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

12357…12

Comments

  • #122
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    You simly can't lock someone up for having an urge or attraction. If they act on it with a real child then yes, but otherwise no.


    Rather disingenuous to try and play down paedophilia like that (unsurprising though really). It's not nearly so simple. Under the Mental Health Act 2001, a person can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility if they have a mental disorder that presents a danger to themselves or other people -


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8


  • #123
    thattequilagirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭thattequilagirl


    If I really hate someone and regularly fantasize about killing them, you can't put me in prison for thinking those thoughts.


  • #124
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Rather disingenuous to try and play down paedophilia like that (unsurprising though really). It's not nearly so simple. Under the Mental Health Act 2001, a person can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility if they have a mental disorder that presents a danger to themselves or other people -


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8
    What do the mental health professionals class it as these days?


  • #125
    Canadel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Under the Mental Health Act 2001, a person can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility if they have a mental disorder that presents a danger to themselves or other people -
    A paedophile does not necessarily present a danger to themselves or other people though, similar to the way in which a person suffering from depression does not.


  • #126
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    22catch wrote:
    Of course not, however we're talking about pedophiles. They have a compulsion to have sex with children. As a society we have a moral obligation to protect children and personally I'd prefer if all known pedophiles were taken away from society where they wouldn't have access to children.

    22catch wrote:
    The risk they pose is too great, and I think the rights of children take precedence over the rights of pedophiles.

    Nope. The rights of no group is grounds to strip rights fyom xny other group. Even with a group you really like (children) and a group you really don't like (people with paedophile tendency).

    We can't take rights from anyone who hasn't committed a crime. f people are a particular risk, they should be managed, if they want to make sure they don't ever offend.

    If we want to protect children we should work with them. We should research the bejaysus out of the topic and that means allowing people with paedophile tendency to come forward without having their rights stripped away (provided they haven't offended)


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Canadel wrote: »
    A paedophile does not necessarily present a danger to themselves or other people though, similar to the way in which a person suffering from depression does not.
    Yes, being attracted to women does not automatically make you a rapist.


  • #128
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    stefanovich wrote: »
    What do the mental health professionals class it as these days?


    Opinion seems generally divided on the issue. I haven't gotten around to asking them all.

    Canadel wrote: »
    A paedophile does not necessarily present a danger to themselves or other people though, similar to the way in which a person suffering from depression does not.


    I didn't say they did. I was pointing out that a person can be locked up, not necessarily that they would be locked up.


  • #129
    Canadel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I didn't say they did. I was pointing out that a person can be locked up, not necessarily that they would be locked up.
    We might have to lock you up.


  • #130
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Shep_Dog wrote: »
    Under the forthcoming revision of the law, such a doll could be deemed to be illegal as it could be deemed to be a 'visual representation'. Same would go for any packaging showing the contents or for any advertisement for the product.

    And what's the relevance of that? We have lots of laws that are inadequate to account for the complexities the real world. This law is clearly not written with this scenario in mind, and that would influence the enforcement of the law.
    Shep_Dog wrote: »
    I'd agree with opinions that these products are a bad idea and provide reinforcment for maladaptive thought processes that really need to be dealt with by psychotherapy.

    Why do you agree with opinions when we could actually try to gather facts? That's nonsensical. Your opinion might turn out to be right, but right now it's worthless.

    I'd reserve judgment until someone does the work to demonstrate the claims true or false. If they're false, or worse if they make some classes of offenders more likely to re-offend, then we can start to look at sensible legal controls.


  • #131
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    PucaMama wrote:
    World is gone crazy. now it's wrong to mistrust them? There supposed to be safe around children? So long as they haven't offended (yet)

    I dare you to quote 1 post that said it's wrong to mistrust them or that it's they're safe around children. Nobody has said that. Where did you even get that idea from?

    Is it will full misunderstanding or pure fantasy that you think anyone here is standing up for paedophiles? If you care about children, you would want to minimise the behaviour.

    You're focusing on punishment rather than prevention. Test the effect of the dolls - assuming you care about children


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    deandean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭deandean


    In those dolls I would factory install a Rapex (look it up) in every orifice.

    That's teach those buggers a lesson.


  • #133
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If you care about children, you would want to minimise the behaviour.

    You're focusing on punishment rather than prevention. Test the effect of the dolls - assuming you care about children


    That's really your idea of minimising the behaviour?

    And if someone flat out says that the notion that a sex doll that looks like a child, being sold by a paedophile who suggests that they could be used to prevent children being sexually abused, is all sorts of fcuked up... they don't care about children?


    Yeah, I think I'll pass all the same.


  • #134
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    One eyed Jack wrote:
    That's really your idea of minimising the behaviour?

    I don't know. I'm not an expert. Are you an expert? I'm saying we should research the effects of the dolls and then make a decision. It could be part of a solution.

    If the dolls make you uncomfortable, that's fine but that's not the really the question because you're presumably not a paedophile. It's clearly disturbing to the majority of people but nobody is suggesting that non-paedophiles would be attracted to yhem. The question is whether they could be useful in preventing harm to actual children. I don't know but if there's a real chance to prevent harm to children, I think it should be researed.
    One eyed Jack wrote:
    And if someone flat out says that the notion that a sex doll that looks like a child, being sold by a paedophile who suggests that they could be used to prevent children being sexually abused, is all sorts of fcuked up... they don't care about children?

    I don't understand this question.


  • #135
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That's really your idea of minimising the behaviour?

    He obviously means minimising offences against real children.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And if someone flat out says that the notion that a sex doll that looks like a child, being sold by a paedophile who suggests that they could be used to prevent children being sexually abused, is all sorts of fcuked up... they don't care about children?

    That's also obviously not what he means. He means that those people are allowing their fear and disgust to prevent them from exploring an option that might make the world safer for their children in the long term.

    Won't know unless we run trials.
    deandean wrote: »
    In those dolls I would factory install a Rapex (look it up) in every orifice.

    That's teach those buggers a lesson.

    Yes, what we need to do with pedophiles is make them angry and even more sexually frustrated. Should work out just great.


  • #136
    Azalea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭Azalea


    PucaMama wrote: »
    it's wrong to mistrust them?
    Where the fup did anyone say it's wrong to mistrust people who have paedophilic desires?
    There supposed to be safe around children?
    Where the double fup did anyone say they're safe around children? (Actually people said you would not want people with paedophilic desires to be near children, even if they had not offended).
    So long as they haven't offended (yet)? (Or been caught yet). And then pandering to them with dolls. It's too much. These are criminals with criminal thoughts. Dangerous people.
    No pandering has been done with dolls. Are you saying you know for a fact that people with paedophilic desires cannot control these desires? Of course you don't know that. How can just having desires make a person a criminal? :confused:

    But this is all pretty much moot - NOBODY is going to know if someone has paedophilic desires unless they offend, because they, especially those who would not want to hurt a child, will not be telling anyone, and should be able to get treatment to help them stop having these thoughts - this is something that is for protection of children, not for enablement of paedophiles.


  • #137
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I don't know. I'm not an expert. Are you an expert? I'm saying we should research the effects of the dolls and then make a decision. It could be part of a solution.


    How about we not waste resources on dumb shìt ideas like indulging paedophiles instead of treating them? That's a better solution.

    If the dolls make you uncomfortable, that's fine but that's not the really the question because you're presumably not a paedophile. It's clearly disturbing to the majority of people but nobody is suggesting that non-paedophiles would be attracted to yhem. The question is whether they could be useful in preventing harm to actual children. I don't know but if there's a real chance to prevent harm to children, I think it should be researed.


    No, the dolls don't make me uncomfortable, the idea of indulging paedophiles makes me uncomfortable. The question of whether they could be useful in preventing harm to children simply doesn't arise, because while I may be reluctant to point out the obvious - they're not children. They are inanimate objects, they do not have the same attraction for paedophiles as sentient, living, breathing, pre-pubescent human beings. They do not offer the same gratification to paedophiles as a paedophile derives from a child.

    I don't understand this question.


    You're suggesting that anyone who objects to the idea of indulging paedophiles, doesn't care about children. Civility precludes me from telling you what I think of your judgement.


  • #138
    The Sidewards Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭The Sidewards Man


    These dolls are only promoting paedophilia.


  • #139
    Canadel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭Canadel


    deandean wrote: »
    In those dolls I would factory install a Rapex (look it up) in every orifice.

    That's teach those buggers a lesson.
    How the hell does a person rape a doll? :confused:


  • #140
    The Sidewards Man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭The Sidewards Man


    Canadel wrote: »
    How the hell does a person rape a doll? :confused:

    They take the batteries out first.


  • #141
    deandean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭deandean


    Canadel wrote: »
    How the hell does a person rape a doll? :confused:
    They would practice on a doll before raping a child.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Tigger wrote: »
    I'ts illegal to depict a person as underage in media
    Dolls are media
    They want to fcuk kids

    I don't want them to so put them in gaol

    What gibberish is this?
    Illegal to depict someone as underage in the media?

    Enid Blyton would be in some trouble.


  • #143
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


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

    Surely "everyone knows" rape is not about sex.


  • #144
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Azalea wrote: »
    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.

    Past adolescence is adult.
    Ephebophilia is sexual attraction to teenagers, something 99% of all humans experience at some point. Society expects that you magically grow out of it once you turn 18 yourself which is bafflingly disingenuous.


  • #145
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    One eyed Jack wrote:
    How about we not waste resources on dumb shìt ideas like indulging paedophiles instead of treating them? That's a better solution.

    Again, focusing on the paedophiles rather than the children. The issue, for me at least, I'd protecting children. You're not an expert but you're willing to write this off as 'dumb sh1t'. Ok but I care enough about people to find out more.
    One eyed Jack wrote:
    No, the dolls don't make me uncomfortable, the idea of indulging paedophiles makes me uncomfortable. The question of whether they could be useful in preventing harm to children simply doesn't arise, because while I may be reluctant to point out the obvious - they're not children. They are inanimate objects, they do not have the same attraction for paedophiles as sentient, living, breathing, pre-pubescent human beings. They do not offer the same gratification to paedophiles as a paedophile derives from a child.

    If you're more motivated by not 'indulging paedophiles' than protecting children, then you're likely to ignore potential solutions. I don't know if the dolls would help keep actual people safe, but it's worth researching. If you're more motivated by persecuting paedophiles, than protecting children, then fair enough
    One eyed Jack wrote:
    You're suggesting that anyone who objects to the idea of indulging paedophiles, doesn't care about children. Civility precludes me from telling you what I think of your judgement.

    Nope i haven't suggests that. I've laid our what I think. No need to indulge you're strawman.

    I've commented that some people (yourself included) would prefer to ignore a potential solution to child predation, because it might be going too easy on paedophiles. Those people clearly are more focused on punishing paedophiles than protecting children. I think those people are missing the point.

    I think protecting children from predators is the highest priority. Whatever reduces harm to children is important to me. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your bloodlust.


  • #146
    bruno1x
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭bruno1x


    They will use credit card to buy this online.
    Police keep a record of who buys these dolls.
    A child goes missing in a area, check the list of those who bought a doll, if any live in the area, kick their door off the hinges and rescue child.
    If no child there move on to next name on list.
    If homeowner threatens to sue, informed them the police will leak the fact they have one of these dolls, that would be the end of that.


  • #147
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    bruno1x wrote: »
    They will use credit card to buy this online.
    Police keep a record of who buys these dolls.
    A child goes missing in a area, check the list of those who bought a doll, if any live in the area, kick their door off the hinges and rescue child.
    If no child there move on to next name on list.
    If homeowner threatens to sue, informed them the police will leak the fact they have one of these dolls, that would be the end of that.

    So.....blackmail?


  • #148
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Uncle Ben wrote: »
    Can't see Smyths selling them.

    Not sure, walked past one the other day with a huge sign in the window.

    "BABY SALE!" Now I know D1 can be a bit rough at the best of times but selling babies, fcuk.


  • #149
    bruno1x
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭bruno1x


    The_Valeyard wrote: »
    So.....blackmail?

    You want the protection of the law, you must live within the law.


  • #150
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,305 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Again, focusing on the paedophiles rather than the children.

    ...

    If you're more motivated by persecuting paedophiles, than protecting children, then fair enough

    ...

    Nope i haven't suggests that. I've laid our what I think. No need to indulge you're strawman.

    ...

    Those people clearly are more focused on punishing paedophiles than protecting children.I think those people are missing the point.

    I think protecting children from predators is the highest priority. Whatever reduces harm to children is important to me. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your bloodlust.


    As strawmans go mate, you've got a whole Wickerman for yourself there that's not even worth entertaining. I'm not too worried about these dolls becoming in any way commonplace or being taken seriously as a way to stop paedophiles or protect children (nice though the way you try and present the two as mutually exclusive :rolleyes:) or any of the rest of your nonsense.

    I don't expect I'll be reading about it in scientific or medical journals any time soon :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,711 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    bruno1x wrote:
    They will use credit card to buy this online. Police keep a record of who buys these dolls. A child goes missing in a area, check the list of those who bought a doll, if any live in the area, kick their door off the hinges and rescue child. If no child there move on to next name on list. If homeowner threatens to sue, informed them the police will leak the fact they have one of these dolls, that would be the end of that.

    'That would be the end of that', meaning the end of expecting the state to respect the rights of citizens. That precedent puts society on a slippery slope. If but it would probably satisfy the urge to have a go at paedophiles.

    Rights of all citizens includes you. If people are found guilty of a crime they should be punished, if not then everyone's rights are to be respected.


Advertisement
Advertisement