nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Then we can celebrate the fact that no one on a Discussion Forum is compelled or forced to open, least of all read, any given thread. That is not to say I do not find it emotionally problematic either. Do not mistake my EXTERNAL rational persona as being indicative of my INTERNAL one. The topic causes me all the same stresses it does anyone else. But what makes us an adult and mature species is our ability to discuss even things abhorrent to us, if and when we believe doing so is for the over all good. I do not think so. Nor do I think the issue of sex crimes against children is the only issue in play. Rather I think we also have to worry about PREVENTION of such crimes...... which entails understanding the people who commit them......... REHABILITATION of the people who commit them........ again the same........... treatment of the victims of it........ and also the alleviation of the very real suffering non offending pedophiles endure.... as they are people too who have done nothing wrong and deserve our help treatment understanding and support every bit as much as any other innocent human being who suffers. Also understanding WHY a crime was committed against a child is important too. As above we have reason to think many (even most?) people who commit such sex crimes on children are not even pedophiles. And that pedophiles make up a surprisingly smaller than expected proportion of perpetrators. If we want to pretend we are working to prevent such crimes, let alone ACTUALLY do so...... then we are not going to achieve that by working against the people who are not actually committing the crimes, now are we?
ceadaoin. wrote: » What research was that? I thought it was inconclusive and there was also evidence that it could lead to offending? most of the men in the UK who were investigated for importing these dolls were also in possession of images of child abuse so personally, I feel that these dolls would be another escalation towards abuse for many and that would be unacceptable.
gozunda wrote: » I find that type of commentary on the intricacies and minutiae of paedophilia et al to be divisive and deeply disturbing tbh.
gozunda wrote: » Any attempt to intellectualise child abuse and paedophilia deliberatly derails the issue of sexual crimes against children.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Pretty much, yes. Pedophilia, like all words that identify a sexual attraction, describe your attractions not your actions. It is possible to engage in actions that stem from other motivations other than your attractions. Both David Finkelhor and sites like Practical Ethics write on this. Finkelhor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. He believes: "It is very important for the public to understand that most child molesters are not pedophiles, [Many people] have the impression, when you talk about someone being a pedophile, that they have a permanent and unalterable sexual interest in children and, therefore, they are going to be dangerous under any circumstances and under any form of management—and that's not true," adding that pedophiles constitute a minority of those who sexually abuse children, or who are child molesters. He states that the major reason a child gets abuse is access and opportunity rather than a specific attraction to children. I myself would also add that there are other motivations that can do it. Abuse or fetish for power being one. Needing victims and for them to be vulnerable is another. Another common one that gets discusses is people who were themselves abused perpetuate that abuse to normalize or deal with it. The list goes on ad nauseum but in short there are loads of motivations and contexts that lead to sexual abuse of children that simply do not require the person doing so to themselves be a pedophile. And as Finkelhor says conflating child sex abuse with pedophilia as if they are 1:1 is not only not informative or useful, but could be positively harmful.
BattleCorp wrote: » Right, I'm going to show my ignorance here. So if someone has sex with a child, they might not be a paedophile?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » One confounding factor is that many people who conduct criminal sexual behavior with children are not even pedophiles to start with.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Yes images of real children being raped and abused are illegal, and not just "currently". Why do you use that term, like it's going to change at any stage?
ceadaoin. wrote: » So most of the people (6 out of 7 men charged) who were caught ordering these dolls were in possession of illegal images.
ceadaoin. wrote: » It's not much of a stretch to think that eventually the dolls will not be enough
Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote: Have you pondered the idea that I might not have been serious?
Hitman3000 wrote: » Women do all those things you are suggesting should attract a debollicking so surely there must be a part of a woman you'd lop off. All in the interests of equality . Don't want to upset the feminists.
Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote: Pervert
Hitman3000 wrote: » What would you lop off the women?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Well yes because both are currently illegal. So that is a statistic I would expect by default because if you have a propensity to break the law to obtain one, I would not be surprised by a propensity to break the law and obtain the other. That somewhat stacks the statistical deck a little and I would be wary to imply too much from such a statistic. Even if the statistic is accurate (I have not seen it myself). .
Finley Hollow Tomcat wrote: ...People who make false insurance claims ...Anti vaxxers. Lop the bollocks off the lot of them.
Thoughtform wrote: » Sick is I think a fair word for those who fancy children. Evil seems suitable for those who commit acts based on this predisposition. Obviously prison for them.
sexmag wrote: » http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society Ehhhhhhh? We should accept diddlers now?
JJJJNR wrote: » They are evil and sick there's no branding, no second chances and on their part no remorse for the sick and depraved acts they commit. A sexual orientation towards having an orgasm in a tiny human is not normal.
Omackeral wrote: » Not for one minute am I legitimising or advocating it. What I will say is that people said the exact same for interracial marriage 50 years ago, homosexuality 25 years ago and some still say it about transgender people now. Those previously unthinkable things have become the normalised now. Who knows where we'll be down the line with pressure groups and -phobic tags and everything else. Again, I'm stating I've nothing against interracial marriage or LGBT folks at all, only drawing a parrellel with conversations and mindsets changing as time goes on.
JJJJNR wrote: » They are evil and sick there's no branding
JJJJNR wrote: » no second chances and on their part no remorse for the sick and depraved acts they commit.
JJJJNR wrote: » A sexual orientation towards having an orgasm in a tiny human is not normal.
death1234567 wrote: » Yeah she's right to some extent. By branding those people as evil and sick you send their behaviour underground and ensure that they are socially isolated and more likely to act on their bizarre desires. By allowing them to be monitored but live openly (while undergoing appropriate therapy/counselling) you are much more likely to reduce the chance of them offending. Also alot of paedo's were themselves abused as kids so by stopping them abusing you also stop a new generation of paedo's. Of course rabble rabble rabble pitchforks, burn them all, rabble rabble rabble.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The issue there is as I said we want to foster an environment where nonoffenders feel more prone to make themselves known to us. If we make policy changes where we start slapping monitoring equipment on them as soon as they do then we make it LESS likely they will come forward than they already do (read: dont) now. So while I can see the intention behind such a suggestion, and the intention is pure, I think it is exactly the wrong way to go. More harm than good. We want to treat these people but we do not even know them or understand them. So the treatments we would currently suggest for the non-offenders are likely to be the same ones we currently have for offenders. And their epistemology is likely very different. It would be like finding an anti viral that cures specific symptoms and then automatically prescribing it to people with a bacterial infection that causes the same symptoms. It would do absolutely NOTHING to help them and could potentially make THEIR condition worse. And the people we are most likely to end up monitoring are likely to be the people we LEAST likely want to. As the more likely a person is to be the kind of person to put themselves forward for it.... the less likely they are to be the kind of person we are concerned with in the first place. Agreed. But I think that is more a problem of language than a problem of pedophilia. We like to have little simple words to label what we mean. Like "normalization". And likely people then using that word have a WEALTH of nuance and meaning behind what they intend by that. Which is wholly lost by the word itself. So I fear that, again with pure and good intentions, we would then likely end up more obsessing about what a single word means than all the nuance and perfectly valid intentions that lie behind it. I would not be proposing anything at this time myself. Just that there ARE findings there that warrant further investigation. But IF such therapy proves itself helpful, I would hate to discount it merely because allowing mail order products makes non-pedophiles feel ikky. Which is likely, alas, to be exactly the battle we would have to fight. What I do not expect however is that any such therapy would exist in isolation and be the SOLE method employed to help any given individual. Rather I think it would be one aspect on a multi-channel approach to aiding them.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » if we are to believe what people say that they are born like this is it not better that they act out their urges on something that isn't real like the doll.
Terry wrote: » Chemical castration for the lot of them.
