Sex dolls for paedophiles

For boys past adolescence it's known as pederasty isn't it?

For girls past adolescence I don't know what the term is, or if there is one.

Paedophilia does not encompass all minors, it is specifically pre-pubescent children.

I guess it's because teenagers are biologically adults - and the age of consent is only 13/14 in some places. I am not saying it is ok for an adult to be having sexual relations with people as young as this though! Just differentiating between this and paedophilia.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Okay, that I know. That's not really paedophilia though. We have an odd relationship with the age of consent in Europe still, mind you. That old culture is still there to an extent.

Umm I would class it as paedophilia. But how is it defined? Age? Height? Weight? I would say 99% of men would not be sexually attracted to girls that age, so if it is not paedophilia, is it a limbo age bracket?

HardenendMan wrote: »

No, I don't think pre-pubescent. But as young as 14/15 was very normal.

Okay, that I know. That's not really paedophilia though. We have an odd relationship with the age of consent in Europe still, mind you. That old culture is still there to an extent.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im thinking that someone starting to get these thoughts or have a lower lever of thought is less likely to go seek help. the person I see going is the person that has held back their desires but something happened ,maybe a close call that frightened them and made them realise they need help.
much like an alcoholic need to be really bad before they can see that they need help

the person that has had a close call is probably past some of the boundaries posted above

I think the same - that the person who goes to a mental health professional could be doing so because they are afraid of what they might do, not just because of the thoughts.

Azalea wrote: »

I think perhaps not always (e.g. people who are simply sadists, or some people who were abused themselves and are so damaged by it that they become child abusers - appears to have been the case in that Dalkey house) but I reckon you are spot-on with regard to the majority of them. And there are likely plenty who have those feelings and would give anything not to have them and just to be attracted to adults instead of afflicted with such a terrible orientation.

I agree. There will always be exceptions. People's environment and lifestyle can nudge them one way or another (example - celibate priests).

rawn wrote: »

Yes, because the introduction of sex dolls stopped rape in it's tracks...

Has anyone actually checked to see if adult sex doll usage affects the rate of rape offences? I doubt it.

Nobody said this would stop anything in it's tracks, and it probably doesn't work, but it would also probably be a good idea to check before we dismiss it.

im thinking that someone starting to get these thoughts or have a lower lever of thought is less likely to go seek help. the person I see going is the person that has held back their desires but something happened ,maybe a close call that frightened them and made them realise they need help.
much like an alcoholic need to be really bad before they can see that they need help

the person that has had a close call is probably past some of the boundaries posted above

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Prepubescent though? Was that ever acceptable in Europe? I know it was a thing in the middle east.

Pretty sure the obvious risks have made it immoral for a long time here.

I'm also not sure why it's relevant to ponder over the moral relativism of it all. We don't do so when we talk about slavery- because the fact that we used to be a monstrous society is not any kind of defence.

No, I don't think pre-pubescent. But as young as 14/15 was very normal.

Oh I agree, we live in the now, I didnt intend to make historic norms a defence. We have developed morally since. I just brought it up to highlight that it was an innate trait in humans then, and hasn't changed.

rawn

Mister Vain wrote: »

A company is manufacturing sex dolls for paedophiles who want to control their sexual impulses. The founder says that they may well be a valuable weapon in the fight against the sexual abuse of real children. What's your thoughts on this?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lifelike-child-sex-dolls-created-7177869

Yes, because the introduction of sex dolls stopped rape in it's tracks...

HardenendMan wrote: »

I belive paedophilia is an innate trait that no one chooses.

I think perhaps not always (e.g. people who are simply sadists, or some people who were abused themselves and are so damaged by it that they become child abusers - appears to have been the case in that Dalkey house) but I reckon you are spot-on with regard to the majority of them. And there are likely plenty who have those feelings and would give anything not to have them and just to be attracted to adults instead of afflicted with such a terrible orientation.

HardenendMan wrote: »

I belive paedophilia is an innate trait that no one chooses. Much the same as people that are sexually attracted to feet, same sex, bondage etc. Some are accepted, some are considered just weird.

It is acting on this attraction that is rightly considered a crime. Because the act requires a victim, and a child is an innocent defenceless victim.

Sure as someone above mentioned, it is not long that it is socially unacceptable. It was very normal for men of stature (lords, earls etc.) to be gifted a very young virgin bride to procreate with.

Prepubescent though? Was that ever acceptable in Europe? I know it was a thing in the middle east.

Pretty sure the obvious risks have made it immoral for a long time here.

I'm also not sure why it's relevant to ponder over the moral relativism of it all. We don't do so when we talk about slavery- because the fact that we used to be a monstrous society is not any kind of defence.

I could have done with a sex doll when I used to fcuk my mattress at aged 13.

PucaMama wrote: »

This is disgusting.

Well, sure... but we don't make laws or good moral decisions based on disgust. We make them based on potential or actual harm to people. Well, in theory.

If they reduce harm, isn't that disgusting but morally positive? I mean, I'm sure we all find things disgusting that we tolerate for various reasons.

Azalea wrote: »

I know. And there could be the fear too (even if unfounded) that the mental health professional would inform the authorities - I know they are only thoughts, but if a mental health professional felt they were a danger to children...

Such people would be the least of our worries. I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that the leap from having a desire to do something harmful, to actually harming a real person, must surely require something extra. Low empathy, sociopathy, poor intelligence, inability to recognise risk, poor impulse control.

I suppose whether something like this idea actually worked would depend on what mix of psychological factors were there in the individual. Some would presumably be far beyond helping. Someone mentioned the lifers in Arbor Hill... some real monsters in there, I assume.

I belive paedophilia is an innate trait that no one chooses. Much the same as people that are sexually attracted to feet, same sex, bondage etc. Some are accepted, some are considered just weird.

It is acting on this attraction that is rightly considered a crime. Because the act requires a victim, and a child is an innocent defenceless victim.

Sure as someone above mentioned, it is not long that it is socially unacceptable. It was very normal for men of stature (lords, earls etc.) to be gifted a very young virgin bride to procreate with.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you have some good insights

there could be a connection between the two

NomadicGray wrote: »

Thats a really good point, one I never thought of before.

Cheers. Hadn't thought of it until now either - it just occurred to me when I considered the psychological torment of carrying such a burden that simply cannot and must not be confided in anyone, plus the knowledge that they may never be able to have a fulfilling relationship with an adult, and becoming a parent simply would not be appropriate. They would therefore have to live their entire life a lie - and maybe avoid going out so that they would not have to see children. That is an emotional and mental ticking time-bomb and it makes sense that they could eventually be unable to carry on living with something so painful. A loneliness beyond compare.

Is there a worse brush to be tarred with, possibly not.

I would think murderers, generally speaking, are held in less contempt than paedophiles.

How could anyone with morals even bring themselves to utter the words, even to a mental health professional.

I know. And there could be the fear too (even if unfounded) that the mental health professional would inform the authorities - I know they are only thoughts, but if a mental health professional felt they were a danger to children...

NomadicGray wrote: »

Thats a really good point, one I never thought of before. Is there a worse brush to be tarred with, possibly not. How could anyone with morals even bring themselves to utter the words, even to a mental health professional.

I cant see anyone openly admitting to having thoughts like that. why would you . you would be lynched .
I wonder if a psychiatrist would have to report it or other confessions like rape, murder, etc

drunkmonkey

Fantasy should never be a crime no matter what it is.

People should be free to get help without preduice if they believe their fantasy may spill over into reality and cause harm.

Give them their dolls, but as mc Donald's would do try and push them up to the supersize version over time.
Bigger ass on the next order, then bigger boobs, 3rd order longer legs, before you know it they've just upgraded to a woman.

Hammer89

I didn't know there was a market for these. I might go down my local parish and start flogging my sister's old Baby Borns.

NomadicGray

Azalea wrote: »

I wonder is it sometimes the reason for suicide (e.g. of those who didn't seem to have any difficulties in their lives - it's not like they would have told people about their terrible secret).

Thats a really good point, one I never thought of before. Is there a worse brush to be tarred with, possibly not. How could anyone with morals even bring themselves to utter the words, even to a mental health professional.

Azalea wrote: »

Being a parent does not change the fact that a person has to have molested a child to be a child molester.

I can completely understand how a parent (or anyone really - parents do not necessarily have the monopoly on this one) would not want a person who has paedophilic desires to be anywhere near children, but it's not as if a person is going to admit to these desires.

I think people who are sexually attracted to children and have never acted upon this feeling deserve help - a person cannot be punished for involuntary thoughts. How they can be helped/cured though... I don't know how that can be done. In Germany there are treatment facilities though, and a public advertising campaign to create awareness of them.

I don't envy someone who has these feelings (again, they are not voluntary) and who would not dream of harming a child. How tormenting must that be. I wonder is it sometimes the reason for suicide (e.g. of those who didn't seem to have any difficulties in their lives - it's not like they would have told people about their terrible secret).

Obviously people who actually do carry out acts based on their desires are among the lowest of the low.

you have some good insights

there could be a connection between the two

there must be some serious pressure inside these peoples heads trying to control them selves and to try not to drive them selves insane

Deleted User wrote: »

If you’re a parent they are both the same!

Being a parent does not change the fact that a person has to have molested a child to be a child molester.

I can completely understand how a parent (or anyone really - parents do not necessarily have the monopoly on this one) would not want a person who has paedophilic desires to be anywhere near children, but it's not as if a person is going to admit to these desires.

I think people who are sexually attracted to children and have never acted upon this feeling deserve help - a person cannot be punished for involuntary thoughts. How they can be helped/cured however... I don't know. In Germany there are treatment facilities though, and a public advertising campaign to create awareness of them.

I don't envy someone who has these feelings (again, they are not voluntary) and who would not dream of harming a child. How tormenting must that be. I wonder is it sometimes the reason for suicide (e.g. of those who didn't seem to have any difficulties in their lives - it's not like they would have told people about their terrible secret).

Obviously people who actually do carry out acts based on these desires are among the lowest of the low.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you’re a parent they are both the same!

yes to most they are but if a paedophile was thinking about a child and a molester was molesting which would be worse.
its a very fine line but the boundary must be respected . it would be a very dangerous road to go down if we could punish someone just for their thoughts and not on actions