Sex dolls for paedophiles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up then.

No problem. Sometimes it is the things that are most clear, that we need others to make clear for us. And I am happy to do so, and have done so numerous times for you in the past.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Then we can be but thankful that you are in no position of knowledge or influence in the world of treating people who need us. Why should we sympathize with anyone who has feelings of any kind that they do not want? Why do we bother with, for example, people who are depressed?

The why is simple. Because there are good people in the world who, for whatever reasons, often beyond their control, find themselves subject to thoughts, feelings or desires that they do not want, do not need, probably do not even understand.... and are in some way a detriment to their lives or well being.

And while you might be cold, heartless and dismissive towards the plight of such people, many others are not and we are genuinely interested in finding ways and means to help people overcome, or get through, whatever it is they have this issue with. Why should we have any more or less sympathy and interest in the well being of someone who finds themselves with a sexual attraction to children than we should be for someone who finds themselves suffering from depression or thoughts of suicide? Some of us CARE for our fellow humans, even if you do not.

Of course all that is said with the obvious caveat of distinguishing between people who have such desires and people who actually act on them. While I would be equally interested in helping both, I would clearly also be interested in ensuring justice and the law are proportionally also applied to the crimes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Agreed, but we can refrain from taking them seriously without tarring everyone with these attractions and impulses with the same brush. We need to study these things. We need to know how "normal" it is in our species. We need to know how to treat and help people with these feelings to overcome or live with them. And we need to divide our justifiable emotions towards those who act out those desires from those that do not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's an "if" that as I pointed out already, can never be supported by science without discarding ethics.

Not so. There are ethical difficulties and hurdles to over come for sure in studying the effects of these things, but they are not impossibilities.

Sometimes I view things like epidemiology as an art form in that one can sometimes have to be quite inventive and creative in working out ways to over come the hurdles of testing, and not just ethical hurdles but all kinds of other ones. And there are ethical issues in very many testing programs in drugs, psychological treatments and more.

Thankfully there are people immeasurably more well informed, imaginative and creative than you.... with less of a tendency to throw their hands up and give up, in the face of the first shadow of difficulty than you...... who are actively working in such spheres.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

laims 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.

Do not see how that follows at all and I quite suspect you are manufacturing a connection that is not there in order to merely justify your issues with the subject as a whole and to bluff a point where no point exists for the perspective of one practicing a form of armchair lay man psychology.

In fact quite the opposite would be suggested in that potential rapists WOULD be taking the decisions and responsibility for their decisions on their own head and heart by actively seeking methods by which to curtail and deal with their impulses and desires.

ken wrote: »

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

I know you intended this as humour, but consider how silly the idea is:

• At high cost, each doll only removes one paedophile
• There is a high likelihood of unintended casualties, including perhaps children who happened to be in the vicinity
• Some victims would potentially be drunkards who didnt realise the doll was a child

A more sensible application (but still tongue-in-cheek) would be for the dolls to be equipped with needles which injected the inserted objects with a poison which caused debilitation within (say) 48 hours.

A huge improvement in efficiency (one doll removes many offenders), no injuries to people in the vicinity, but there will still be unintended fatalities among drunken users. I can live with that, honestly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Really? Well as long as you're happy to offer an opinion on the topic rather than waste your time trying to attack me personally, belt away, you're doing a bang-up job of explaining me to me so far.

And as usual you are doing a bang up job of not actually replying to a single thing I say, by finding some complete non-sequitur to get uppity about and justify taking your ball home.

Yet you not only expressed no sympathy for people suffering from these things, while asking outright why you would. And all I did is answer your question(s). If that bothers you then perhaps consider not asking them in future, or putting people like me on ignore in future.

But getting haughty and uppity because you ask, and someone answered..... get over it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as usual you are doing a bang up job of not actually replying to a single thing I say, by finding some complete non-sequitur to get uppity about and justify taking your ball home.

Yet you not only expressed no sympathy for people suffering from these things, while asking outright why you would. And all I did is answer your question(s). If that bothers you then perhaps consider not asking them in future, or putting people like me on ignore in future.

No, no you didn't answer my question at all actually. You ignored my question, posed two three more of your own, and went on to offer an answer to those questions instead. See for yourself -

wakka12 wrote: »

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why should we sympathize with anyone who has feelings of any kind that they do not want? Why do we bother with, for example, people who are depressed?

The why is simple. Because there are good people in the world who, for whatever reasons, often beyond their control, find themselves subject to thoughts, feelings or desires that they do not want, do not need, probably do not even understand.... and are in some way a detriment to their lives or well being.

...

Why should we have any more or less sympathy and interest in the well being of someone who finds themselves with a sexual attraction to children than we should be for someone who finds themselves suffering from depression or thoughts of suicide? Some of us CARE for our fellow humans, even if you do not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But getting haughty and uppity because you ask, and someone answered..... get over it.

Who's getting haughty and uppity?

There's nothing to get over here only the fact that you didn't explain anything to me when you said that is what you do. I'm none the wiser on the subject for your efforts, but if you can offer what you feel may be justified as a suitable explanation without the shítty ad homs... I'd be more than willing to entertain your on-topic points at least.


.

Azalea wrote: »

I would feel the same in relation to people who have abused children, but tongue in cheek element or no, you're endorsing injuring or killing people (assuming you're referring to paedophiles who have never touched a child) for their thoughts. Hideous thoughts obviously - and ones which cause sexual arousal, but should a person be punished for involuntary desires?

I'd be all for the Belgian alternative. It wouldn't be called a punishment, it would be a mercy killing - euthanasia.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why should you feel sympathy for such people? Because they are human. They are suffering. What more reason do you need? The basic faculty of human empathy is enough. But what human empathy is present one wonders.....

So your answer to why I should empathise or sympathise with adults who are sexually or romantically attracted to children, is because they are human?

I asked a simple question, I wanted a simple answer. The quality that I am human, I pointed out already, is not a valid reason. I expect evidence, data, reason and logical argument, rather than the logical fallacy that is an appeal to emotion. At least when you present evidence, data, and use reason and logic to make your argument, it allows me to make that determination for myself as to whether I should empathise with or sympathise with adults who are sexually and romantically attracted to children.

Arguments regarding people experiencing depression, suicidal thoughts and those people who choose to take their own lives, are a red herring, because those issues are not particular to people who are sexually or romantically attracted to children. They are separate issues that you are trying to imply as a consequence of people who do not want to experience suffering.

That's nothing to do with what I asked.

..... when one suggests taking people who have COMMITTED NO CRIME.... and suggesting they would be better off dead. You complain about "ad hominem" that is not even there.... yet your own words render any requirement for insult or ad hominem defunct. Your own words say more about you as a person than I ever could, or would.

Either you've accidently misunderstood the concept of euthanasia, or you're purposely attempting to misrepresent my position - the Belgian alternative allows for the State to end the life of a person who wants to end their suffering by death. It is an act of mercy, and as Azalea pointed out - it is carried out with the consent of the person suffering - voluntarily.

Otherwise, killing someone without their consent is either manslaughter, or murder. They don't have the death penalty in Belgium, and I'm not an advocate of the death penalty in the US either (but that would only apply to people who were convicted of a crime anyway). I'm also not a fan of voluntary indefinite incarceration. The most humane method to end someone's suffering is IMO euthanasia, if that is what they want. As for adults who are sexually and romantically attracted to children - chemical castration and CBT are also voluntary alternatives if they wish to be treated and do not wish to die.

I trust that clarifies my position.

There's a treatment programme for non-offending paedophiles, men who do not want to act on their desires, and who often are horrified by their own desires.

It's complicated, as any treatment of humans is. There's never a single simple answer, much as the tabloids would like one.

Here's an article about a guy who really didn't want to have paedophiliac urges.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The reason to look at it form their perspective is simple really if you're motivation is to reduce the behaviour and harm to children. There are 3 main stakeholders in this situation.

1. The child,
2. The person with paedophile tendency who hasn't offended and wants support to ensure they never offend (is there as shorthand for this?), and
3. Society who lives under, and applies, the rules.

Children want to be unharmed,
Paedophile wants help to make sure they manage their attraction to children,
Society wants to protect children without throwing the rules out the window (one poster suggested the police could blackmale paedophiles. No matter how much you don't like them, you can't let the police off the leash). We need to protect children and maintain rule of law.

If you don't want to consider one of the stakeholder's perspective, why bother taking such a rigid position?

I've considered all stakeholder's perspectives. I simply place more weight in the perspective of children, as they are the stakeholders with the least decision-making capacity involved. The other stakeholders involved - adults in society, possess the requisite decision-making capacity to advocate for their own welfare.

I've no idea why you keep bringing this up. I haven't seen anyone here suggest they would support any of those organisations.

They're another stakeholders perspective are they not? Just because nobody else here has brought them up, does not mean they shouldn't be brought up. Perhaps you would care to offer your opinion on their perspective, or those paedophiles who are not suffering any ill effects from their thoughts and behaviour?

Or would you rather we ignored that rather large and inconvenient elephant in the room in favour of a mere handful of virtuous paedophiles (though apparently the new terminology is "attraction to minor persons"). Like that actually sounds any better. It is what it is and there's no escaping or diminishing that reality with linguistic gymnastics.

Not true. You asked how you could carry out double blind controlled experiments. Nozz said you couldn't do that because the ethical concerns are too great to risk anyone not being fully informed. Please tell me you know enough about science to know that there are experimental designs that can inform our understanding, without being double blind, with controls.. Right? The simplest form would be self report interviews or questionnaires. No one trial would be definitive. You always need multiple data sources so you could definitely gain understanding of the topic without disregarding ethics.

I know enough about science too to know that self-reported stats are fraught with unreliable data and bias. This would in no way objectively confirm the inventor's claims. The trials I was referring to were specifically to test the inventor's claims. I mentioned nothing about the use of these dolls furthering our understanding of paedophilia. The scientific research has moved way beyond that point and has been doing neuropsychology and behavioural research for decades on paedophilia. The claims by the inventor are bollocks, to be quite frank about it, and should be seen as an attempt to sell €14k sex dolls and nothing more.

The bit in bold id rubbish. We have diminished responsibility in all kinds of circumstances but we don't let people off the hook because they have a desire to harm people. You don't let a person off with murder just because they are a psychopath.

I already addressed this point and gave my explanation for my reasoning. I also made the point that people who committed sexual abuse against children, previously received more lenient sentences when they claimed having been sexually abused as children themselves in their defence. This is being challenged more and more in the Courts, and soon, hopefully it will be the case that child sexual abusers will not be allowed to claim diminished responsibility for their actions on the basis that they themselves were sexually abused as children.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was responding to you saying you don't think you should empathise with th them at all. I find it difficult to follow your argument when it keeps changing.

I haven't changed my argument at all. I just cannot care for the welfare of people I don't care about. The welfare of non-offending paedophiles just doesn't register on the priority scale for me. The treatment is available to them, and it is their responsibility to avail of that treatment. It is not the responsibility of society IMO to accept them. Like any other group throughout history, they have had to gain social acceptance through demonstrating social responsibility, and the responsibility of paedophiles is to seek treatment rather than protecting their own asses.

They are lobbying to normalise sex with children and legalise the practice. That is not something I would try to support. All along I've said I'm most interested in reducibg the instances of pedophiles acting on their urges. Those lobby groups you mention are at odds with that objectibe. They are not stakeholdets in acheiving that objective, that's why I wouldn't take their interests into consideration. Surely you would have thought of that. Are you just trying to be contrary?

No I'm not trying to be contrary at all. There are plenty of their members claim to be non-offending paedophiles, and there is quite a large community of people who claim to be non-offending paedophiles who are more interested in sharing child pornography on the internet than they are in seeking treatment. Small scale studies that suggest cartoon drawings suffice will not suffice when they demand realism. These lobby groups are campaigning for paedophilia to be recognised in law as a sexual orientation (I disagree that paedophilia can be classified as a legitimate sexual orientation within our current understanding of sexual orientation btw, for a number of reasons), which would mean that they would be entitled to the same protection from discrimination on the grounds of their "sexual orientation" as everyone else.

That would also mean paedophilia would have to be declassified as a mental disorder, and therefore it would mean that there would be no priority for funding for, well, a paraphilia which doesn't need to be treated.

You seem to somehow kissed he fact that we're talking about working with people who are attracted to children and are looking for help to make sure they don't harm any child. They aren't paedophile offenders so I'm just trying to destinguish the group I'm talking about. What would you prefer to call them for the sake if discussing them?

I haven't missed that fact at all. We simply disagree on our approach to the issue is all. If you're willing to take their word for the fact that they say they have no intention of harming a child, that's fine, but from my perspective - their ideas of what may or may not be harmful to a child may differ from my ideas of what may or may not harm a child, and I'm simply not willing to give an identified paedophile the benefit of the doubt and put children at risk. The paedophile if they are serious, it is their responsibility to seek treatment, much more than it is my responsibility to treat them as I would anyone else. I would have no interest in putting children at risk so a paedophile's feelings wouldn't be hurt.

Strange approach to ask about verifying the inventors claims. It's a sales pitch so it would be most useful to investigate the use if the dolls from an objective perspective. I couldn't give a toss what the inventor/seller says. I don't know why anyone would really care what the salesman says. The objective would bring to test the effect.

Self report is a data point. I'm not explaining to you how evidence is evaluated and weighted. It's too complex to explain and you can look it up. Long story short us that self report is weaker than double blind placebo control experiments, but they provide useful information.

I'm familiar with how scientific studies work. I'm not all that interested in the inventor's claims either. I don't see these dolls as playing any part in addressing the wider social issue of paedophilia, because at €14k they're not likely to be flying off the shelves anyway.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We're back to a point from earlier. I've explained that the main priority is to protect children. One branch of that is to work with people who say they don't want ant to harm children. It's not a complicated concept to not like the paedophile or their attraction to children, but the best way to protect children would be to work with them. You don't have to like them to work with them and see how you can facilitate their needs without endangering children. It's a really simple concept.

Well seeing as the issue isn't as simple as "non-offending" paedophiles and convicted paedophiles, and paedophiles who have never been charged and so on, I think there's room for everyone to work with who they choose to work with, and use the approach that they feel works. It's not like there's likely to be any shortage of people whom we each choose to work with any time soon unfortunately.

You're still on about those lobby groups?

As for the classification of attraction to children. Interesting point. It appears they can't classify it as an orientation as youre afraid it would have to be facilitated? It's harmful to children and children can't give concent. It's not going to become acceptable for adults to have sex with children. Why do you need these points explained to you? There us very limited success in eliminating paedophilia I'm psychotherapy patients. Probably about as much success as 'pray away the gay'. There's no point in ignoring the possibility of treatments because you're afraid of calling it an orientation.

They can call it what they like, classify it how they like, label it whatever way they want and... well, you get the idea - the language they use doesn't bother me, doesn't matter to me, it still won't change what it is, and I'm ok with whatever they want to call it because I don't take all the linguistic gymnastics they use to minimise and justify their mentality to themselves or to anyone else, and I'm not bothered or afraid at all of how other people choose to label it or classify it. It's all the same to me is what I'm saying. I don't care for the difference or distinction between "non-offending" paedophiles or otherwise tbh.

We work with alcoholics and drug addicts even though their success rate us pretty poor. We work with them not because we're certain that they will never relapse but because we're certain that it'd better for society that we try to understand their problem and try to solve it. The difference is that if a paedophile 'falls off the wagon', they would seriously harm someone and would go to prison. It would still be worth working with them. Even if only 1% above the average, live their life without harming a child then it's a win.

I completely disagree with your assertion that the success rate for working with alcohol and drug addicts is poor. I also disagree that if a paedophile "falls off the wagon", they would necessarily face prosecution. You can't even quantify 1% when you have no idea how many there actually are, and how those figures break down.

Off the top of my head (and this is the way the article phrases it), estimates reckon that up to 20% of men, and 5% of women, have sexual fantasises about children (whether that qualifies them as a paedophile or whatever, the linguistic gymnastics are in play there again).

As you freely admit yourself - you will never eliminate the condition, so how you would even attempt to quantify, let alone claim any sort of a 'win' under those circumstances is beyond me tbh.

I've already told you I'm not that interested in the sales pitch of these dolls. You're looking at this way too literally. I'm talking about understanding the effect of substitutional objects more broadly and this type if substitutional object is one I've never heard of being researched. Wouldn't you want to know if it would help protect children?

No. No I wouldn't tbh as I have no interest in lining that opportunist knackbags pockets. He is exploiting a niche market selling what is effectively a snake-oil solution.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've told you so many times already, I'm talking about a specific sub group. The ones who haven't acted on their attraction to children and don't want too and want help to make sure they don't offend. I can't keep going over it with you. I'm talking about that specific subgroup. They would be the best ones to work with so they're who I'm talking about. I've no idea why you don't get that.

I understand you're talking about a specific aub-group, but the paedophiles you're talking about only belong to that sub-group, until they die, or until they harm a child. As good and all as CBT and DBT are, as good as the chemical castration treatments are, as good as their will power is, quite frankly they are, and will always be, a paedophile. I understand you're talking about a sub-group of non-offending paedophiles, but the first thing you need to do is have the non-offending paedophiles come forward as early as possible to receive treatment as early as possible, and that means you'd have to be working with 16 and 17 year olds (afaik the legal definition of a paedophile varies from country to country depending upon age).

Like I said, you've missed the point almost completely on the specific words I used to describe the sub group I was referring to. You thought it was 'linguistic gymnastics' to deminish their culpability. It was exactly what I kept telling you it was, it was me defining the specific subgroup, not deminishing their crime.

Believe me, I get the subgroup you're referring to. I'm just wondering who do you think is supposed to work with the convicted paedophiles and ex-offenders? They don't come within your remit I take it? Well that's nice clean work for you, pretty shìt for anyone else. You get all the nice paedophiles that don't want to offend, everyone else has to deal with the not-so-squeaky-clean paedophiles. Naturally your success rate is going to be much higher as the recidivism rate for child sexual abusers is the highest of the criminal stats.

Alcoholics anonymous don't publish their success figures because they are really low and it would look like they are entitled really successful. In actual fact, low success is the best you can hope for. The number of alcoholics who quit drinking on the first attempt I'd really low. With paedophiles you only get one shot and if they offended even once they will cause harm to a child.

I think we're seriously going to confuse a few issues if we start down the road of comparing other social problems and success or failure rates to paedophilia tbh. I'm just going to stick to the discussion of your special little subgroup of nice paedophiles, or non-offending paedophiles. Anything else is a distraction.

See point above about linguistic gymnastics. What would you call the specific subgroup of people I'm talking about? Or do you prefer to pretend there's no difference between ones who have offended and ones who haven't?

They're all paedophiles at the end of the day far as I'm concerned, you don't achieve anything by sorting the decent skins from the child catchers. If you want to pretend that there's a difference between them on the basis that you got all the nice ones and don't have to deal with the hopeless cases, well that's quite a convenient boundary you have there.

I presented you with a hypothetical situation for you to consider and offer an opinion. The hypothetical situation was where you quantified that your intervention increase the number of people who successfully don't offend fir their entire life, by 1% above the average or that it was 1% more auccessful when combined with other therapies. Wouldn't you consider that a success and worth pursuing? Remember, it's a hypothetical. I'm not an expert and I don't know how to quantify success. If you could quantify a 1%success rate would you support it? Simple question.

Sure, I understand what you're saying, but no, I wouldn't consider it worth pursuing as a 1% success rate simply isn't worth it, even combined with other therapies, a 1% success rate wouldn't for me be worth entertaining. Outside your hypothetical scenario, you would have to deal with REAL people, with REAL lives, surrounded every day by REAL children.

Like I said before,you're looking at this way too literally. Imagine the principal of using substitutes to help manage their orientation. You already mentioned that they tested using CGI porn. Why would it be worth investigating the effect of CGI porn but not dolls? Please remember that I'm not all that interested in these specific dolls. I seem to be reminding you of that in each post. It's the principal of subsimtitutional objects like the dolls mentioned, but not specifically those dolls you seem so fixated on.

You'd still have the same problem that a paedophile is a paedophile, all you'll have managed to do is quell the urge for a bit. I don't accept at all that a person can forever suppress their sexual urges, and the more you convince yourself you have managed to do just that, the more likely you are to become complacent about your success. Give it 20 years for some real longitudinal studies to be done on the outcomes of the German clinics, and we'll have some proper data to work with to measure whether the program has been successful or otherwise.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. Now you're getting it.

I do get it of course - you want people in society to ignore what they know about paedophiles, and give a clap on the back to a mere handful of paedohiles who say they don't want to rape children...

Why I'm perplexed by this, is that I'm just thinking - "Well, wouldn't that be normal? We don't congratulate people for not raping children!"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Before you change the focus onto the rest of the paedophiles, do you accept my point about this and topic being most relevant to the subgroup I have been referring to? I think this topic would be most relevant to that subgroup. I don't have a strong opinion on those who don't want help, have offended or intend to offend in the future. I dont know what we should do about them but I don't think this is the solution for them . I think the dolls would be useful with the specific subgroup I've been referring to (its worth reminding you I mean substitutional object in the form of dolls, not these dolls specifically).

I do accept what you're saying, but what you've done is basically stacked the deck in your favour by essentially saying -

"Ignore the nature of the vast majority of paedophiles, and focus on these paedophiles who are trying to ignore their instincts, because if we don't support them and give them what they want, they will rape children and we need to protect children. Give them whatever sex accessories they need to sate their desires, and then they won't rape children".

I fundamentally disagree with that approach, because it sounds more like a PR exercise that attempts to turn perceptions of paedophilia on it's head and focusses more on giving support to a tiny minority of paedophiles, than it focuses on child protection.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fine I'm sure you understood the analogy.

I do understand the analogy, but the reason I said it's probably better we stick to the discussion at hand is because when you mention an organisation like AA, that particular organisation has some fundamental issues of it's own, and I expect that given time, the Dunkelfeld Project, while it has started out as a well intentioned initiative, will become just as futile in addressing the issue as AA 75 years later.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You don't see a difference between one's who have offended or intend to offend and ones who havent offended and dont intend to offend? I dont know what to tell you. I'm using 2 subgroups of paedophiles for contrast. There's not likely to be a one size fits all solution for all paedophiles so of course you sub divide them to see what solutions would work best on each subgroup. Its basic, I'm sure you can follow.

I do follow of course, and I've admitted already there isn't a one size fits all solution, but I don't think enabling paedophiles to indulge their desires and fantasies, even on inanimate objects, using CGI, etc, is ever a viable solution in addressing the underlying mentality. It's simply failing to address it, ignoring it, the very same as you're doing in ignoring the vast majority in favour of encouraging acceptance of a mere handful of paedophiles, who right now, give you their word that they will not harm children.

Think about what you're asking people to believe - that a tiny minority of people with a predisposition for a sexual and romantic attraction to children, can develop the ability to over-ride human nature. You expect people to believe that this minority can succeed, where humanity has failed, time and time again, to overcome their own instincts that are in their human nature.

Reminds me of this story - "The Scorpion and the Frog":

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

The fable is used to illustrate that fundamentally vicious natures cannot change.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't understand your motivation. If it protects children, its good policy. If you have a solution that gets 4% rather than 1% under the same thing circumstance, then you go with the better one but if 1% was the best you could do, then its better then nothing.

I don't agree with the fundamental premise of your argument that it protects children.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've told you what I consider to be the priorities and who I consider the stakeholders to be. Would you like to share your opinion on those points? What you consider to be the priorities and how you think you should address the stakeholders interests to achieve the goal?

I've already laid out exactly which stakeholders I am more concerned with, and that is the stakeholders who have the least decision making capacity in this issue, and the most to lose if paedophilia ever gained social acceptance, even the tiny minority of "non-offending" paedophiles that you think should be given a clap on the back for choosing not to rape children. You'll have to excuse me that I fail to get excited by the idea.

The goal here is to protect chidlren, and that should mean that it should be that their welfare takes priority over the welfare of adults whose nature it is to harm them. I propose better safeguards and education for children, that would achieve the goal of giving children the comfort of knowing that they are protected by society from adults who are predisposed to want to cause them harm.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Which is why substitute objects are such an interesting idea to explore. Youre right that sexual desire and attraction are some of the most basic drives and most difficult to alter or suppress. That's why a substitutional object could have the potential to allow them to satisfy their desire to a degree but not hurt anyone. I suspect you're going to say 'but what if they offend in the future''. And again, its just trying to confuse the issue. If they offended because of the doll, then the dolls would be a negative influence. If the dolls had a net positive influence then the dolls would be good. Like I said earlier, you would start small by getting to understand the persons baseline behaviour and their risk factors. I'm not an expert but I know there would be plenty of ways to measure impacts without adding any danger that didn't exist before the intervention.

Simple really. You're so close to getting it.

Quick question - the sex toy industry is a multi-billion euro industry. Has it ever stopped people having sex with each other? No, because clearly there's more to human sexuality and intimacy with another human being that no inanimate object could ever satisfy. Sex toys are a convenience, and a novelty for a while, but suggesting they can be used as a replacement to satiate human desires and instincts is misguided*, and the idea that human beings can go against their nature with no ill-effects in the long term, is equally just as much misguided*.

*I was going to say it's nonsense, but that's a bit harsh considering the idea is well-intentioned. I just don't think it would work is all as a long-term strategy for an individual.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

...do you accept my point about this and topic being most relevant to the subgroup I have been referring to? I think this topic would be most relevant to that subgroup. I don't have a strong opinion on those who don't want help, have offended or intend to offend in the future. I dont know what we should do about them but I don't think this is the solution for them . I think the dolls would be useful with the specific subgroup I've been referring to...

One eyed Jack wrote:

I do get it of course - you want people in society to ignore what they know about paedophiles, and give a clap on the back to a mere handful of paedohiles who say they don't want to rape children...

I'm not ignoring the majority of paedophiles. I'm saying I thing the dolls could be useful for this subgroup. Remember when we agreed that there probably isn't a 1 size fits all solution? This is what that means. Dealing with groups in isolation. Not ignoring the rest, just dealing with this one subgroup for the sake of this discussion. I can't make this any more clear for you.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I do accept what you're saying, but what you've done is basically stacked the deck in your favour by essentially saying "Ignore the nature of the vast majority of paedophiles, and focus on these paedophiles who are trying to ignore their instincts, because if we don't support them and give them what they want, they will rape children and we need to protect children. Give them whatever sex accessories they need to sate their desires, and then they won't rape children".

Not ignoring the vast majority - see above re dealing with subgroups and one size fits all solutions.

Definately focus treatment on ones who want treatment. Thats one of the basic points of focusing resources in health interventions.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I do follow of course, and I've admitted already there isn't a one size fits all solution, but I don't think enabling paedophiles to indulge their desires and fantasies, even on inanimate objects, using CGI, etc, is ever a viable solution in addressing the underlying mentality. It's simply failing to address it, ignoring it, the very same as you're doing in ignoring the vast majority in favour of encouraging acceptance of a mere handful of paedophiles, who right now, give you their word that they will not harm children.

Ah, back to ignoring the vast majority of paedophiles. I can't make this any easier for you. Not ignoring them, this topic is just more relevant to the subgroup I've been referring to.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Think about what you're asking people to believe - that a tiny minority of people with a predisposition for a sexual and romantic attraction to children, can develop the ability to over-ride human nature. You expect people to believe that this minority can succeed, where humanity has failed, time and time again, to overcome their own instincts that are in their human nature.

Hold on, don't we agree that people can use self control in this instance? It takes acute lack of imagination to think that all people with attractions to children actually act on it. Lots of those people could live their lives and never offend. How would we ever hear about them?

Didn't you propose therapy for paedophiles earlier in the thread? Why bother with that if you don't think it can help keep children safe? In the case of someone who hasn't offended and tells you they want help, what should be done? Should we try to help or just tell them 'there's no point in trying to help you, you're bound to offend so we need to wait until you do offend, then deal with you through criminal justice system. You see there's a parable of the fox and the scorpion...'

I say we should try to help that person to manage their behaviour. I don't want to give them a slap on the back, I don't want to have them around for dinner or have them babysit my children. I want to work with anyone who shares the goal of reducing harm to children.

One eyed Jack wrote:

The goal here is to protect chidlren, and that should mean that it should be that their welfare takes priority over the welfare of adults whose nature it is to harm them. I propose better safeguards and education for children, that would achieve the goal of giving children the comfort of knowing that they are protected by society from adults who are predisposed to want to cause them harm.

Educating children would definately be in the interest of children. As would working with the other main stakeholder be in the interest of children. It's so basic and you're only half way there.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Quick question - the sex toy industry is a multi-billion euro industry. Has it ever stopped people having sex with each other? No, because clearly there's more to human sexuality and intimacy with another human being that no inanimate object could ever satisfy. Sex toys are a convenience, and a novelty for a while, but suggesting they can be used as a replacement to satiate human desires and instincts is misguided*, and the idea that human beings can go against their nature with no ill-effects in the long term, is equally just as much misguided*.

You're right about the dolls not satiating their desire completely. If we could completely satiate desires, there wouldn't be such problems in other areas such as overcoming addictions ( the analogy is with the inability to satiate desires, not equating paedophiles and addicts). The objective would be to dampen the desires to a manageable level, increasing the likelihood that they will successfully never harm a child. Are you following the objective here?

Sex dolls aren't traditionally sold as a means to control behaviour. They're usually sold as a substitute sex object though. Not usually intended for use as a component in a behaviour management programme with lots of components and designed to give the best chance of success, based on researc results (CBT, DBT, peer support, coping strategies etc.)