Sex dolls for paedophiles

speedboatchase · 17-01-2016 12:50PM

bruno1x wrote: »

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

And the law is allowed blackmail you, which is against the law?

bruno1x · 17-01-2016 01:03PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

And the law is allowed blackmail you, which is against the law?

If the police have to break law to put these scum away, the only problem i see is that the law has to be changed, so what ever the police did is now made legal.

thattequilagirl · 17-01-2016 01:06PM

bruno1x wrote: »

If the police have to break law to put these scum away, the only problem i see is that the law has to be changed, so what ever the police did is now made legal.

Because police would never abuse that kind of power...

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 01:14PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Because police would never abuse that kind of power...

You can't actually imply that they would without conducting exhaustive research, pissing money down the drain, and letting the police abuse that power indefinitely, before you come to the conclusion that it has had no effect at all...

Same approach some posters here would have us take to researching and testing the effects of these dolls - one isn't permitted to suggest the idea is daft without having conducted exhaustive research first :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 · 17-01-2016 01:21PM

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

One eyed Jack wrote:

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 ) or any of the rest of your nonsense.

Once you veered into passive aggressively calling me 'mate', I take you've probably finished trying to have a rational discussion.

You mentioned that the potential protective effect of the dolls, towards actual children 'doesn't arise'. It does arise because that's the topic for discussion. I care about ensuring the protection of children so I remain open minded to any posibility that would improve the safety of children in society.

I also never said the dolls would definately lead to a positive result. I said it's worth researching. If you read what I said, you'd know that.

One eyed Jack wrote:

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

You're probably right. Research will most likely be extremely limited and Children will continue to be abused at roughly the current rate. Any potential these dolls may have to protect children will most likely be ignored. I can't imagine why anyone would be happy about that. Help me to understand your position.

bruno1x · 17-01-2016 01:28PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Because police would never abuse that kind of power...

Of course child molesters don't use loops holes in the law to escape justice.
When the law is not working, it needs to be changed.

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 01:49PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Once you veered into passive aggressively calling me 'mate', I take you've probably finished trying to have a rational discussion.

Oh that wasn't meant to be passive aggressive, it was meant to be a straight out indication that although I can't take you seriously any more, I bear no ill will towards you.

Rational discussion finished when I said that I think it's more important to put resources towards treating paedophiles, than indulging a minority of child molesters (what do you think they'll be doing with a doll built as an anatomically correct 5 year old child?). It's a free market, so at €14k a pop, only people who can afford them will be buying them, and for those people who can't afford them, well, there's always children, and they're free, and in abundant supply, and the paedophiles and child molesters don't have to worry about any money back guarantees if they're not satisfied.

Rational discussion ended when you tried to imply that I cared more about punishing paedophiles than I do about protecting children, and then tried to imply some crap about your ideas not satisfying my 'bloodlust'... :pac:

You mentioned that the potential protective effect of the dolls, towards actual children 'doesn't arise'. It does arise because that's the topic for discussion. I care about ensuring the protection of children so I remain open minded to any posibility that would improve the safety of children in society.

I also never said the dolls would definately lead to a positive result. I said it's worth researching. If you read what I said, you'd know that.

There's a reason why the article appears in The Mirror, a tabloid rag, and not the British Medical Journal or any of the other many scientific and medical journals. Did that cross your mind at all?

You're probably right. Research will most likely be extremely limited and Children will continue to be abused at roughly the current rate. Any potential these dolls may have to protect children will most likely be ignored. I can't imagine why anyone would be happy about that. Help me to understand your position.

When you're done constructing that strawman, I have some blow-up dolls for you to help me with that we're handing out to rapists later, because I have no doubt you care about victims of rape too and if you don't do it, you don't care about protecting people... :rolleyes:

Do you find that sort of logic actually works on anyone who isn't a child?

CyclopsDeluxe · 17-01-2016 02:19PM

I don't understand people who'd ride a "regular" sex doll and I doubt there are too many who do and then continue to rape the next best person they see in the streets.

I'd be interested to see if these dolls could make a difference. It bothers me to see so many hateful comments against paedophiles though. I don't understand how anyone could be possibly attracted to children and it abhors me as much as most people, but it must be incredibly difficult to be living/ coping with it.

MarkAnthony · 17-01-2016 02:40PM

CyclopsDeluxe wrote: »

I don't understand people who'd ride a "regular" sex doll and I doubt there are too many who do and then continue to rape the next best person they see in the streets.

I'd be interested to see if these dolls could make a difference. It bothers me to see so many hateful comments against paedophiles though. I don't understand how anyone could be possibly attracted to children and it abhors me as much as most people, but it must be incredibly difficult to be living/ coping with it.

Different = makes people scared and angry.

Threat = makes people scared and angry.

We're hard wired to be scared and angry and lash out. It's only through education and intellect can you overcome that natural reaction to anything, be in race, religion, sexual orientation or in this case a paraphilia.

The vast majority of people wouldn't have enough headspace to think through someone liking a different type of garden ornament let alone working through the nuances of peodophillia. Whether the pitchfork mentality helps or hinders in this particular case is actually genuinely debatable IMHO.

Azalea · 17-01-2016 02:47PM

CyclopsDeluxe wrote: »

It bothers me to see so many hateful comments against paedophiles though. I don't understand how anyone could be possibly attracted to children and it abhors me as much as most people, but it must be incredibly difficult to be living/ coping with it.

I assume you mean hateful comments just against paedophiles who have not abused children and just have the desires? Because there aren't enough hateful comments for those who offend.

In the case of that unknown group (because they will never say who they are) who are simply afflicted with these desires but have not and would not harm a child, I agree. Must be hell.

A considerable proportion of the populous (not reflected on this thread, which is refreshing) though, are not capable of differentiating between those who just have the thoughts and those who have abused. They are also not capable of understanding that thoughts does not necessarily mean a guarantee of acting on them.

CyclopsDeluxe · 17-01-2016 03:00PM

Azalea wrote: »

I assume you mean hateful comments just against paedophiles who have not abused children and just have the desires? Because there aren't enough hateful comments for those who offend.

Yes I was talking about the ones who live with it and don't offend of course!

ToddyDoody · 17-01-2016 03:48PM

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.

Fair enough. I don't see it as adding any protections to victims of paedophilia but maybe in the broader sense it can be seen as tolerating it / promoting it.

Be interested to know if there's any effective treatments, short of the drastic fully fledged castration of some variety.

the_pen_turner · 17-01-2016 04:00PM

the problem is that there is a major stigma to saying you have these thoughts. nobody would come forward.
for us to do real research we need to be studying as early as possible.
maybe there are measures we can take that will reduce the number that move from thinking about it to doing it.

maybe these dolls are one part of the prevention program. they would only be used where its almost at the point of acting on the thoughts.

if we don't do meaningful research then we will never know what causes it or how to reduce the likelihood of it happening.

we need some kind of immunity/ identity protection for anyone that comes forward and says that they have these thought. that way we can study this properly. anyone outing these people should be fines millions and locked up
obviously once you act on these thoughts or try to then you need to be dealt with accordingly

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 04:00PM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Fair enough. I don't see it as adding any protections to victims of paedophilia but maybe in the broader sense it can be seen as tolerating it / promoting it.

Be interested to know if there's any effective treatments, short of the drastic fully fledged castration of some variety.

CBT has shown some promise in helping paedophiles to control and manage their impulses while chemical castration has been used to reduce their libido and sexual desires. Some human rights groups however are against the idea of chemical castration aa they see it as an infringement on a person's human rights.

There really isn't any "one size fits all" effective treatment, as there are an infinite number of factors involved and then it's impossible to distinguish between what's a psychopathology, what's an opportunistic impulse behaviour, what's a compulsive behaviour, etc... there's too many variables to try and contend with that wouldn't even go anywhere near suggesting sex dolls might be part of a possible treatment. They'd only be a short term measure for what is effectively a life-long condition.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-01-2016 04:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote:

There's a reason why the article appears in The Mirror, a tabloid rag, and not the British Medical Journal or any of the other many scientific and medical journals. Did that cross your mind at all?

Because there hasn't been research and BMJ don't comment on news.

One eyed Jack wrote:

When you're done constructing that strawman, I have some blow-up dolls for you to help me with that we're handing out to rapists later, because I have no doubt you care about victims of rape too and if you don't do it, you don't care about protecting people...

This is gibberish.

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 04:34PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because there hasn't been research and BMJ don't comment on news.

There hasn't been research done because some ideas are so stupid, they're not worth investing resources in. I think you know well the point I was making in pointing out that neither the inventor making these extraordinary claims, nor the company manufacturing these sex dolls, has no intention of backing up their extraordinary claims with the extraordinary evidence which would make more research a worthwhile endeavour that might appear in the BMJ, instead of a tabloid rag I wouldn't wipe my arse with.

This is gibberish.

Read back over your own assertion again -

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're probably right. Research will most likely be extremely limited and Children will continue to be abused at roughly the current rate. Any potential these dolls may have to protect children will most likely be ignored. I can't imagine why anyone would be happy about that. Help me to understand your position.

I was highlighting the fact that you were constructing a strawman (and you know you were), and trying to imply that because I thought the dolls are a stupid idea not worth wasting resources on research, I must be happy for children to continue to be abused and ignored.

Did you honestly think I was ever going to be moved by that crap?

bruno1x · 17-01-2016 04:43PM

CyclopsDeluxe wrote: »

It bothers me to see so many hateful comments against paedophiles though.

Sympathetic to paedophiles?

bruno1x · 17-01-2016 04:44PM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Fair enough. I don't see it as adding any protections to victims of paedophilia but maybe in the broader sense it can be seen as tolerating it / promoting it.

Be interested to know if there's any effective treatments, short of the drastic fully fledged castration of some variety.

They death penalty for this crime who reduce it over night drastically.

eviltwin · 17-01-2016 04:45PM

bruno1x wrote: »

They death penalty for this crime who reduce it over night drastically.

No it won't. It will just result in a lot more murdered kids.

bruno1x · 17-01-2016 04:50PM

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.

HalloweenJack · 17-01-2016 07:01PM

bruno1x wrote: »

then we will have reports of adults having sex with children who are "mature for their age" both parties consented.

It's called statutory rape and I don't think that defence has ever held up.

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 07:11PM

HalloweenJack wrote: »

It's called statutory rape and I don't think that defence has ever held up.

I think bruno means if paedophilia and child molestation ever became an accepted norm in Western society. I don't think it will, not when the majority of people in Western society find the idea absolutely abhorrent.

SeanW · 17-01-2016 07:13PM

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.

Umm ... one is a doll, the other is a child. That is - and will always be - a big difference.

osarusan · 17-01-2016 07:14PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There hasn't been research done because some ideas are so stupid, they're not worth investing resources in.

Are you saying that the idea that these dolls could in any way be effective in reducing the number of incidents of abuse by paedophiles on children is so stupid that it is actually pointless to even attempt do any research on it?

Azalea · 17-01-2016 07:38PM

bruno1x wrote: »

Sympathetic to paedophiles?

They mean the paedophiles who are afflicted with having those thoughts about children - which are not voluntary thoughts - not the paedophiles who have acted on these desires. You might have missed the next few posts.

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.

Child abuse will never be considered mainstream or acceptable or legal.

One eyed Jack · 17-01-2016 08:03PM

osarusan wrote: »

Are you saying that the idea that these dolls could in any way be effective in reducing the number of incidents of abuse by paedophiles on children is so stupid that it is actually pointless to even attempt do any research on it?

I don't think they do anything to address the fundamental underlying issue of people who choose to commit sexual abuse against children. I think it would be a waste of resources because the idea doesn't do anything to address the behaviour, it only enables it. I think claims that use of these dolls would prevent the sexual abuse of children are entirely without foundation and it's not something I see as worthy of any further research.

I think the claims have as much validity as claims that eating bananas cures AIDS. The idea that these dolls do anything to prevent children being abused is an idea that wouldn't fly on Dragon's Den tbh, but I can understand the desperation of some people to want to believe that they could have any significant impact on the issue.

Morrissey · 17-01-2016 08:14PM

Paedophiles should be reached out to and given help. They have been dealt a terrible hand in life and there should be a support network to help them make sure they never offend, be that sexual abuse or child pornography.

Google 'Dunkelfeld Prevention Project' in Germany to see what can be done.

Forget the witch-hunts and hysteria, they just ensure that a non-offending paedophile would never come forward out of fear.

The goal should be to minimise the amount of sexual abuse. I think an effort to create an environment where people who are developing these attractions can receive help is of more value than encouraging the use of child sex dolls.

I would have respect for a paedophile who had never offended and didn't hide in the shadows but takes any help he/she could get to try to live a normal life. This is probably far-fetched in Western Society, their house would probably be firebombed once word got out.

stefanovich · 17-01-2016 08:33PM

bruno1x wrote: »

Sympathetic to paedophiles?

If they never act on their feelings then why not? I'm sure they don't have these feelings by choice.

stefanovich · 17-01-2016 08:36PM

Azalea wrote: »

Child abuse will never be considered mainstream or acceptable or legal.

It used to be legal.

Zen65 · 17-01-2016 09:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You are right. It wouldn't stop paedophilic impulses but it possibly may contain them. The doll becomes the focus for their pleasure rather than a child. Paedophilia, while abhorrent to right minded people, is very complex. Some despise themselves for how they feel and will try anything to overcome their urges. Other's have no such qualms and will act out. It can't be cured only managed. There is an argument for it to be viewed as another type of sexuality.

Perhaps if these dolls were only made available in an asylum, or on an island in the middle of nowhere, and anyone wishing to use them would need to have themselves committed into the asylum /island for (say) 5 years? That way, even if it doesn't actually help to control their urges, they'd be away from any real children!!

Sex dolls for paedophiles

Comments