don’t want to show their face, or don’t go outside, or not as frequently, then you’re going to find people who aren’t the greatest type of individual. This is true for anywhere on the internet, yes, but it cannot be denied that VRChat, aside from age-verified instances, maintains and holds a player-base that is mostly children. Whatever you think about it, that doesn’t matter, but what does matter is that this makes it a place where predators would go about and seek a target. It’s the same with any other social media platform, however, this place makes it easier in some ways. There is a standard of sexuality all over the platform that is not always age-gated, and so you will find children, I mean pre-pubescent kids, wearing oversexualized avatars, with or without the awareness of what it is. This constant exposure, especially in the eyes of someone who has experienced so little life, quickly sets a standard of a particular quality. This then enables and continually pushes predators to more easily find someone who is susceptible to behavior that they don’t quite understand, or that they believe isn’t a big deal, and is the norm.
How often does this actually happen? It’s hard to say, but what I do know is that the validity of the statement and idea only has importance to those who want to take action, as in, fix the problem. What I’m trying to say is that, whether or not it is believed, it is known, and it is felt. If that is the standard then, even those who know nothing about it, the individuals who only visit age-gated instances, can still be targets for the label of “pedophile” simply for associating with the game and playing on it. It is seemingly a double-standard, but in this, you will find that it is reinforced by a few creepy individuals who slip through the cracks.
The names and faces of the individuals, even if only virtual, aren’t relevant. However, what is relevant, is that there have been many, if not many more, “exposing” videos of people on VRChat who have done repulsive things. These things, yes, have been in the illegal sphere of things, and so, many of them could also be assigned the ‘pedophile’ label. This only reinforces the belief that these people are amongst us, and there are many, but it is also makes those creating content desire the creation of more content of this quality. They will search out for these individuals, and go through the same process of setting up bait, and hoping the fish bite. In this case, the proof will come in the form of likely both chatlogs and a recording of the person admitting to their acts or some virtual characters standing around “exposing” the individual. This reached a new height when I was in a world, and supposedly, and I did not find out if this was the case or not, a “pedophile” was being exposed and people were gathering around.
At that moment, I was also introduced to the idea of individuals pretending to be children on the platform itself in order to bait predators into biting. It was one thing for this to be specifically chatlogs, but this has now arisen as people pretending and acting like children and then actively searching out these individuals within VRChat. Whether we like it or not, this is the type of thing people like to see, they want to see a person who has done wrong, or has intent to do wrong, be caught in the act. However, unlike much of the televised content of this type, there is a lack of legal action. Nothing really happens to the person aside from an “exposure video.” The difference between real-life and the virtual landscape is that one can simply create an entirely new persona online. There ends up being minimal, if not zero, repercussions for their actions, and they can continue doing what they were doing, but more stealthfully and carefully so as to sniff out those who are pretending to be children.
In bringing up VRChat, I also mentioned age-gated instances. These, maybe in the past, were simply circumvented by telling, likely a literal child, your date of birth, and they let you into the place. Do these virtual bouncers still exist? Yes, here and there, but they are outdated by the newer, on-platform, age-verification. You send a picture of your ID and face to some company VRChat is connected with, they encrypt and delete those files, and assuming you’re 18 and older, you’ll then be age-verified. This allows you into instances that have this lock, and only those with age-verification are allowed in these instances. There are no exceptions to this. However, sometimes you will come across an instance that is not age-gated, but there is some counter, or a bouncer, that checks to see if you have the verification, then allows you into the virtual space with the other people. I have participated in the age-verification, and this, at the very least, keeps me in an environment without literal children. I can tolerate most teenagers, but I find it difficult to tolerate attention-seeking toddlers. However, I wanted, above all else, to be able to visit and participate in instances that have been age-gated, and they are predominately where I hang out if I’m not simply with a group of friends.
This exists for a purpose, to separate the adults from the children. To my knowledge, it has not been mentioned in any blog post or video that this was done for the purpose of protecting children. This, makes sense, because it wouldn’t protect children in any way, and in fact, it would actually make things worse. However, for now, I digress. The idea of giving a company your identity just to visit instances that are 18 and older is a new concept. In the past, all you had to do was set your age old enough and then you had full-access, there was no need to give up personal information to this extent. Yet, again and again, we find this happening. Traditionally, this has not been a problem. You walk into a bar, you show someone your ID, and then all is well. Yet, if that person were to take a picture of your ID, send it off to some company, and then hand it back to you, I imagine you would be a little more uncomfortable and unhappy with the whole ordeal. Or, well, you would want to know what just happened and why it happened.
This type of age-gating is not a problem if we recognize and assume that our data and identity are protected and, and the information tying us, the real person, to the virtual character or name, is only found in an encrypted form that is not crackable. This assumption is bold, and while some companies wish to claim they can abide to it, you will find that most do not and cannot. There is too much money in data, and this is incredibly valuable data. Not only that, if they were to stick to their word, if they are an idiotic company, or lack proper structure, or are disorganized, and then are attacked by hackers or other individuals, say goodbye to your personal information. We are assuming a high level of trust in a business or corporation to fulfill a purpose, and when many businesses of a same purpose have failed to maintain or showcase that level of quality, one should wonder if any of them can be trusted. I, with everyone else who is age verified, made a choice. To give up personal information for more access, and this is fine, but I don’t believe everyone understood the extent of that choice.
Fortunately, the idea of giving up personal information to prove you’re an adult, it usually ends up working well to separate the children from adults. Just as in a bar, it’s an easy and accessible blockade, but in the online sphere, it can be used to make the claim that children must be protected. The idea that a corporation, or a politician, cares about children, is absolutely absurd, because neither do, and both usually take action that undermines the health and wellbeing of children, but the claim drives deep in the heart of most. Just as many are upset, repulsed, if not angry, at a pedophile, or even the idea of a pedophile, they also care deeply about the youth and want them protected. Whether they take action on this or not, it’s hard to say, and most parents these days seem utterly oblivious to the internet, and simply give their children computers and iPads, unfiltered access to the internet, and then we have problems that somehow the only solution is to give up personal information. Instead of a parent actually taking on the role of a parent, the internet, the corporation, the business, and as the past continually shows us, existing institutions like schools, take the role of the parent. This alone is repulsive and horrifying, but it is an entirely different topic. What needs to be recognized is that parents are doing less parenting, while corporations and institutions are doing more.
As we all know, children don’t have the same level of awareness as adults, as they have far fewer experiences and are both mentally and physically underdeveloped. This is why you want to protect them, just like you would want to protect a baby. Not to the same level, and not in the same ways, but the idea is the same. Now extend this to the internet, where you are being told there are all sorts of predators and pedophiles and people who want to harm your child. Instead of you having to take action to protect your child, an offer arises, in which other people using the platform must subjugate themselves via ID verification, and that those who do not will be left with limited access and must stay within specific places of that platform. Clearly, if you don’t use the platform, you want to take the easy path and let the institution or corporation take over; assume it to take control. Many people on the platform might be in support of this too, they don’t want to be around children, and they want children to have decreased access, and they have no problem giving up personal information to an unknown entity for the presumed purpose of a barrier.
Discord is a platform that now wishes to have ID verification. You don’t need it, you never do, but in order to see certain things, and thus associate with certain people, you must verify. It’s the same in VRChat, where if you want to go to an age-gated instances, you need the verification. This is fine, on paper, that is. You’ll likely notice in most VRChat age-gated instances, they’re just like any other instance, there isn’t any specific oversexualization or even talks of sex or mature material. It’s just people talking about nonsense you could talk about in a café in front of anyone. However, all the people wanted to be in the café that was age-gated, and this is something very notable, because when we extend this to another platform like Discord, it is assumed the same exact thing will happen.
If you want to talk about anything with other adults, assuming the majority of adults have decided to give up their personal information to be verified, you too, will have to verify. The same process will go on, and this will also create a world where many might think you’re a child simply because you chose not to verify, and will absolutely view you differently. “Why don’t you have age verification?” If you can identify someone with something as simple as a badge, or a pin, then this wouldn’t be any different. They would be noted as someone and something different, belonging to a different category, and not only that, a category below theirs, because those who have verified will have more access and more ability to go where and do whatever they want on the platform. This sounds awfully familiar to something that has occurred in the past, does it not?
The idea that children are being protected by this, well, is insane. What happens is the same as we’ve seen in VRChat, which is that the congregation of people which was once one pool, now is two or more separate pools. Predators can still prey on children, and will continue to do so, and this has now become even easier because they have a higher chance of actually finding someone underage. Not only that, any sensitive material that will now be age-gated, will be found elsewhere. More communities will be created for the purpose of sharing that material whilst avoiding the ID verification, and the exposure will stay the same; nothing changes. If anything, this exasperates the problem. In response to this, most people seem upset, but just as we’ve seen time and time again, people pretend to be outraged, but are so comfortable where they are, they will refuse to change and will just simply give up.
All of this is said in order to make notice of the idea that action is taken in order to supposedly protect children, or it has the undertones of that purpose. In addition, many are okay with this, and will go online with it, whether it is out of ignorance or out of desperation of staying in touch with their friends who won’t change the platform they use. Simply as a result of these things happening and being rolled out on social media platforms only further reinforces the idea that predators and pedophiles are everywhere. Children supposedly must be protected by government and corporate entities, and these are the actions that are claimed to be necessary. This makes both the average person, with or without children, more worried about a problem that has continually exploded in popularity. “Oh, there are predators everywhere, someone or something, please handle it!” On news sites, you can’t avoid it, on YouTube, there are numerous “exposing” videos; there are seemingly so many predators. This only reinforces the idea that one must take action to protect themselves and their loved ones or else they might be in harm’s way.
It's hard to say if this content is pushed by algorithms. At some level, I genuinely believe that it has to be pushed to people, but that’s because algorithms have learned that the content is favorable. People want to see that type of content, and if people are looking for it, the more views it receives, the more popular it becomes, and the more the topic is spoken about and shared around, the more significant it then is. It cannot be denied that people have for a long time, and still continually do, find interest in justice. Whether the justice is actually justified, whether it is truthful, whether they know why the justice is taking place; these things generally don’t matter to the majority of people. However, what does matter, is that they believe justice is taking place, and that someone is being punished for it. The general attraction to this type of content wouldn’t have to necessarily have to be a bad thing, I used to enjoy police videos and police interrogations, however, I cannot deny that when you see something, or hear something, many times over, it almost decreases or diminishes the value of that thing. This is generally my problem with the term “pedophile” being swung around constantly.
I was a little confused at first when the throwing around of “pedophile” starting gaining traction. It mostly coincided with the release of highly censored Epstein files, but it was happening far before that. The only reason I would use that as a point of reference is because it is tangible and specific, along with another icon for the masses to peer into. The value of those files isn’t really a matter here, what is though, is that Epstein had many connections, many political connections, and this has made people, at least a few, upset. To see their leaders, or the one’s they had trusted, to be associated with such an individual, is not a great feeling. It is a feeling of betrayal and disgust. Many already had given up with politics though, and paid limited attention to that particular aspect. They just found it amusing, and an opportunity, to make notice of Epstein being a terrible individual, and any association with that character would represent something reprehensible.
Not only is there the constant throwing around of “pedophile,” there is also the constant call-backs to Epstein, and being associated with Epstein, and Epstein’s Island. These things are constant, and many are jokingly done, not necessarily malicious, but because of the sensitivity of the topic, and the terrible things associated with both the place and individual, it then becomes malicious. Intent does not inherently decide the outcome. Intent is the desire, or the urge, or even the movement, to make something so, it alone does not make something so. In this, then we must recognize, individuals will call others a pedophile even without any particular malicious intent, without even any desire to arouse a reaction, but simply because they find it amusing or just as any other term. This is essentially as horrifying as it gets, because this is the ultimate devaluing of a term, and when something that was once, and I would say currently is, a terrible label to apply to anyone, has lost its value, how one believes and thinks of that label changes.
While absolutely not a direct example of this, something similar that has happened in the past, and is still happening, is the word “faggot.” Faggot used to be a derogatory term, aimed towards homosexuals, mocking them for their orientation. This went around for a while, and maybe even a few individuals still attempt to use it in an angry way. However, these days, it has no affect, it means nothing, and you will find in some circles, if not many, faggot is thrown around musingly. It isn’t seen as derogatory anymore, it is seen as a label or substitute for “gay” or homosexual, and it is used jokingly. I even use it sometimes, as long as I know I’m with individuals who view it in a certain way. This is a word that used to be negative, and yes, it was used constantly. And as we have seen, after it was used constantly, it ironically lost its meaning. There is no doubt an argument to be made for the changing of times, in homosexuality and queer individuals generally being accepted, and thus no longer notable. However, if the word wasn’t used as much, or if a new word caught traction, individuals full of hate would grapple onto the new words, use them out, and then those would lose their meaning too. Exactly this, I believe, to be happening to the word pedophile.
Everyone is a pedophile it seems, and thus, no one is. What was once such a highly valued term, in the negative sense, slowly and surely loses its value until it means very little to nothing. Epstein supposedly killing himself, and his files, although mostly unseen, being released, added to public notice of individuals in high society and politics being awfully corrupt and repulsive. Decreasing privacy by day, for the sake of protecting children, at the cost personally identifiable information. Not the mention the high concentration of individuals who like to stay on the newest terms, say the newest things, and try to get reactions out of people with particular mannerisms or words, who generally concentrate in a single or few places. Pedophile this, pedophile that, Epstein this, Epstein that; it seems that everything is a joke in today’s world. There is limited shock in what should be utterly shocking, and worrying, upsetting, and especially angering. Today is the day of submission, and the care that was once had has lost itself. That care, that desire, that need to be actionable, it will come again, for the pendulum must swing, but when that day will come is unknown.