Sex dolls for paedophiles

Zen65 · 17-01-2016 10:08PM

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

These dolls are only promoting paedophilia.

The dolls may not serve any positive purpose, but I doubt they promote paedophilia any more than a life-size male sex doll would promote homosexuality among men. Either you have an attraction, or you don't. The attraction is not a choice. Acting on it is. Anything which helps a paedohphile to not act on his/her urges is good (but I don't think that these dolls would really help). Anything which ensures somebody who has acted on such an urge cannot do so again is also good, which is why I favour mandatory life sentences for physical abusers, or even a death sentence.

Samaris · 18-01-2016 12:07AM

I'm really intrigued by your comment, Paramite Pie. That is a very interesting possible avenue to explore as to the reason behind paedophilia. (It was a few pages back, but in essence, it was the idea that paedophiles have not had the part of the brain that controls sexual attraction mature - kids have crushes on other kids the same age, as they become teenagers they crush on other teens, and so on as they get older).

Right so, first off. How does anyone expect to research and treat paedophilia if the mere admittance of having these urges (unacted upon) is enough to get one locked away? If buying a doll (also 14k, wtf?) is enough to ensure that should a child go missing, you'll have your door smashed down, your home invaded and ransacked and if you dare complain, you'll be blackmailed by the police? Screw human rights, if you have this specific mental disorder, you have no human rights*. What happens when a policemen decides "As a parent, I loathe you" and beats them up? Well, they still can't complain, because after all, it's all legal and they'll be outed for their mental illness if they say anything. What a lovely world you want, poster that was demanding this.

Force someone into a corner, point out that society loathes them and will not protect them, and see if they still will fight themselves to protect society.

*Let me be clear, I'm saying that that idea is dangerous rubbish.

One eyed Jack · 18-01-2016 12:51AM

Samaris wrote: »

How does anyone expect to research and treat paedophilia if the mere admittance of having these urges (unacted upon) is enough to get one locked away?

There's plenty of ongoing research about paedophilia and what may be effective treatments and so on, so the problem really isn't really that there isn't enough research or understanding of paedophilia in society. The problem (for paedophiles at least), is that society just doesn't accept that they should have to accept or show understanding to people who have an incurable attraction to prepubescent children.

Another problem is that when you have groups like NAMBLA campaigning for acceptance of paedophilia, and to be clear - they're not campaigning for more research or better treatment programs, they're campaigning for paedophile's "rights", that's something that most people simply will not accept, as what they are campaigning for is the right to abuse children.

Another problem is that the procedure that seems to be showing the most promise, chemical castration, is being opposed by human rights groups for various reasons. I would contend that the vast majority of paedophiles and child molesters simply are either unsuitable for treatment (see the figures for that German institution, less than 25% of those people who applied to the program were accepted for treatment - 1,100 applied, about 250 were accepted, in a population of 86 million!), or just do not want to be treated.

The idea of these dolls is about as useful as handing someone a blow-up doll and telling them that'll do them now for the rest of their lives. It's bizarre rationalisation. It's almost as bad as a paedophile suggesting that if they don't get a doll, they'll abuse a child. That's not the kind of mentality I personally would have any interest in ceding to tbh. I'm all for helping them receive the best available treatment and so on, but the idea of supplying them with the tools that enable the behaviour and make no attempt to address the underlying mentality?

I really can't see the usefulness in that at all tbh, nor how it's supposed to help them function as fully participating, contributing members of society.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2016 10:57AM

Mister Vain wrote: »

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?

osarusan wrote: »

Any evidence that they are effective at all?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know, I feel this might lead to them escalating their behaviour against actual children.

c_man wrote: »

Then again this could encourage people to go through with the real deal if they get a taste for it. Ah, I dunno... I really don't.

When it popped up on my smart phone news feed I suspected there would be very quickly an After Hours thread on the subject. My thoughts is that they are jumping the gun a little. There _have_ been a few studies linking the use of child porn with lower levels of actual child abuse or rape, which suggest that the old adage that "Anyone viewing child porn will want to get the real thing eventually" may not actually be all that true.

Now clearly we do not want to start producing child porn, or distributing already existing child porn, to pedophiles. So early studies have indeed been done on the effects of "fake" child porn (anime, cartoons, art, CGI and so forth) but it is all very early days there too.

So who knows it could indeed be a valuable weapon, who knows and the business in question may indeed be on the right track. But I would not want to call it either way just yet.

The main sticking point for me is that many people think that there is one form of pedophilia. That there are people who want to have sex with children and those that do not.

It is massively more complex than that. Some are not into the children they are into breaking the taboo. So clearly sex doll will not help them. The same is true for people who get off on the power and control of abusing or raping a child. And if you get off on fear or pain too, then clearly a doll is not going to give you that.

So while the studies I have read suggest dolls like this could likely help SOME pedophiles.... we must realize that they would only assist in the treatment of one type. There are SEVERAL types out there and we collect them all under this one umbrella term "pedophile".

Canadel wrote: »

Just because a person is a paedophile does not mean they can't control their sexual urges. Not all paedophiles are necessarily child molesters.

Yes and that is a fact that is both a happy one and a worrying one. When we consider the quantity of pedophilia in our culture we generally measure it by statistics such as prosecutions for child abuse or rape.

We actually have very little idea how prevalent pedophilia is in our species. For all we know it could be many times higher than we think, but the majority of people who feel it or experience it simply also have no interest in actually acting on it.

The same is true for rape for example. There are likely many people who get off on the idea of it, the thought of it, the concept of it.... but the idea of actually DOING it is abhorrent to them. They may even seek out acted out fantasy rape porn videos to watch.

It is even true outside the world of sex. When we watch James Bond are we not also, to some degree, imagining ourselves in the role. Cool and calm going around killing people and using and discarding women as sex toys and so forth. Yet the majority of us, I suspect, could not pull a trigger on a human being at the best of times and hope never to be in a situation where we actually have to. Hell even when I hit someone, even if entirely warranted or in self defense, I obsess over the guilt of it for weeks or months afterwards.

So yes I do wonder how prevalent pedophilia is in our culture. And alas it is not an easy thing to study. Because in our current climate and culture who is actually going to stand up and say "Yep, I am a pedophile. Never touched a child, never want to, never will, but the feelings are in me for sure".

Medusa22 wrote: »

I do have a lot of empathy for paedophiles who have these urges but would never act on them and wish that they didn't have them.

I remember watching a BBC Documentry following the work of police officers tracking down pedophiles on the internet and other places off line. Of all the arrests they made (I think 10ish over the short series) the one that stayed with me the most was the guy they walked up on just as he was putting his briefcase in the car to go to work.

He looked up and saw two plain clothes men and a camera walking towards him and he leaned against the car visibly relieved and just said something along the lines of "I have been waiting for this day to come. Now maybe I can stop".

Thankfully he was looking at porn rather than abusing children himself (still bad but clearly better) but it really struck me that he was living this life that he hated, hated himself, hated what he was doing and what he was into.... but unable to ask for help or seek it. Waiting in a mix of fear, dread and HOPE for the day the knock on the door would come and the police would be standing there.

sbsquarepants · 18-01-2016 11:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

At worst they could use to the dolls to practice on before trying it "for real" :mad:

It doesn't always mean that if you can act it out that you'll be satisfied and won't want to do it for real.

I think it's disgusting and stupid idea.
There's been sex dolls of adult women for decades - it's hardly stopped people wanting to get their hands on a real one has it!

Zen65 · 18-01-2016 11:23AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There's been sex dolls of adult women for decades - it's hardly stopped people wanting to get their hands on a real one has it!

In fact, it has, for a few people. You'll find documentaries of stories where men have dedicated their lives to a sex doll, or in some cases, just a mannequin. There have been cases where marriages have split because the husband became obsessed with a doll and ceased to pay attention to his wife.

These are rare cases though, the ones we hear of.

But there have been many other cases of people having handicaps, mental health issues, or disfiguring conditions where the use of dolls has helped. We just do not know the extent to which it happens because not everyone who uses a doll for this purpose goes to the BBC or Channel 4 (but I'm always amazed at the numbers that do).

So, could these dolls be helpful? My suspicion is that they would prevent very, very few cases of child abuse, if any. Very many abusers seem to thrive on the feelings of fear and pain in their victims, which dolls will not appease. They may provide relief for those who have the urges but are mentally competent enough to not act on them. They may provide a less damaging alternative to the "porn images" route that some follow.

So in the round, I suspect these dolls are of little value to keeping children safe, and may provide "relief" from the mental anxiety of a small number of abusers. I'd certainly hate to see them being offered on the medical card!!

Zen65 · 18-01-2016 11:25AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it's disgusting and stupid idea.

That's exactly how I feel about the "Toddlers in Tiaras" competitions!

For similar reasons.

valoren · 18-01-2016 11:35AM

It's unfair to brandish all who have paedophilic thoughts or desires as simply the scum of the earth.
I'm sure that is simply how they are wired sexually. I can imagine how excruciating it must be.

Many of them would have the morals and conscience to understand how them acting on their impulses would harm a child.

The problem though would be those people so wired and you couple that wiring with psychopathy. A complete lack of conscience. They simply see a child as a sexual object to be used, abused and discarded irregardless of the harm done.

cowboyBuilder · 18-01-2016 11:46AM

It's a tough one, if it were GUARANTEED to stop them abusing a real child, then sure - but no such guarantees exist.

It could have the opposite effect and they could want more realism, I'm not sure what my opinion is here.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2016 11:58AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

It's a tough one, if it were GUARANTEED to stop them abusing a real child, then sure - but no such guarantees exist.

It could have the opposite effect and they could want more realism, I'm not sure what my opinion is here.

Which is why we need more data and information I guess. Certainly the "There is no evidence and I do not think we should even look for any" type rhetoric from at least one user above is not the way to go on it.

I think there are many different conditions and sexual dynamics that can lead to someone abusing or raping a child. And I think there is firm basis to think that one or more of them could be alleviated by this method.

Is it possible that it will lead people who would otherwise not have abused, or who would have, to do some (or more) than they otherwise might have.... we have less basis or data to fear that, but it is still just as valid a question.

It is simply a massively understudied area. Take child porn for example. Does CP lead to abusers abusing? Does the desire to abuse lead to CP? Does CP make them more likely to do it or want to? Or does CP allay and satisfy their desires to do so for longer?

Or, as I suspect, are ALL of the above true and there is no one straight answer to ANY of this because anything you do that reduces ONE set of people from engaging in crime.... leads another set to do more of it?

Need study. Need data. We simply do not know.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 18-01-2016 12:00PM

Zen65 wrote: »

So, could these dolls be helpful? My suspicion is that they would prevent very, very few cases of child abuse, if any. Very many abusers seem to thrive on the feelings of fear and pain in their victims, which dolls will not appease. They may provide relief for those who have the urges but are mentally competent enough to not act on them. They may provide a less damaging alternative to the "porn images" route that some follow.

I've read about this a fair bit, due to some volunteering I do I hear a lot about child abuse and got interested.

There seems to be two* main avenues of self-delusion offending pedophiles pursue in order to be able to live with themselves:

1. it's not abuse, it's a consensual relationship that the victim enjoys, and won't cause harm. An attitude espoused by people like NAMBLA and a similar organisation active in the 70s in the UK.

2. completely dehumanising children in their own heads, and having an attitude similar to that which many serial violent rapists have towards women; that they somehow 'deserve' to be abused because they're children or at least that it's not the same as doing it to a 'real person'. I recall one offender in a documentary talking about how he realised he'd been doing wrong when one of his children at aged six or seven asked him some reasonably complex question and it just hit him: these are little people, they're not objects or animals. His own, biological children, and he'd never seen them like that, never seen them as experiencing pain and emotion the same way he did, and therefore of course, he could justify the abuse to himself.

(And, as someone pointed out above, there are abusers who aren't even technically paedophiles; they're not attracted to children, they're attracted to transgression and taboo, or they're indulging a sadistic personality on the most vulnerable, woundable victims available).

I don't know how much these dolls could be to anyone gone too far down either rabbit hole though. And on the one hand if it stops even one kid from being abused then I'll choke down my revulsion, but on the other hand, if it causes even one paedophile to feel they've crossed a boundary and the behaviour then escalates...I just don't know.

But there has to be some more productive solution than waiting around for paedophiles to offend and then catching and punishing them.

*the third one would be a kind of disassociation: 'it wasn't me who did that, something came over me/the devil possessed me/I remember doing it but I don't know why I did it'

One eyed Jack · 18-01-2016 01:24PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is why we need more data and information I guess. Certainly the "There is no evidence and I do not think we should even look for any" type rhetoric from at least one user above is not the way to go on it.

...

Need study. Need data. We simply do not know.

I'd certainly be interested in how you would suggest conducting an ethical double-blind test to investigate the validity of the inventors claims.

Ant695 · 18-01-2016 01:27PM

I got as far as "they make dolls to resemble girls as young as 5" and that was enough for me.

I don't see this working and is just someone trying to justify making money out of something that is truly disgusting.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2016 01:41PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd certainly be interested in how you would suggest conducting an ethical double-blind test to investigate the validity of the inventors claims.

That is a different discussion to have. HOW to study it. I was more directing my comments to the need TO study it. Two separate subjects. And the latter subject is more important, I feel, than your dismissiveness in previous posts on the thread warrants.

However to follow you on the tangent.... The first step in usefully and ethically studying and treating pedophilia however is a clear one. We would need to create an environment somehow were people who are attracted to children are able to come forward and BE studied.

Alas we do not have that. The current climate is that the vast majority of pedophiles we know of, and can study, are the ones we caught at it. We do not even know how many pedophiles are out there really. Estimations are wildly different from different sources. But the trend seems to be the same and is towards "A lot more of them than most people think".

So yes a study would indeed need to be creative and imaginative in order to come up with useful ways to study it, while remaining ethical, but it also needs an environment where the studies CAN be done. Otherwise the only ways to study it are going to be things like "re-offender" rates in already prosecuted criminals and so forth.

Remember too we are not coming at this from a dark corner. Such studies HAVE already been done in relation to the affects of "Simulated child pornography" on people. And also University of Hawaii and others have noticed a correlation between accessibility to child pornography and the incidents of actual abuse and rape.

All, as I keep rushing to point out, early stages and FAR from conclusive. But a firm enough basis to warrant learning more and understanding more. Certainly I see nothing supporting a sentence from you like "it's not something I see as worthy of any further research."

One eyed Jack · 18-01-2016 02:26PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a different discussion to have. HOW to study it. I was more directing my comments to the need TO study it. Two separate subjects. And the latter subject is more important, I feel, than your dismissiveness in previous posts on the thread warrants.

My comments you alluded to, were in direct response to another poster's questioning why I would suggest that the inventors claims did not warrant further investigation. I never suggested that further study of paedophilia was unwarranted.

However to follow you on the tangent.... The first step in usefully and ethically studying and treating pedophilia however is a clear one. We would need to create an environment somehow were people who are attracted to children are able to come forward and BE studied.

Alas we do not have that. The current climate is that the vast majority of pedophiles we know of, and can study, are the ones we caught at it. We do not even know how many pedophiles are out there really. Estimations are wildly different from different sources. But the trend seems to be the same and is towards "A lot more of them than most people think".

Actually we do, and it's been mentioned by another poster on the thread already -

Prevention Project Dunkelfeld

So yes a study would indeed need to be creative and imaginative in order to come up with useful ways to study it, while remaining ethical, but it also needs an environment where the studies CAN be done. Otherwise the only ways to study it are going to be things like "re-offender" rates in already prosecuted criminals and so forth.

Remember too we are not coming at this from a dark corner. Such studies HAVE already been done in relation to the affects of "Simulated child pornography" on people. And also University of Hawaii and others have noticed a correlation between accessibility to child pornography and the incidents of actual abuse and rape.

All, as I keep rushing to point out, early stages and FAR from conclusive. But a firm enough basis to warrant learning more and understanding more. Certainly I see nothing supporting a sentence from you like "it's not something I see as worthy of any further research."

And again, I was referring specifically to the inventors claims, and I'm sure you're aware that any independent scientific experimental trials to test the inventors claims would immediately be dismissed as completely unethical.

The study of the subject of paedophilia is not what I was referring to when I said it's not something I see as worthy of any further research, and when another poster asked me how is paedophilia classified in the opinion of mental health professionals (in terms of whether it is viewed as a mental disorder or not), i wasn't being smart when I said that opinion is generally divided on the issue (in terms of many aspects of paedophilia).

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2016 02:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My comments you alluded to

The comments I "alluded to" were not necessarily yours. The thread is 194 posts long. It was post #191 when I alluded to comments. Why assume I meant you? Is this to be the second time in one day I have to remind you, it is not all about you?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never suggested that further study of paedophilia was unwarranted.

And I never suggested you suggested that. Anywhere. Ever. So unclear why you bring it up. Perhaps you can explain further.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually we do, and it's been mentioned by another poster on the thread already

Are you even trying to read what I write before you reply to it these days?

Firstly I am not talking about one single project in one single country. I am talking about a GENERAL environment of pedophiles being able to stand up without fear of judgement and recrimination and say "I do not act on these feelings, but yes I have them".

Further I am talking about an environment where they can come forward openly, and be part of studies and research. The link you provide is to a SUPPORT services project. And while, yes, such projects are a great idea and will provide the potential for a good study base, it is clearly not the primary focus or aim of the organisation.

So while a step in the right direction it certainly is, it does not address me saying "Alas we do not have that." one bit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And again, I was referring specifically to the inventors claims

And again, So was I. So again, I do not know why you bring it up. I am specifically talking about the idea/claim that engaging sexually with child sex dolls (or simulated child porn, or any of those other proposed solutions) can affect or mediate the behavior of pedophiles, or their tendency to abuse or rape actual victims.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware that any independent scientific experimental trials to test the inventors claims would immediately be dismissed as completely unethical.

And as I said in post #195 that would entirely depend on how they propose to study and test that information. The issue is not limited to this topic. How to ethically test claims is a genuine challenge in many areas of research, not just sexual related ones.

But as I said this is two different conversations. My original post was related to WHETHER the question is worth researching. If the answer to that is "yes" then HOW to do it is also a genuinely interesting conversation to have. But it is not the conversation my post was having, despite you using my post as a spring board for that tangent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The study of the subject of paedophilia is not what I was referring to when I said it's not something I see as worthy of any further research

So you keep saying, but for the third time now I have no idea why. Nothing in my post suggested it was. At all. Even a little bit.

One eyed Jack · 18-01-2016 02:54PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The comments I "alluded to" were not necessarily yours.

Thanks for clearing that up then.

sbsquarepants · 18-01-2016 02:57PM

Zen65 wrote: »

That's exactly how I feel about the "Toddlers in Tiaras" competitions!

For similar reasons.

Those competitions make my skin crawl - it's actually bordering on child abuse if you ask me.

wakka12 · 22-01-2016 01:17AM

Try to put yourself in their shoes, they can't help the fact that theyre attracted to children. And Im sure they wish they were normal and this fetish deeply upsets them.
If these dolls prevent child rape then obviously the idea should be supported.

Summer wind · 22-01-2016 02:58AM

I think these dolls are a very bad idea. I think if you are attracted sexually to children you always will be and no amount of any kind of treatment will ever change that. I can see where people are coming from when they say these dolls may prevent a real child from being abused but I don't think they would.

Ken. · 22-01-2016 03:13AM

Sex dolls for paedophiles that explode after their blown up would sort out the problem fairly quickly.

Grayson · 22-01-2016 03:51AM

Summer wind wrote: »

I think these dolls are a very bad idea. I think if you are attracted sexually to children you always will be and no amount of any kind of treatment will ever change that. I can see where people are coming from when they say these dolls may prevent a real child from being abused but I don't think they would.

I read an article where they said they'd showed cartoon child porn to offenders to see if it lessened urges and it did. They had porn they could **** to that hurt no-one. Now I'm definitely far from an expert but I'd imagine it might help some, might not help others. These dolls may be a good idea as part of an overall treatment plan. Lets let the experts decide.

El_Duderino 09 · 22-01-2016 09:41AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Try to put yourself in their shoes, they can't help the fact that theyre attracted to children. And Im sure they wish they were normal and this fetish deeply upsets them.
If these dolls prevent child rape then obviously the idea should be supported.

I agree with your broad point.

Not to get too technical about it but there's a difference betwren fetish and orientation in this context. The dolls would be in the realm of fetish while actual children would be what the person is orientated towards.

There is a funny divide I'm people's mind where this is treated as a disorder rather a than an orientation. Most people used to think there was either 'normal' heterosexual orientation, or disorder. Now we accept that homosexuality is an orientation along with a whole spectrum of others. Once the orientation could cause harm we tend to clasify it as disorder rather than orientation.

This point is relevant for 2 reasons:

1. Psychotherapy is not really effective at removing the underlying attraction to children. It may be effective at managing the behaviour. There are probably more focused ways to manage he oriental ration so he person never harms a child. These dolls appear to have potential use in this area.

2. The people with the orientation, who have not offended need to be worked with. They didn't ask for an attraction to children so if they want help to manage their urges, we should offer support.

If he dolls could help to protect children by helping to manage the urges, then we should find out how they can be used.

dodzy · 22-01-2016 09:49AM

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

Jasus. This place sometimes.

* Heads off to investigate the intricacies of initiating a DDoS attack.

One eyed Jack · 22-01-2016 10:26AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Try to put yourself in their shoes, they can't help the fact that theyre attracted to children.

This has been brought up a couple of times as if it's supposed to mean something. So what if they can't help the fact that they're attracted to children? That doesn't strike me personally as any sort of a valid reason why I should empathise or sympathise with adults who are sexually or romantically attracted to children. There's plenty of things I can't help but feel, and I don't act on those desires, and I don't expect people should feel sorry for me either. So why exactly should I be expected to feel sorry for anyone who is sexually or romantically attracted to a child?

The problem isn't with me, it's with the person who is sexually and romantically attracted to children.

And Im sure they wish they were normal and this fetish deeply upsets them.

You have no more reason to assume it upsets them than I do to think it doesn't. The thing is, that there are paedophiles who believe their thoughts and their behaviour isn't just normal, but that it should be socially acceptable. That's how you get small and not very influential groups like NAMBLA, PIE and the dutch "paedo party" in the Netherlands. They campaign for "paedophiles rights" under the idea of human rights. Fortunately, none of the more influential political lobby groups want anything to do with them.

Even the language they use is all sorts of linguistic gymnastics used to minimise and justify their thoughts and their behaviour as normal. They've been trying it since the sexual freedoms revolution in Western society in the 70's, a couple of well educated wingnuts who seek to classify paedoplilia as a sexual orientation to give it legitimacy (it's not working, and they're coming up against other well educated wingnuts who say that Western ideas of sexual orientation do not apply globally and are solely a product of Western culture!!).

Long story short - they're trying to say everyone else are the people with the problem, while paedophiles are perfectly normal. Nobody should ever have to take that shìt seriously.

If these dolls prevent child rape then obviously the idea should be supported.

That's an "if" that as I pointed out already, can never be supported by science without discarding ethics. There's nobody stopping anyone using the dolls, but claims that they would reduce the risk of a paedophile choosing to commit child rape, leads to suggestions that a child rapist isn't wholly and utterly responsible for choosing to rape a child. Not exactly a great selling point for a sex doll really. We tend to frown on that kind of behaviour in the West.

osarusan · 22-01-2016 10:33AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but claims that they would reduce the risk of a paedophile choosing to commit child rape, leads to suggestions that a child rapist isn't wholly and utterly responsible for choosing to rape a child. .

'Leads to suggestions' from you maybe, but that doesn't mean the suggestions are valid. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that you do about how use of these dolls would suggest anything like that.

VisibleGorilla · 22-01-2016 10:35AM

Anything that would reduce child sexual abuse makes complete sense from a logical standpoint.

Do normal sex dolls increase the rate of adult sexual abuse or rape?

One eyed Jack · 22-01-2016 11:49AM

osarusan wrote: »

'Leads to suggestions' from you maybe, but that doesn't mean the suggestions are valid. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that you do about how use of these dolls would suggest anything like that.

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from advocating the use of these dolls as a means to reduce the risk of a child being raped, means that if the use of these dolls is banned, it would increase the risk of a child being raped.

That, IMO, is taking responsibility for their behaviour away from the person who would rape children, and putting the responsibility for children being raped on the people who would call for the dolls to be banned.

Azalea · 22-01-2016 11:57AM

dodzy wrote: »

Jasus. This place sometimes.

* Heads off to investigate the intricacies of initiating a DDoS attack.

Can't blame Boards for the idea or for the Mirror article in fairness!

ALiasEX · 22-01-2016 01:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from advocating the use of these dolls as a means to reduce the risk of a child being raped, means that if the use of these dolls is banned, it would increase the risk of a child being raped.

That, IMO, is taking responsibility for their behaviour away from the person who would rape children, and putting the responsibility for children being raped on the people who would call for the dolls to be banned.

We don't take the responsibility for their behaviour away from poor people when they steal why would we do it here?

Sex dolls for paedophiles

Comments