Sex dolls for paedophiles

Azalea wrote: »

I would feel the same in relation to people who have abused children, but tongue in cheek element or no, you're endorsing injuring or killing people (assuming you're referring to paedophiles who have never touched a child) for their thoughts.

Well, in all seriousness, a tongue-in-cheek endorsement is not intended to be taken as a real endorsement. Likewise my suggestion of more efficient elimination of those people who would purchase and use one of these dolls is not intended to be viewed as a serious suggestion. I think the context made that abundantly clear.

We both know that everyone has at some stage in their lives entertained a thought which they would never wish to enact, whether that be in the heat of a road-rage argument or a mindless Wednesday night's erotic fantasy. Punishment for thoughts is the mindless preserve of the religious fanatic.

wakka12 wrote: »

Why shouldn't you feel sorry for a paedophile who has never harmed a child? Because they can't have a normal life. They are stuck with this curse and will be deeply shunned by literally everybody they know if they were to say they were attracted to children, even if they promised and never did ever act on the urges. I can only imagine how awful it must be

I can understand where you're coming from, but the thing for me is that I'll never be able to imagine what it must be like to want to have sex with children and never be able to. I don't even want to imagine what that must be like.

And I don't want to go congratulating anybody for not raping children but just imagine it was illegal for you to be with a man/woman ( whatever you are attracted to in this case), it would make life a lot more unenjoyable for you wouldnt it. And Im not a paedophile apologiser I think child rapists should only ever see the world from the inside of a jail cell for the rest of their life if they were to ever act on their urges, Im just saying we shouldn't immediately shun somebody for the orientation they are born into. Paedophiles can be good people, if they never act on their urges then I don't think they should be isolated from society, which they are.

Yes it would, which is why I can not have sex with an adult who does not give their consent.

A child is incapable of giving consent.

It's been in the news that a judge in the U.K. has ruled that these dolls are "obscene" and charges can be brought for importing them. Interestingly of the 7 people charged, 6 have also been in possession of images of child abuse. I don't think these dolls are a way for people to safely indulge their urges at all tbh

The figures were revealed as a judge at Canterbury crown court dismissed an attempt by a barrister representing an ex-primary school governor, David Turner, to argue that a doll he imported was not obscene. Turner, a 72-year-old former churchwarden, pleaded guilty on Monday to importing the child sex doll after the application to dismiss the charge was turned down.

Of the seven men charged, six also faced allegations linked to child abuse images.

Dan Scully, the deputy director for intelligence operations at the Border Force, said this showed that people who ordered the models, which are primarily manufactured in China and Hong Kong, often committed sex crimes.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's not a child it's an inanimate object. And I highly doubt it would stop paedophiles impulses.

You're an inanimate fucking object!

Grayson wrote: »

Doesn't matter what you or I think really. If some experts conduct a study that examines it and finds that it can help some than I'm all for it.

I don't think it is a generic fix that will work for everyone but I do think it may work for some.

But as I said it doesn't really matter what I think either. I'm making assumptions and without a proper study it's just an assumption.

Maybe it would help some (which personally I doubt), but at what cost given that the majority of people found in possession of the dolls in the U.K. so far have also been engaged in harmful behaviour towards real children?

fyfe79 wrote: »

I imagine a lot of them do. But nobody will ever write "I'm a paedo and am killing myself before my urges get the better of me" as their suicide note, so we'll never know.

The dolls will reveal all.

fyfe79 wrote: »

I imagine a lot of them do. But nobody will ever write "I'm a paedo and am killing myself before my urges get the better of me" as their suicide note, so we'll never know.

I read an interview with a guy who said he'd never committed a crime but was a paedophile. He knew acting on his urges was wrong and he'd never do it. He talked about how his life was hell. He just wanted to be normal. Be attracted to adults, be able to have a relationship etc.

We have this image in our heads of predators but it may be that there are many who are not. We can't know because most will never say. It's not something that anyone would admit, even in a suicide note, because of the shame it would bring on a family. I'd imagine many would commit suicide. In the 60's many gay people did because it was impossible to be out. (Not that being gay equates to being a paedophile. I'm just saying that living in a society where they can't even admit who there are must wear them down)

In Germany (I think it's there) they have dedicated services to help people like that. The idea was to give treatment to people without any judgement and hopefully they would come forward.

Sick disease, in a way similar to people who are really into fetishes or homosexuals. (No I'm not saying homosexuality is a sick disease, just comparing it to how some people are hard wired).

I don't like pedophiles or trust them in anyway and believe if they kept their illness hidden and suppressed it would be best for themselves and society.

I feel these dolls would be a step in the wrong direction, it normalizes pedophilia and makes it slightly more acceptable and it could be a gateway for many of them to commit a crime against a real child.

Don't see the issue. It's as absurd as certain types of cartoon porn being illegal.

Amazes me that you can go into a cinema and watch a horror movie where real children will often be seen acting out having their throats cut and/or being hacked to pieces........... purely for our entertainment and enjoyment........ but yet cartoons depicting underage sex is not okay?

Film someone pretending to murder a real child...... fine, here's an Oscar. Bravo, Sir!
Shag a barbie doll................... rot in prison, you scum!
Real child.
Plastic.

Humanity. What a bunch asshats.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The lengths you are going to to try and excuse pedophiles of their sick desires is astounding.

I don't care how they feel, how worn down they are by living in a society that (rightly) rejects them, nor do I care about letting them be who they are without judgement. The fact that you're trying to equate this to the struggles of gay people is just staggering.

I get it... you're liberal. Everyone has a right to be who they are and as long as they don't act upon such thoughts then let them at it etc etc... sorry, no. You are talking about enabling something that is simply beyond the pale in any civilised society, and under no circumstances should we attempt to normalise or downplay the implications or reality of that.

I'm sure that anyone who is reading this nonsense, and who has suffered such abuse at the hands of a trusted relative, religious figure or other, doesn't give a damn that their abuser was just being "who they are" and needed help - THEY were the victims, not their abusers.

Seriously, this Americansed liberal nonsense is REALLY getting out of hand!

Er, okay, so what are you suggesting? Your comments seem to suggest that anyone who buys one of these dolls should be locked up for crimes against said dolls (since the whole point is that it's to help people deal with urges that they know are wrong by the doll outlet, not give them practice for actual children).

I am really not sure what the implications and reality of that are. Since no-one is suggesting letting children be abused and are, in fact, trying to come up with ways to help -prevent- it, rather than just deal with the aftermath of another child badly hurt.

Yes, the dolls are creepy. No sh*t they're creepy, because the majority of people in here are absolutely not attracted to them (I say majority because we don't know and I sure as hell doubt that anyone's going to say they are attracted to them in here!). But given we're not descending to locking people up because of unprovable thoughts, society is a bit stuck on this issue. We can either try to understand and solve why some people appear to be wired this way or we can ignore and hate them in abstract until some of them fall and then punish them as severely as possible to make us all feel better about it. I don't know if the dolls will work either, it may not be the best method, but "do nothing" doesn't seem to work.

We've tried that method for generations and child abuse is still happening. Possibly trying to understand why it happens (WHY IT HAPPENS, I'm not talking about excusing it, but comprehension is a good start to any difficult problem) and what can be done to mitigate, redirect or change the urges is worth a shot.

"to excuse people their sick desires" - I don't excuse acting on the desires. But yes, I do feel for people who -have- them, hate them, refuse to act on them and are endlessly tempted to by whatever kinked wiring in their brain directs their sexual desires to children rather than adults. I'd personally prefer to fix the wiring rather than just condemn them as disgusting evil people that should die, particularly the ones fighting it. Sure, it's -easier- to hate and ignore it (and call anyone who wants to understand it paedophile-enablers), but more children will suffer for it.

Throwing out "liberal" as if it's an insult is a ridiculous argument, btw. Not all debates have to fall into "liberal or conservative". And neither liberals nor conservatives have the monopoly on the awful effects of child abuse nor a monopoly on paedophilia. God, this constant "you don't agree with me so you're obviously left-wing/right-wing and thus wrong" is such a lazy, useless argument.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand that you want to focus on a particular sub-group, and that's why I said you're stacking the deck in your favour to suit your argument.

Unfortunately there is no "stacking" in play here because we pretty much only CAN focus on one specific sub-group. When it comes to pedophilia the people we most study on the subject are the ones who have convictions for crimes related to it.

We of course TRY to study "normal" pedophiles..... as in the ones that go through life without ever harming another human being. But such people do not tend to make themselves known to us. Therefore it is significantly harder to focus on them as a study group.

Until we separate the crime from the condition this is unlikely to change. The only way I think we will ever study such people in any significant numbers is when we find ourselves living in a society that realizes there is nothing wrong with BEING a pedophile, there is only something wrong with acting on it against actual children.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of paedophiles, they simply will not work.

How do you know this? You appear to be making it up. The quantity of study data on the claim is small, so the one "stacking the deck" here is you. Stacking it mainly with your own assertions. And as usual I am not seeing any citations to back up your assertions.

SOME study HAS been done however on the effects of animated and simulated Child Pornography on pedophiles. Though of course without more data and testing it is still a subject for intense ethical debate. But certainly we are not in a position to make the uninformed and sweeping assertions you make here.

And that is just Virtual Child Pornography which has been around for a long time in many forms. (somewhat more) Realistic Child Sex Dolls are a relatively new and therefore even less studied phenomenon. But there are good reasons to suspect, and want to research, the idea that combined with virtual child pornography it will greatly assist in mediating pedophile impulses.

But of course even if there is a reduction of abuse due to these tools, I fully expect there will be SOME people who will abuse, who otherwise would not have, due to them too.

The ethical debate then for many is how many children is too many to be abused due to virtual porn and dolls who would not have otherwise. There are people, like myself I admit, who would look at the OVERALL numbers and say "There was a x% overall reduction in abused children over due to our policies on the matter and consider this a "success".

There are others however who would not see the numbers of children who might have been abused, who now were not, but will ONLY be able to think of the numbers who were abused who otherwise would not have been. Saving 100 children is irrelevant to such people if even ONE child gets abused, who otherwise would not have been, due to the polices we enact.

So TLDR: It is a massively complex, under studied, interlacing subject of many ethical and real world issues that is not in any way addresses by you throwing out sweeping uninformed generalizations about what you WANT to be true about the world.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you think if they worked, that someone other than the inventor would have devised the idea already, and for far less than €14k?

More uninformed massive over simplifications from you here I am afraid. It is not simply a case of waiting for someone to just up and invent a cure. There is a massive quantity of study still to be done.

Sourcing people TO study in an environment where a non-abusing pedophile does not generally feel safe to make himself known to us is hard too. And we have varied and often weird legislation around the world already banning and making illegal any form of simulated or virtual child porn. And, as we have seen with the child sex dolls, anyone who wants to move into the market with any kind of product of this sort is going to suffer major backlash in media and social media too.

So anyone who wants to invest time, effort, resources and so forth in inventing some kind of idea to help pedophiles mediate their urges and impulses does not simply wake up one morning and invent something. They have massive hoops of agenda, red tape, law, ethics and data to jump through that the uniformed lay man on the street knows little to nothing about.

So a lot more complex than merely declaring a "if it was effective, someone would be doing it" style narrative as you do here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If someone doesn't want to abuse chidlren, the answer is simple - don't bloody do it.

That answer is not "simple" it is "simplistic" and massively so. It is easy for you to SAY it, but not easy for them to do it. But I am sure you could take your show on the road. There are obese people you can tell "Just stop eating the fattening stuff". Alcoholics you can tell "Just do not bloody drink any" and gamblers you can tell "Look just keep your money in your pocket why doncha?".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that causes them distress and so on, then they should be reminded of the distress their behaviour can cause to their victims. It should be they who should have to empathise with their victims, not the other way around.

And again I am sure you can try this on alcoholics too and depress them further by informing them at great length from your pedastal/pulpit just how distressing their behaviour(s) are to their family and friends and society in general. But rather than motivate them to stop drinking this causes them further angst, worry, depression, self hatred, and neurosis which they then feel compelled to further self medicate with alcohol.

Do you think pedophiles are magically unaware of the distress and harm their behavior causes and if only we wax lyrical at them they will suddenly have enlightenment and keep it in their pants?

This sweeping ignorance of the psychologies behind such impulses and how people act on them despite their better judgement will benefit no one aside from people who love to hear themselves speak.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think we're ever likely to see eye to eye on this one El Duderino tbh, as we seem to be coming at the issue from two fundamentally different perspectives.

Yes and one perspective seems to be to come from the heart, and motivated by a general lack of empathy while the other position seems to be coming from noticing the data suggests there is potential here for an effective treatment plan that we should very much research and explore the potential and limits of overall. No one on MY side of the issue is making sweeping generalizations about a cure here, just the potentials for one. While on your own side I am seeing uniformed sweeping assertions that the majority will not be helped at all.

So the potential to see eye to eye is actually higher than you pretend I suspect, because it just requires everyone to stand back, admit we simply DO NOT KNOW the true overall effects of simulated child pornography on these people........... let alone when augmented with real world tools like sex dolls.......... and we need to not only study it in depth with all the tools at our disposal..... but also foster an environment where NON OFFENDING pedophiles feel safe making themselves available for such study so we are not left, as we are now, in an environment where KNOWN OFFENDING pedosexuals are the vast majority of the study group available to us.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand where you're coming from, but the thing for me is that I'll never be able to imagine what it must be like to want to have sex with children and never be able to. I don't even want to imagine what that must be like.

You do not need to. You can draw on things you CAN imagine and have even felt before to understand the positions in play. You have derided empathy in the past, suggesting that direct experience of something is the only way to ever empathize with it.

But I explained to you at the time that in fact one can experiences all the constituent parts of something and empathize in that way, without ever experiencing the thing itself.

At the time it was homelessness, where you were strongly triggered by the idea that someone could empathize with, and put themselves in the place of, being homeless without every actually being homeless themselves. But that is how human empathy works. The constituent parts of what it is like to be homeless........ a loss of security and control over ones life.......... social judgement of those in a "better" place than you.......... vulnerability...... fear for the future.............. the list goes on......... are all things we can feel in other contexts and then map on to our empathy for people in a context we have never ourselves been in.

The same is true here. One can imagine, without imagining what it is like to want to have sex with children, what it is like to be in their position. For example priests have mostly got all the same sexual desires and urges as you and I have. I think we can very easily imagine what it must be like for them to commit to a life of celibacy and all the challenges, self doubt, temptations, difficulties, emotions, and more that that must entail.

That is but one example, but suffice to say that empathy and understanding for pedophiles does not require we sit around and imagine the things you appear to think it does.