Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Sex dolls for paedophiles

1…6781012

Comments

  • #272
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Keeping paedos brushed under the carpet and making no attempt to understand or help them makes the world a less safe place for children.


  • #273
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Keeping paedos brushed under the carpet and making no attempt to understand or help them makes the world a less safe place for children.

    I agree- at some point society needs to have a grown up and clinical conversation about paedophilia. I suspect it is a hell of a lot more common than we all think, with a large amount simply having the self control to never act on their urges.

    That said, I honestly don't know how to feel about those dolls.


  • #274
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 7,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »


    Does it need to be "admirable" for it to be the right thing to do? Yet if you go into the alcoholics sub forum of this site you see people piling praise and admiration on each other for resisting their impulses to get out of their head drunk too. I do not think it NEEDS to be admirable, but I do admire it. Anyone who has strong impulses, as many humans do, that they are able to control and mediate has my admiration.

    You have missed my point spectacularly. A paedophile resists their urges and their not raping a child. That is not in anyway admirable. The choice they face and closing to avoid that choice, means not having a drastic effect on another vulnerable human. Avoiding that choice is not admirable, in these circumstances. Trying to compare a paedophile to an alcoholic is just grasping at straws.

    I myself have a relatively benign sugar addiction and am barely able to stop myself indulging it so that I never become obsese and ill. I struggle with it every time I walk into a shop and my mind instantly fills with all the reasons I "deserve" to buy cola, pringles, chocolate and sweets. So I genuinely do admire AND sympathize with anyone who is filled with desires and impulses they know they can not ever indulge, and they control it. Be they obese, a gambler, an alcoholic, or a pedophile.

    good for you. Go high five a paedophile. Congratulations on not destroying a child today. Coz that's the same as not buying a can of coke :rolleyes:

    And if ANY tools can be found to effectively help such people mediate and control those impulses and desires, I see no reason why we as a society should not be doing everything we can to research and provide them. For the good of BOTH the person with the issue, and the victims (in whatever form) of them.



    To my knowledge they already CAN do so? I have not heard of any pedophile around here, convicted or otherwise, being told they can not have children of their own? We certainly are not sterlizing them are we?

    so you would trust a paedophile with their own child? They're fighting a natural urge as you put it, on a daily basis and this would not concern you?

    There is nothing TO excuse. There is nothing at all wrong with the "desire". ACTIONS are the only thing that need excusing, prosecuting, or acceptance.

    There is nothing at all wrong with BEING a pedophile. There is nothing at all wrong with WANTING to have sex with children. There is nothing at all wrong with being sexually attracted to a child.

    The only thing wrong is when you ACT on those impulses and ACTUALLY have sex with children because they are incapable of giving informed consent and informed consent is the core ethic upon which our society seems to build sexual morality.



    No but they might give a damn if they though that simulated child pornography augmented by victim-crime child sex dolls turns out to be a treatment plan that prevents other children, like they themselves once were, from being abused when they otherwise might be.

    So we owe it to the victims of such crimes to do the research and find out, and not simply blanket ban such things because our hearts, biases and impulses tell us it is the right thing to do.

    There is everything wrong with being attracted to a child! Just because it's a natural instinct does not make it right. It is not acceptable. It is only explainable. There is nothing illegal about having thoughts without acting, but there certainly is something wrong with it!


  • #275
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    You have missed my point spectacularly.

    Disagreeing with a point is not the same as missing the point, a difference you have missed spectacularly.

    I am not agreeing that the derisory patronizing tone of "Oh yay, you did not rape one today, go you" is a helpful or useful one to take. Rather it is not more OR less admirable than anyone who has strong urges and resists them for their own good or the good of others.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Trying to compare a paedophile to an alcoholic is just grasping at straws.

    Then you might want to take that up with someone who is comparing a pedophile to an alcoholic. I was not doing so. Rather I was comparing the reasons why we might admire the abstinence of one to the other.

    There is a difference between comparing X and Y, and comparing our response to X and Y, which you missed spectacularly.

    AGAIN however the point is that the actions of both affect others in bad ways. An alcoholic giving into their urges can do anything from hurt or lose their family, to kill people while driving cars and so forth. And we praise and admire those who over come their addictions and impulses and achieve full abstinence. We might not go "Oh yay you, you managed not to go on a bender again today and spend all your families money for food and clothing on it" but at the same time we do respect their achievements when they overcome their addictions and issues, and sometimes we do praise and congratulate them for achieving it.

    So why is this any different? At the root of it they are people who have desires and impulses that they choose to resist and not indulge for their own good and the good of others. If one is at all praise worthy or admirable, then I think so to is the other.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    so you would trust a paedophile with their own child? They're fighting a natural urge as you put it, on a daily basis and this would not concern you?

    Conversation might work better if you reply to the things I did say, rather than your own words put into my mouth. You brought up the point about pedophiles being allowed to have children and ALL I SAID was that they already can and do. All the rest of that stuff you wrote above ^ that came from you, not me.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    There is everything wrong with being attracted to a child! Just because it's a natural instinct does not make it right.

    Wanting to kill your boss does not make you a murderer. Wanting to smack some loud mouth in the jaw does not make you a violent assailant. Wanting to sneak over the wall of some rich guys house and drive off his 100k car does not make you a thief. Thought crime is not an actual crime.

    I never said "because it's a natural instinct that makes it right". Anywhere. Ever. But nor does it make it WRONG. ACTIONS determine the ethical and moral rights and wrongs. Feelings, desires and temptations do not.

    So no, other than you merely asserting it to be so, I am not seeing what is wrong with such attractions. I do not see what is right OR wrong with any emotion or desire. The ethics and morality of it for me is determined by what one does WITH those feelings. Not the feelings themselves.


  • #276
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 7,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Disagreeing with a point is not the same as missing the point, a difference you have missed spectacularly.

    I am not agreeing that the derisory patronizing tone of "Oh yay, you did not rape one today, go you" is a helpful or useful one to take. Rather it is not more OR less admirable than anyone who has strong urges and resists them for their own good or the good of others.



    Then you might want to take that up with someone who is comparing a pedophile to an alcoholic. I was not doing so. Rather I was comparing the reasons why we might admire the abstinence of one to the other.

    There is a difference between comparing X and Y, and comparing our response to X and Y, which you missed spectacularly.

    AGAIN however the point is that the actions of both affect others in bad ways. An alcoholic giving into their urges can do anything from hurt or lose their family, to kill people while driving cars and so forth. And we praise and admire those who over come their addictions and impulses and achieve full abstinence. We might not go "Oh yay you, you managed not to go on a bender again today and spend all your families money for food and clothing on it" but at the same time we do respect their achievements when they overcome their addictions and issues, and sometimes we do praise and congratulate them for achieving it.

    So why is this any different? At the root of it they are people who have desires and impulses that they choose to resist and not indulge for their own good and the good of others. If one is at all praise worthy or admirable, then I think so to is the other.



    Conversation might work better if you reply to the things I did say, rather than your own words put into my mouth. You brought up the point about pedophiles being allowed to have children and ALL I SAID was that they already can and do. All the rest of that stuff you wrote above ^ that came from you, not me.



    Wanting to kill your boss does not make you a murderer. Wanting to smack some loud mouth in the jaw does not make you a violent assailant. Wanting to sneak over the wall of some rich guys house and drive off his 100k car does not make you a thief. Thought crime is not an actual crime.

    I never said "because it's a natural instinct that makes it right". Anywhere. Ever. But nor does it make it WRONG. ACTIONS determine the ethical and moral rights and wrongs. Feelings, desires and temptations do not.

    So no, other than you merely asserting it to be so, I am not seeing what is wrong with such attractions. I do not see what is right OR wrong with any emotion or desire. The ethics and morality of it for me is determined by what one does WITH those feelings. Not the feelings themselves.

    Again you've missed my point and split hairs in order to play devil's advocate. Well done you.

    Wanting to kill your boss, is not a normal thought and fighting the urge to and not doing so are not admirable.

    If I was standing beside a man who had thoughts of raping me, should admire him for not acting on those thoughts? Should I sympathise with him for having those thoughts? No.

    Being an alcoholic is not the same as being a pedophile. The thoughts of drinking in themselves are not wrong. The thoughts of having sex with a child are.

    If that makes me unreasonable and narrowminded I'll gladly accept both titles, in this circumstance.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Again you've missed my point and split hairs in order to play devil's advocate. Well done you.

    Again, I am disagreeing with the point, not missing it. You would do well to learn the difference there as you patently seem to think they are somehow the same thing when they are not. Well done you.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Wanting to kill your boss, is not a normal thought and fighting the urge to and not doing so are not admirable.

    You are mixing my examples from each point with examples from other points.

    I gave the example of wanting to kill your boss under my "thought crime" point but above you have moved it over to my "admiration point". Well done you.

    The examples offered there were to support the idea that thinking about a crime and engaging in the crime are NOT the same thing by far.

    Wanting to attack someone (which you said on this very thread that you yourself want to do I might add. Well done you.) does not make you a criminal. ACTUALLY attacking them would.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Should I sympathise with him for having those thoughts? No.

    I do not see why not. Someone is having thoughts and desires they do not want, and likely will not follow through on them. I sympathize with that for sure.

    There are pedophiles in this world who will never lay a finger on a child. But because of the idea their thoughts are somehow "wrong" (asserted without basis by people like yourself. Well done you.) they suffer for it.

    They hate themselves. And why? They will never hurt anyone, they will never harm a child, they will never do anything wrong. Yet they can hate themselves or suffer from depression and more.

    Such people have my sympathy and understanding, even if they never get yours. Because I see no reason to withhold it.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Being an alcoholic is not the same as being a pedophile.

    I already pulled you up on the fact that I never said they were the same thing, and never compared them. So why you are still harping on about a point I never actually even REMOTELY made, is opaque to me and, I suspect, to you too. Well done you.

    I repeat for the third time I was comparing not pedophilia and alcoholism, but our reaction to people suffering from one or the other, and asking you a question you have dodged answering which is WHY one should be treated different than the other.

    In BOTH cases we have people who have impulses, desires and temptations they they overcome and mediate and resist. IF one should be lent any level of praise or commendation, then why not the other? Why should our reactions be different from one to the other? (Again, me comparing our reactions to them, not comparing THEM).
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    The thoughts of drinking in themselves are not wrong. The thoughts of having sex with a child are.

    Why? Just because you say so and declare it by fiat to be so? Or do you have any basis you can offer for continually asserting this?

    All I see in BOTH cases is someone having thoughts. And I do not see why thoughts, emotions, temptations or desires are "wrong".

    You suggest you might be being "unreasonable" here, but until I see how (if) you reasoned yourself into this opinion I am not in a position to say.


  • #278
    Oranage2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,129 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oranage2 wrote: »
    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.

    Yea because suppression of sexual urges has a real long history of success in society over all, huh?
    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I feel these dolls would be a step in the wrong direction, it normalizes pedophilia and makes it slightly more acceptable

    And why should it NOT be more acceptable? It is there. It exists. People have it. They do not generally WANT it, but it is inside them, and many people hate themselves for it for no good reason, because they have never, would never abuse or hurt an actual child.

    So why should they suffer? Why should they hate themselves for what they are, instead of for what they have, or have not, done? If they are suffering from self hatred and depression then I WANT to reach out to them, tell them there is nothing wrong with who they are so long as they never abuse or hurt an actual person, and that we as a society want to do everything we can to make it ok for them in their lives. And if that includes production houses that churn out products of virtual pornography and animated sex dolls and robots, and maybe eventually virtual reality or holodeck stuff, then why not?

    There is NOTHING wrong with attractions and impulses and desires and imagination and thoughts. We should judge people on their actions, not their thoughts.
    Oranage2 wrote: »
    it could be a gateway for many of them to commit a crime against a real child.

    It "could". We need to find out. But also as I said to OEJ above, there is a genuine ethical debate to be had if it turns out that it is a treatment plan that STOPS X number of people from abusing a real child and gives a gateway to Y number of people to do so.

    Because if X > 0 and Y= 0 then we have a treatment plan. But if X > Y > 0 then we have a very real, and difficult, ethical debate to table, and not one that is going to be settled by sweeping generalizations and knee jerk ethical diktat.

    But not all fantasy is a gateway to reality. We are talking about simulated child porn and sex dolls as if it is a completely new scenario. But is it? There are a lot of people who like their partner to dress up for appearance or even sexual role play. What is one of the most common outfits people think of in such scenarios? School girl outfits and pigtails is one very common one. Are they not therefore, also, simulating a form of child sex too? Yet I have never myself (though I do not doubt it is out there if I google it) heard anyone suggest this was a gateway event either.
    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Double.post so to clarify, most relationships between consensual adults is fine.

    Just so I am clear, not to question you or anything, but could you give me a short list exampling the kinds of relationships between consenting adults that is NOT fine?
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    It's not an admirable thing to say at the end of the day, I chose not to rape a kid today, go me!

    Does it need to be "admirable" for it to be the right thing to do? Yet if you go into the alcoholics sub forum of this site you see people piling praise and admiration on each other for resisting their impulses to get out of their head drunk too. I do not think it NEEDS to be admirable, but I do admire it. Anyone who has strong impulses, as many humans do, that they are able to control and mediate has my admiration.

    I myself have a relatively benign sugar addiction and am barely able to stop myself indulging it so that I never become obsese and ill. I struggle with it every time I walk into a shop and my mind instantly fills with all the reasons I "deserve" to buy cola, pringles, chocolate and sweets. So I genuinely do admire AND sympathize with anyone who is filled with desires and impulses they know they can not ever indulge, and they control it. Be they obese, a gambler, an alcoholic, or a pedophile.

    And if ANY tools can be found to effectively help such people mediate and control those impulses and desires, I see no reason why we as a society should not be doing everything we can to research and provide them. For the good of BOTH the person with the issue, and the victims (in whatever form) of them.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    How far should the understanding and help extend? Should they be allowed have children of their own, if successfully rehabilitated?

    To my knowledge they already CAN do so? I have not heard of any pedophile around here, convicted or otherwise, being told they can not have children of their own? We certainly are not sterlizing them are we?
    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The lengths you are going to to try and excuse pedophiles of their sick desires is astounding.

    There is nothing TO excuse. There is nothing at all wrong with the "desire". ACTIONS are the only thing that need excusing, prosecuting, or acceptance.

    There is nothing at all wrong with BEING a pedophile. There is nothing at all wrong with WANTING to have sex with children. There is nothing at all wrong with being sexually attracted to a child.

    The only thing wrong is when you ACT on those impulses and ACTUALLY have sex with children because they are incapable of giving informed consent and informed consent is the core ethic upon which our society seems to build sexual morality.
    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    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.

    No but they might give a damn if they though that simulated child pornography augmented by victim-crime child sex dolls turns out to be a treatment plan that prevents other children, like they themselves once were, from being abused when they otherwise might be.

    So we owe it to the victims of such crimes to do the research and find out, and not simply blanket ban such things because our hearts, biases and impulses tell us it is the right thing to do.

    Father - daughter
    Somebody with bad autism
    Teacher - secondary student

    So many consensual relationships between adults aren't right


  • #279
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's not illegal to fcuk a doll even one that looks like a kid.

    Depends where you live.

    This guy in Canada is is on trial for possessing one of the dolls as it's being argued that it constitutes him being in possession of child pornography.


  • #280
    southstar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    bruno1x wrote: »
    This is how it will be pushed into the mainstream, it will start with making the use of these dolls acceptable, then they will make it appear that this is normal, no one is getting hurt, then we will have reports of adults having sex with children who are "mature for their age" both parties consented.
    Its the thin end of the wedge, nip it in the bud.

    Yeah they'll be able to get married next


  • #281
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,040 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Grayson wrote: »
    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.

    The thing is though that paedophiles are manipulative liars. Look at the lengths many of them go to to have access to their victims and groom the victims and also their families. They lie to themselves and others that children can consent and that relationships are beneficial for both parties. I wouldn't trust a word they say tbh. They can't say they'd never do it because given the opportunity they don't know that for sure.

    I'm pretty sure there was at least one interview or tv show recently featuring one of these "virtuous" paedophiles who would never hurt a child. Turns out he was in possession of images of child abuse so not so innocent after all.

    Any attempt at normalising paedophilia is a step towards normalising child abuse imo.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,052 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    There was an article in the Irish Independant today where some fella got 20 months in the UK for watching a live stream of a 6 year old boy being raped, there is no treatment for sickos like that.


  • #283
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Father - daughter
    Somebody with bad autism
    Teacher - secondary student

    So many consensual relationships between adults aren't right

    So basically the relationships between "consenting adults" that you have an issue with fall under the ones where "consent" is questionable in the first place and calling them "adults" is too?

    Secondary students for example are rarely adults. Someone with a "bad" mental deficiency can often not give meaningful consent either. At least somewhat sensible in the examples is the inherent concept of a vastly unequal division of power which would also erode meaningful consent.

    I do not see anything per se wrong with incestuous relationships between consenting adults. So calling those "wrong" is mostly just opinion and social conditioning. But again we do have to be cautious where an unequal division of power and authority is in play.

    So I am not sure these were the examples I was expecting, but at least it is clearer what you mean. Will you be responding to any of the rest of my post, or just that one sentence? I only ask because curiously you quoted the entire ting, but only replied to one line in it.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    The thing is though that paedophiles are manipulative liars. Look at the lengths many of them go to to have access to their victims and groom the victims and also their families.

    So ABUSERS are manipulative liars then, not "pedophiles". For every pedophile that abuses, I wonder how many do not do so. Why would they be considered "manipulative liars" if they have done absolutely nothing wrong? Why include ALL pedophiles in this generalization?
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    They lie to themselves and others that children can consent and that relationships are beneficial for both parties.

    Some offenders and abusers do that yes. But far from all. You are generalizing a lot in this post. The motivations for abusing children, and the narratives in play in the heads of those that do it, vary quite wildly.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I wouldn't trust a word they say tbh. They can't say they'd never do it because given the opportunity they don't know that for sure.

    Then no one knows anything for "sure", not just pedophiles. Does a normal heterosexual male know for sure that they would never rape anyone in the right situation? Does anyone know they would not murder anyone in the right situation? Does anyone really know they would return lost money to it's owner if they find it lying on the street with contact details, or is there a value at which all of us would just keep it?

    None of us "know for sure" we would not commit a crime given the chance, or the motivation. So again, why single pedophiles out as if they are somehow different from anyone else? We have no idea exactly how many people are pedophile in the world, but all our data suggests that for every offender, there are many who do not offend at all, nor would they.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Any attempt at normalising paedophilia is a step towards normalising child abuse imo.

    I do not think it is to be honest. I suspect we could make the people who suffer from it feel more "normal" and less "evil" without giving any ground on normalizing rape or abuse at all.


  • #284
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Then you might want to take that up with someone who is comparing a pedophile to an alcoholic. I was not doing so. Rather I was comparing the reasons why we might admire the abstinence of one to the other.

    There is a difference between comparing X and Y, and comparing our response to X and Y, which you missed spectacularly.

    comparing our response to X and our response to Y would be fine if X and Y were similar uncontrolled responses to a substance or thing, both things in themselves acceptable when consumed responsibly, ( a cigerette, a beer, a flutter on a horse etc.) but in this case where X= fcuking a child and Y having a beer, you're argument is tenuous at best, at worst trying to normalise paedophilia as just another addiction. (if this isnt what your arguing above, please correct me).

    There is nothing admirable about a paedo not acting out his desires. Yes, its more desirable that fcuking a child, but to compare it to an alcoholic not reaching for another bottle is absolutely ludicrous.

    we dont know how many paedos are there, or even what % of them act on their fantasies. we're not even sure what causes this particular disorder of sexual preference. Yes we treat them, yes we do what we can to prevent them acting out their fantasies, but to provide sex dolls such as these, to me is but a step from supplying controlled child porn, and is closer to indulging and pandering to the disorder, rather than treating it. We're not going to treat it by normalising or making any aspect of it acceptable in any way.

    if this has me straying into thought policing so be it.


  • #285
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    The thing is though that paedophiles are manipulative liars. Look at the lengths many of them go to to have access to their victims and groom the victims and also their families. They lie to themselves and others that children can consent and that relationships are beneficial for both parties. I wouldn't trust a word they say tbh. They can't say they'd never do it because given the opportunity they don't know that for sure.

    I'm pretty sure there was at least one interview or tv show recently featuring one of these "virtuous" paedophiles who would never hurt a child. Turns out he was in possession of images of child abuse so not so innocent after all.

    Any attempt at normalising paedophilia is a step towards normalising child abuse imo.

    Depends on what you mean by normalising it. What we have to realise is that it's normal for them to exist in a large population. It's not going away.


    There's generally two different approaches that people take to paedophilia. One is to say that the people are monsters and should be locked up for ever. The other is to say that they are people. Some are horrible criminals. Some are people with urges that they keep under control. And we need to understand it better to prevent it. And when I say prevent it we need to be able to treat people with these disorders.
    Because like I said the worst case scenario for anyone here is that their kid will be abused or that they may even grow up to be an abuser. A slightly less worse scenario might be that they have these attractions but don't act on them. They will then have a miserable life which isn't something anyone wants for their kid.

    The thing we have to realise again is that there are different types of abusers. Like I mentioned before there are people who are straight men who abuse little boys. It's not about sexual attraction, it's about the abuse. A large number of these offenders were once abused. And it's horrible to think that the ultimate fate of a child who was abused is to become an abuser.
    Yet others are sexually attracted to children in the way that you or I are attracted to adults.

    Now to mix things up a bit by getting back on the original topic of dolls. If it could be proven that it will help some of these people control urges then I'm all for it. Hell, it it can help prevent future abuse then maybe even subsidise them. It's not about pleasing the person with the doll, it's about preventing a crime from happening. (note what I said about if it could be proven to help prevent a future crime as part of a treatment regime. I'm not saying we should do that now, I'm just saying that f it can be proven scientifically that it would help).


  • #286
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 7,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again, I am disagreeing with the point, not missing it. You would do well to learn the difference there as you patently seem to think they are somehow the same thing when they are not. Well done you.



    You are mixing my examples from each point with examples from other points.

    I gave the example of wanting to kill your boss under my "thought crime" point but above you have moved it over to my "admiration point". Well done you.

    The examples offered there were to support the idea that thinking about a crime and engaging in the crime are NOT the same thing by far.

    Wanting to attack someone (which you said on this very thread that you yourself want to do I might add. Well done you.) does not make you a criminal. ACTUALLY attacking them would.



    I do not see why not. Someone is having thoughts and desires they do not want, and likely will not follow through on them. I sympathize with that for sure.

    There are pedophiles in this world who will never lay a finger on a child. But because of the idea their thoughts are somehow "wrong" (asserted without basis by people like yourself. Well done you.) they suffer for it.

    They hate themselves. And why? They will never hurt anyone, they will never harm a child, they will never do anything wrong. Yet they can hate themselves or suffer from depression and more.

    Such people have my sympathy and understanding, even if they never get yours. Because I see no reason to withhold it.



    I already pulled you up on the fact that I never said they were the same thing, and never compared them. So why you are still harping on about a point I never actually even REMOTELY made, is opaque to me and, I suspect, to you too. Well done you.

    I repeat for the third time I was comparing not pedophilia and alcoholism, but our reaction to people suffering from one or the other, and asking you a question you have dodged answering which is WHY one should be treated different than the other.

    In BOTH cases we have people who have impulses, desires and temptations they they overcome and mediate and resist. IF one should be lent any level of praise or commendation, then why not the other? Why should our reactions be different from one to the other? (Again, me comparing our reactions to them, not comparing THEM).



    Why? Just because you say so and declare it by fiat to be so? Or do you have any basis you can offer for continually asserting this?

    All I see in BOTH cases is someone having thoughts. And I do not see why thoughts, emotions, temptations or desires are "wrong".

    You suggest you might be being "unreasonable" here, but until I see how (if) you reasoned yourself into this opinion I am not in a position to say.

    Hah! Again. You've missed my point. And no. It's not disagreeing. To simplify. Having a thought does not make it a crime. Having a thought to commit a crime is wrong. No matter the crime. Having a thought to have sex with a child is wrong.

    I know I said I would happily attack a pedophile. I stand by that. The fact that I don't hunt one down and act on that urge should make you admire me. No? Going by your rationale I should be sympathised and admired.

    Your repeated question on the difference between alcoholism and paedophilia just emphasises your misunderstanding of my point. The thought of drinking alcohol is not wrong. The urge to drink alcohol is not the same as the urge to f*ck a child. Not drinking is not the same as not f*cking a child. That's why the reaction is different to each.

    How do you know they will never act on their urges? Have you done extensive research in the field and know for a fact they will never act on it? Why the need for this doll then? Which is the whole topic of the thread. If they're so disgusted by themselves, why would this doll be a good idea?

    Do I have a basis for continually saying having sex with a child is wrong? Or thoughts of having sex with a child is wrong? You have to be taking the p*ss.


  • #287
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    comparing our response to X and our response to Y would be fine if X and Y were similar uncontrolled responses to a substance or thing, both things in themselves acceptable when consumed responsibly

    My position is in no way predicated on a moderate quantity of one being acceptable and the other not however. So your issue with my position on this matter is based on something that is not relevant to my position on this matter. Which, I am sure you will notice, is not helpful.

    What I AM saying is that there are different groups of people in this world who have impulses and desires to do things that, if they do it, would cause harm and hurt to others.

    And I am not seeing the basis upon which we presume to distinguish why one might be afforded praise and respect for controlling, mediating, and resisting their urges while the other is not.

    Alcoholism was just one random example of this, but there are MANY others, so focusing on a single example will not address the point as a whole.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    we dont know how many paedos are there, or even what % of them act on their fantasies.

    Exactly. That is one of my main points on this thread. There seems to be a narrative that pedophilia means some automatic MASSIVE increase in the possibility that someone will sexually offend against a minor. But have we any basis for that? Do we know the rates at which a pedophile in general will offend against a child compared to....... say........ a heterosexual male's statistical propensity to rape a woman?

    Without knowing how many pedophiles there are in the world, we can not answer that question. So assumptions and narratives and biases abound. And that is not a healthy thing.

    What I suspect is that pedophiles are no more (or less) likely to offend than anyone else in this world with a temptation to do so. Many people love sex, but do not rape. Many people want things for themselves, but do not turn to thievery. Many people feel rage, but do not murder to assault. Do we have any basis at all to suspect that the rates of offending are any different between all of them, and pedophiles? I doubt it strongly.

    What further complicates this is that a lot of people who sexually offend against children are not actually pedophiles either. But the uniformed Joe Soap on the street has an automatic "Sex with children = pedophilia" narrative in their heads.

    Worse I think many people also view pedophiles as constantly being in a struggle with their desires and having to suppress them and resist them. I am not so sure that is the case either. I suspect many of them have those attractions but they are not all that overpowering at all. They are still pedophiles, sure, but in no way that makes them suffer or even remotely tempted to indulge.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Yes we treat them, yes we do what we can to prevent them acting out their fantasies, but to provide sex dolls such as these, to me is but a step from supplying controlled child porn, and is closer to indulging and pandering to the disorder, rather than treating it.

    "To me" being the operative words in the statement above. And I think the protection of our children important and paramount enough to not base our choices here on personal anecdote, personal bias, and personal narratives.

    Rather we should study the effect of simulated child porn, sex dolls, and the combination of the two with an open mind, free of bias, and see what the ACTUAL results are. And IF (if!) it shows to be beneficial as a whole statistically on the rates of sexual offenses against children then to hell with what you or I think or feel about it......... the moral and ethical choice will be obvious despite anyone's distaste for it.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We're not going to treat it by normalising or making any aspect of it acceptable in any way.

    I am not so sure I can agree. If as I suspect the VAST majority of pedophiles do not actually offend, and will never offend, against a child then I think some degree of normalizing it will be beneficial in our world. But "normalizing" is a loaded term that can mean many things too, so it pays to be clear what we mean by it. What I mean by it, in this context at least, is acknowledging that the quantities of pedophiles already in our world means that technically it already is "normal" in many ways. And how we proceed next should be in a way that acknowledges and accounts for that.

    After all such people did not ask for their impulses or desires or attractions, and are likely suffering needlessly with self hatred and depression because of it in the current environment. And I think such people SHOULD be told "You have never, and will never, hurt a child therefore there is nothing wrong with you per se, and any self loathing or depression you feel is needless suffering. You are more than the sum of your parts and we will judge you based on your actions in this world, not the thoughts in your head."

    So not only is the thought policing there, it is unwarranted and needlessly harmful to what is, probably, the majority of pedophiles. And the hypocrisy of SOME people on that point is gobsmacking. There is one example user on this very thread who judges pedophiles based on who they are, rather than what they have done, who openly admitted to having thoughts of committing violent crimes against other people.

    What gob smacking hypocrisy to judge others on who they are inside, while allowing yourself to entertain thoughts of crimes against other people yourself. Such people should be dismissed summarily in my opinion. They have rationalized themselves into a position that excludes them from the argument.


  • #288
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Hah! Again. You've missed my point. And no. It's not disagreeing. To simplify. Having a thought does not make it a crime. Having a thought to commit a crime is wrong. No matter the crime. Having a thought to have sex with a child is wrong.

    I know I said I would happily attack a pedophile. I stand by that. The fact that I don't hunt one down and act on that urge should make you admire me. No? Going by your rationale I should be sympathised and admired.

    Your repeated question on the difference between alcoholism and paedophilia just emphasises your misunderstanding of my point. The thought of drinking alcohol is not wrong. The urge to drink alcohol is not the same as the urge to f*ck a child. Not drinking is not the same as not f*cking a child. That's why the reaction is different to each.

    How do you know they will never act on their urges? Have you done extensive research in the field and know for a fact they will never act on it? Why the need for this doll then? Which is the whole topic of the thread. If they're so disgusted by themselves, why would this doll be a good idea?

    Do I have a basis for continually saying having sex with a child is wrong? Or thoughts of having sex with a child is wrong? You have to be taking the p*ss.

    Okay, here is sympathy and praise for not having attacked someone today. Well done you! (You weren't in Kildare a few months ago, right?)

    The comparison to alcoholism (or an addiction) is that the urges to be tempted by it are there and inherent. Now, maybe you have an inherent need to attack people, I don't know; if you do, I honestly do feel sympathy for you and hope that you can continue to fight it. I assume you must, as you compare it to the examples at hand presumably as being on that level.

    The problem is really that your approach doesn't solve anything - I know it doesn't because so far, it hasn't. You can condemn these people and many would say you are right to, that whatever causes these urges is sick and evil. Problem is, that doesn't solve the urges. Second problem, these urges are not chosen if a person is actually a paedophile; i.e. their sexual attraction is focussed for some not entirely understood* reason on children instead of having matured to adults. This is not the same thing directly as being a child abuser, which is where the line of choice has been crossed. Thirdly, to dismiss paedophiles who actually do fight the urges they never asked for as sick twisted people who should be jailed/shot/castrated/whatever both drives people struggling further underground and risks the destruction of the life of the person fighting it -and- risks to any children around many others.

    We don't fight any other condition by telling people to hide and repress it at risk of being beaten up or killed. Because that is pointless and will not work either in the long run or the short run. None of this makes people hate child abuse any less. It is just more practical, efficient, compassionate and sensible to try prevent these things from happening than to set up the circumstances in which they undoubtedly will happen, then lock up the child abuser, tell his victim that she's too young to have an abortion (recent thing) and look smug in our civic duty having picked up the pieces (ish).

    Can we not try a bit of prevention for a bit? Just to see if maybe we can have less children being abused? I don't know if the dolls will work and I highly doubt they'll work for everyone. But we have seriously got to try -a- new tack on this whole problem, because our current methods do not work at all. And this does not mean not locking up child abusers because those people are dangerous.


    *Because it's really difficult to study it because the sample base is skewed towards actual molesters because it's impossible for anyone who is fighting it to admit they have it because society threatens to beat them up! Great, we'll definitely understand the condition this way!


  • #289
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Hah! Again. You've missed my point. And no. It's not disagreeing.

    Except yes it is hah! Your inability to distinguish between me disagreeing with your points, and not understanding your points, is not my failing but yours. Hah!

    But if you are convinced that I am somehow failing to understand your points then I would suggest a better approach would be to explain your points better, rather than merely assert my lack of understanding of them and little more.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    To simplify. Having a thought does not make it a crime. Having a thought to commit a crime is wrong. No matter the crime. Having a thought to have sex with a child is wrong.

    To you. But many people judge ethics and morality on the basis of action, not thought. And your concept of thought crimes is as repulsive to them (and me) as the thought of sex with children is to you. And as I said before it is massive and gob smacking hypocrisy from you given the crimes you yourself entertain in your own head.

    But I, unlike you, do not judge you on the crimes you IMAGINE yourself committing. I would judge you, and hope legal justice finds you to the maximum extent of that law, were you to act on it however. Hah.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    I know I said I would happily attack a pedophile. I stand by that. The fact that I don't hunt one down and act on that urge should make you admire me. No? Going by your rationale I should be sympathised and admired.

    My rational, slightly differing from the one you are constructing on my behalf, is just that I see no reason to offer you any more (or less) respect for resisting your base and violent urges than anyone else who resists strong urges that they suffer from.

    However with, say, many alcoholics and pedophiles they realize that they have a problem and that they want to get better. And that is one basis upon which we can predicate respect for them.

    You, on the other hand, seem somewhat happy with, and proud of, your desire to visit violent retribution on even an innocent pedophile who has not wronged a single human being in their life.

    So "Going by my rationale" (my actual one rather than your version of it) in that regard..... I think respect and admiration and sympathy can be justifiably withheld.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Your repeated question on the difference between alcoholism and paedophilia just emphasises your misunderstanding of my point. The thought of drinking alcohol is not wrong. The urge to drink alcohol is not the same as the urge to f*ck a child.

    Actually your hang up regarding the basic drinking of alcohol not being wrong shows that it is you failing to understand my point, not the other way around, because my entire point is not predicated on alcohol drinking being wrong AT ALL. So you moan I am not understanding your point but then demonstrate openly your lack of understanding for my response to it by responding to an aspect of my position that does not even exist.

    But rather than, like you do, simply declaring you do not understand my point and then run away...... I will attempt to re-explain my point to you so that you can better understand it. Mainly because I am more interested in getting my point across than I am in lording your lack of understanding of it over you like you attempt (and fail) to do me.

    My point about alcohol is not predicated on drinking alcohol being wrong, but on the abuse of it being wrong. An alcoholic is not just tempted to drink alcohol, but to drink it to the point of excess and to the point of causing harm to themselves and very often to others. I painted the picture of the alcoholic who drinks all the money that is required to feed and cloth and house his family for example.

    THAT was the point of comparison I was using, not the basic drinking of alcohol itself. So....... if it helps your lack of understandign to take my point without example at all (after all examples are used to explain the point, not prove the point) I am talking about people who have urges that they KNOW indulging with will result in harm and hurt to themselves and others.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    How do you know they will never act on their urges? Have you done extensive research in the field and know for a fact they will never act on it?

    I am not sure you are reading my posts on this thread at all to be honest. I have not indicated I "know" any such thing and have in fact said the opposite in that I have constantly complained about the current situation of LACK of study into this matter.

    What I SUSPECT, given even the most conservative estimates of how many pedophiles our species contains, is that for every single offender there are many who do not offend.

    But we need more study on that. And the only way to get meaningful study on that is to foster an environment where non-offending pedophiles present themselves more readily for study, and make themselves known to AT LEAST the scientific community somehow.

    But I also SUSPECT that the majority of non-offending pedophiles are not in any way prepared to say "Well yes, I have no intention of harming a child EVER, but let it be known I am in fact someone who has sexual responses to children".
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Why the need for this doll then?

    I did not say we need the doll. What is it with you and responding to points massively different to the ones I have made. What I said is that we need to research the effects of it and see if there are any benefits. And my basis for thinking that is that some research ALREADY exists showing the simulated child pornography does show signs of helping people with stronger impulses and compulsions to mediate them.

    So the only "need" I see so far is a need to do something to help such people and a need for more research. Any other "needs" are of your own invention, not mine.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Which is the whole topic of the thread. If they're so disgusted by themselves, why would this doll be a good idea?

    I think you are conflating two threads of thought in my posts here. My position on the self disgust is a bit separate to the dolls issue. In that I think that a pedophile suffering from self hatred and depression for no other reason than he IS a pedophile, but has never and likely will never harm a child, is suffering needlessly. And such people should be helped out of their self hatred and depression by being convinced that they are not bad or wrong or evil just for who they are, but for what they do in life.

    And if such a person happens to buy a sex doll, I see nothing wrong with that, despite your wish to go and violently injure them and cause them bodily harm for committing what TO YOU is a subjective and entirely victimless crime.
    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Do I have a basis for continually saying having sex with a child is wrong? Or thoughts of having sex with a child is wrong? You have to be taking the p*ss.

    So............ in other words............ no basis being offered then. When I ask a question and someone just cops out of answering it by attacking the very asking of the question............ I simply remain unconvinced that they themselves have the answer to the question they pretend to.

    But, when you are done not answering the question, by all means present your case for thought crime.


  • #290
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    My position is in no way predicated on a moderate quantity of one being acceptable and the other not however. So your issue with my position on this matter is based on something that is not relevant to my position on this matter. Which, I am sure you will notice, is not helpful.

    What I AM saying is that there are different groups of people in this world who have impulses and desires to do things that, if they do it, would cause harm and hurt to others.

    And I am not seeing the basis upon which we presume to distinguish why one might be afforded praise and respect for controlling, mediating, and resisting their urges while the other is not.

    Alcoholism was just one random example of this, but there are MANY others, so focusing on a single example will not address the point as a whole.



    Exactly. That is one of my main points on this thread. There seems to be a narrative that pedophilia means some automatic MASSIVE increase in the possibility that someone will sexually offend against a minor. But have we any basis for that? Do we know the rates at which a pedophile in general will offend against a child compared to....... say........ a heterosexual male's statistical propensity to rape a woman?

    Without knowing how many pedophiles there are in the world, we can not answer that question. So assumptions and narratives and biases abound. And that is not a healthy thing.

    What I suspect is that pedophiles are no more (or less) likely to offend than anyone else in this world with a temptation to do so. Many people love sex, but do not rape. Many people want things for themselves, but do not turn to thievery. Many people feel rage, but do not murder to assault. Do we have any basis at all to suspect that the rates of offending are any different between all of them, and pedophiles? I doubt it strongly.

    What further complicates this is that a lot of people who sexually offend against children are not actually pedophiles either. But the uniformed Joe Soap on the street has an automatic "Sex with children = pedophilia" narrative in their heads.

    Worse I think many people also view pedophiles as constantly being in a struggle with their desires and having to suppress them and resist them. I am not so sure that is the case either. I suspect many of them have those attractions but they are not all that overpowering at all. They are still pedophiles, sure, but in no way that makes them suffer or even remotely tempted to indulge.



    "To me" being the operative words in the statement above. And I think the protection of our children important and paramount enough to not base our choices here on personal anecdote, personal bias, and personal narratives.

    Rather we should study the effect of simulated child porn, sex dolls, and the combination of the two with an open mind, free of bias, and see what the ACTUAL results are. And IF (if!) it shows to be beneficial as a whole statistically on the rates of sexual offenses against children then to hell with what you or I think or feel about it......... the moral and ethical choice will be obvious despite anyone's distaste for it.



    I am not so sure I can agree. If as I suspect the VAST majority of pedophiles do not actually offend, and will never offend, against a child then I think some degree of normalizing it will be beneficial in our world. But "normalizing" is a loaded term that can mean many things too, so it pays to be clear what we mean by it. What I mean by it, in this context at least, is acknowledging that the quantities of pedophiles already in our world means that technically it already is "normal" in many ways. And how we proceed next should be in a way that acknowledges and accounts for that.

    After all such people did not ask for their impulses or desires or attractions, and are likely suffering needlessly with self hatred and depression because of it in the current environment. And I think such people SHOULD be told "You have never, and will never, hurt a child therefore there is nothing wrong with you per se, and any self loathing or depression you feel is needless suffering. You are more than the sum of your parts and we will judge you based on your actions in this world, not the thoughts in your head."

    So not only is the thought policing there, it is unwarranted and needlessly harmful to what is, probably, the majority of pedophiles. And the hypocrisy of SOME people on that point is gobsmacking. There is one example user on this very thread who judges pedophiles based on who they are, rather than what they have done, who openly admitted to having thoughts of committing violent crimes against other people.

    What gob smacking hypocrisy to judge others on who they are inside, while allowing yourself to entertain thoughts of crimes against other people yourself. Such people should be dismissed summarily in my opinion. They have rationalized themselves into a position that excludes them from the argument.




    Rather than be offended, I suggest you replace " propensity" with probability. "Propensity" doesn't exist in stats, it is a natural tendency to behave in some way. Most men aren't rapists, will never rape, and find rape abhorrent. They're not natural rapists, controlling their urge to rape due to societal pressures. So to suggest hetero men are naturally rapists is offensive in the extreme. You could discuss % of men in a population who rape, or have rape fantasies, as these are measurable facts, but I suggest you consider this element of your argument, as you say "it's not helpful".
    (Most men would like to have sex with most women at any given time. This is not rape, nor a rapist make).


    After you introducing it, your argument comparing our attitudes toward alcoholism and paedophilia seems to have shifted a bit ( after you went to great pains to point out the error on some other posters ways) to a position 'some things are wrong, and affect others'. No one would disagree with that stance. It's where it should be left. You can't compare our attitude to "X and Y", where X's consumption is the issue but Y is something a lot more unpalatable.

    We clearly disagree re "normalising". You seem to (I could be wrong!!) think accepting they're there is normalising it. We know they're there, but to me providing paedophilic material and stimuli as part of a treatment is giving 'mixed signals', akin to giving an alcoholic bud lite as part of his treatment (not that the conditions are any way comparable). We should be substituting (like methadone) the stimuli not providing it. That to me is normalising it.

    It's obvious you don't see paedophilia as sonething wrong, as long as they don't act on it. Speaking for myself, others can speak for themselves, it is wrong to be sexually attracted to a pre puberty child.
    From an ethical, moral and most importantly biological. But we agree they need to be treating it though, so all is not lost. How we do it is where we differ.

    The last bit, your syntax is confusing. Are you accusing me of hypocrisy? What crimes have I advocated?


  • #291
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    there was a Salon article a while back called "im a paedophile not a monster" hmmm no actually you are the very definition of a monster, it shouldn't get legitimised as an orientation. in saying that these people should have some professional oversight and assuming the science agrees that these dolls don't act as a gateway to something else then they should be tolerated.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    silverharp wrote: »
    there was a Salon article a while back called "im a paedophile not a monster" hmmm no actually you are the very definition of a monster, it shouldn't get legitimised as an orientation. in saying that these people should have some professional oversight and assuming the science agrees that these dolls don't act as a gateway to something else then they should be tolerated.

    I hate the word monster. It dehumanises people. When people do horrific things I think it's better to remember that they are just people.

    That's what these people are. they're people with something different in their head. I think if they choose to act on it, then it makes them horrible but if they don't choose to act on it I have pity/sympathy for them. They didn't choose it. They don't want to be like that. Let's face it, who'd choose that? Who'd be happy with that life?


  • #293
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

    But we need more study on that. And the only way to get meaningful study on that is to foster an environment where non-offending pedophiles present themselves more readily for study, and make themselves known to AT LEAST the scientific community somehow.

    But I also SUSPECT that the majority of non-offending pedophiles are not in any way prepared to say "Well yes, I have no intention of harming a child EVER, but let it be known I am in fact someone who has sexual responses to children".

    I did not say we need the doll. What I said is that we need to research the effects of it and see if there are any benefits. And my basis for thinking that is that some research ALREADY exists showing the simulated child pornography does show signs of helping people with stronger impulses and compulsions to mediate them.

    any link to that research out of interest? I'd like to read it. Particularly having regard to your rightly identified issues with assembling a control population V. known (self identified- in itself a bias for any research) paedos who have/have not acted on their attractions which may/may not have been the test population.


  • #294
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Grayson wrote: »
    I hate the word monster. It dehumanises people. When people do horrific things I think it's better to remember that they are just people.

    That's what these people are. they're people with something different in their head. I think if they choose to act on it, then it makes them horrible but if they don't choose to act on it I have pity/sympathy for them. They didn't choose it. They don't want to be like that. Let's face it, who'd choose that? Who'd be happy with that life?

    "different" would be wanting to have sex with cars. Wanting to do the most objectionable things that are an affront to us as a species is more than just different. Their interests should be way down the list of concerns

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #295
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Samaris wrote: »
    Can we not try a bit of prevention for a bit? Just to see if maybe we can have less children being abused? I don't know if the dolls will work and I highly doubt they'll work for everyone. But we have seriously got to try -a- new tack on this whole problem, because our current methods do not work at all. And this does not mean not locking up child abusers because those people are dangerous.


    Society cannot be held responsible for adults who sexually objectify the most vulnerable members of society. Our greater concern first and foremost will always be for the more vulnerable person in that scenario, and when that person is a child, I would have no concern whatsoever for someone who desires to harm a child for their own sexual gratification.

    You're making it sound as though children are sexually abused by accident; they aren't! Clearly, someone is responsible for causing them harm, and it is that person who should be held responsible for their actions, not 'society', who generally have the opinion that even the thoughts of having sex with a child are abhorrent. Why shouldn't someone feel ashamed of having such thoughts?

    There would be no way of ethically using the scientific method to determine the falsifiability of the claim that these dolls would in any way prevent a person from harming children. All they have been proven to do is satiate a small number of paedophiles desires to have sex with children, and really, is the sexual objectification of children something that should be accepted as permissible by society?

    We generally tend to discourage the sexual objectification of adults. Why should we expect any less for our children?


  • #296
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    silverharp wrote: »
    "different" would be wanting to have sex with cars. Wanting to do the most objectionable things that are an affront to us as a species is more than just different. Their interests should be way down the list of concerns

    But they don't choose it. It's just there, it's part of who they are. What they choose to do about it makes them a good or bad person.


  • #297
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Grayson wrote: »
    But they don't choose it. It's just there, it's part of who they are. What they choose to do about it makes them a good or bad person.

    but essentially their default state is "monster" (sans burning pitchforks) for example even if they have committed no crime they ought not have any rights to work with children or be in the company of children and it would be perfectly acceptable to limit somewhat their privacy, movement etc.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #298
    manonboard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭manonboard


    Samaris and nozzferrahhtoo,

    If i may just chime in to say i think you have both done a wonderful job explaining your points. They are clearly well thought out, constructive, not dismissive of any conditions, and seem like a far better approach to the current status quo operand in society at the moment towards this topic. It's been a pleasure reading your input in this thread.
    I can see there is much reluctance from some to accept your views as making more sense, but i think the way in which you have conducted your expression makes it likely others (perhaps silently) will take on board your points.


  • #299
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Rather than be offended, I suggest you replace

    Rather than make up emotions on my behalf that I neither felt nor expressed, I suggest you replace your entire response with one actually relevant to mine.

    Replacing words will not change my point though, as I would be saying the same thing with the new words as I am without them. Which is that no one here, least of all you, is offering any evidence to suggest that the probability that they will turn out to be offenders is any higher than with anyone else who might be led to crime. Heterosexual males, as a group, have a subset of men who rape women. Is there any reason to think their rates of offending are any different to the pedophiles? I doubt it.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Most men aren't rapists, will never rape, and find rape abhorrent.

    Exactly my point. And many pedophiles are men too. So simply by extension of your own sentence most pedophiles aren't rapists, will never rape, and find rape abhorrent. Thank you for making my point for me. Always helpful to have the same point made, in a different voice and constructed in a different way.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    So to suggest hetero men are naturally rapists is offensive in the extreme.

    Then you are likely rejoicing in the fact that I never made any such suggestion I guess?
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    After you introducing it, your argument comparing our attitudes toward alcoholism and paedophilia seems to have shifted a bit

    Nope. But that is a common error on forums such as this. A persons understanding of argument X shifts, so they assume the argument has shifted. My argument has remained the same......... but I have moved to help you understand it by presenting it in different ways......... but perhaps your understanding of what my point actually is has improved. But I assure you that any modification that has occurred, has occurred in you, not my point.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    You can't compare our attitude to "X and Y", where X's consumption is the issue but Y is something a lot more unpalatable.

    Then..... again..... you are likely rejoicing in the fact that I never made any such suggestion I guess?

    ALL my point was was that when comparing two things, the performance of which causes harm and hurt to others, and showing that the people in question have resisted the urge to actually perform those things............... then on what basis do we offer one group respect, admiration and congratulations..... but we withhold it from another.

    More or less than that I have not ever said and I have been consistent in that, despite your illusion of a shift.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We clearly disagree re "normalising". You seem to (I could be wrong!!) think accepting they're there is normalising it.

    Not wrong, just incomplete. I think accepting they are there, and hence in one sense "normal" is one PART of how we should be moving forward. A pre-requisite as it were. But my position is that we should be helping such people to a position of realizing that it IS in a sense "normal" and they do not need to suffer any level of depression or self hatred or self loathing merely for being who they are.

    Rather I think any level of depression or self hatred or self loathing or........ on the other side any level of self pride and self confidence....... should be predicated on what they do with (or do not do with) their natural feelings, natural tendencies and natural impulses.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    We know they're there, but to me providing paedophilic material and stimuli as part of a treatment is giving 'mixed signals'

    WE know they are there perhaps, as in you and I, but many people do not. Many people do not seem to know of.... or at least their narrative and rhetoric does not acknowledge the existence of.......... what is likely a large number of non-offending self controlled pedophiles. The narratives are all about offenders and abusers.

    So I think a pre-requisite step here is to spread the memetic fact and truth that pedophilia is in many ways a natural and normal state of affairs. ACTING on it is not acceptable in our society, but simply BEING one should not be treated as abhorrent as it currently is. For many reasons, not least of which is the well being of the innocent non-offending pedophiles.......... and for the harms the opposite causes in our ability to study the phenomena as a whole.

    I do not see the "mixed signals" problem as a whole. We are not sending mixed signals on violence when we releae games like Grand Theft Auto or give people a punching bag to hit. We are CLEARLY deliniating between fantasy violence (in the games), cathartic simulated violence (allowing someone to hit a large bag and imagine real combat) and ACTUAL violence.

    So I do not think there is a clear cut narrative that is valid to not treat pedophilia the same way. I think we can delineate quite clearly, without any mixed signals, between fantasy (simulated child porn), cathartic simulation (sex dolls or robots or some eventual holodeck) and actual abuse of real life children.

    And IF (if!) any benefit is shown to accrue from providing such things in future studies, I see no reason we can not do just that without fear of "mixed signals".
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    It's obvious you don't see paedophilia as sonething wrong, as long as they don't act on it. Speaking for myself, others can speak for themselves, it is wrong to be sexually attracted to a pre puberty child.

    For me "wrong" and "right" in general, let alone specifically in ethics and morality, is predicated on what people actually have control over. IF something is naturally innate to an individual then I see no cogent reason, other than your own biases and hatred for it, to call it "wrong". It is not right OR wrong. It just IS what it IS. To call something someone has no control at all over feeling "wrong" is to pretty much pre-convict them of a crime they could not NOT commit. And that is, at best, entirely unfair and judgemental.

    What a person does with those feelings and compulsions can lead to "right" and "wrong". Not the feelings themselves. To call something morally or ethically "wrong" presupposes the person could have done otherwise and, the entire "do we have free will" debate aside (let us assume we do have freewill for now) morality and ethics tends to be predicated on the assumption a person COULD do otherwise.

    Now if some magic drug or treatment arose where we told a person "We know exactly what gives you this sexual prediliction and we can cure it" and the person says "I have never offended against a child, never will, but my sexual attractions are part of who I am and I refuse to modify them"........ well THEN we can have a meaningful discussion on whether their attractions can be called "wrong". But until that point I think your calling it "wrong" is just a projection of your own distaste for it and is unfair on the people who actually feel these things.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    The last bit, your syntax is confusing. Are you accusing me of hypocrisy? What crimes have I advocated?

    I suggest the syntax is less confusing if you do not miss the context. The context being in the previous paragraph where I clearly wrote "There is one example user on this very thread...........". Said context carries to the last paragraph and if you read it in that context, the syntax should rectify itself for you and parse correctly.


  • #300
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    silverharp wrote: »
    but essentially their default state is "monster" (sans burning pitchforks) for example even if they have committed no crime they ought not have any rights to work with children or be in the company of children and it would be perfectly acceptable to limit somewhat their privacy, movement etc.

    I dunno. I see where you're coming from and I do kinda agree with you. The problem is that we only know ones who have been bad. Ones who have broken the law. Those should definitely not be allowed work with the vulnerable, especially not children. We don't know however if there's a large number who don't commit crimes because even in an anonymous survey it's not something they'd answer. It may be that there are a larger number who don't commit crimes and do work with children etc and we've never heard of them.

    (Now just to clarify, there's a huge variance. Like I mentioned there are straight people who abuse children. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people who feel attracted to children the way you or I are attracted to adults. No violent urges or anything like that)


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    silverharp wrote: »
    there was a Salon article a while back called "im a paedophile not a monster"

    Clearly, from all I wrote above, I disagree. Emotions do not make people a monster, what they do with them does. Compulsions and temptation does not make people a monster, what they do with them does.

    The Christian Nazerene advocated thought crime for example, saying that any man who looks another woman with any sexual attraction or lust in their mind or heart has already committed the crime of adultery.

    But as I wrote to another user above I think morality and ethics is predicated on the concept that the person could have done otherwise. And most men can not NOT look at a woman and feel that. The biological and neurological correlates of sexual attraction come online before the thinking of those thoughts could pre-empt them.

    So no I do not think it makes them a monster at all. If they follow through on their temptations and emotions and actually sexually exploit a child THEN call them monster. Until that time they are as innocent of all crimes as you and I (probably) are and in fact living as an animal (which we are) and controlling all your animal impulses and reactions is the very definition for me of what it means to be human at all, the very opposite of a monster. And a pedophile therefore differs only to the rest of us in what particular things they are mediating.


Advertisement
Advertisement