Now that is a typo.
Ahem - paedophile sex action figures.
Cute. I mean clit. Cunt! I mean cite. CITE!
Paging Dr. Fucksexpussycock - er, I mean, Dr. Freud, Dr. Freud please!
I think, at least from an American perspective, the burden of proof needs to be on the pro-banning side to show that there is significant statistical correlation that it will escalate to real abuse, more than just “Well, I’m pretty sure someone somewhere will graduate from a doll to an actual child.”
I mean, if you’re really that worried, aren’t there a ton of other things out there that have much more potential impact? How much child abuse comes from religion, can we ban/regulate that first? And if you’re a NRA/2dn Amendment sort of person, I’m not sure how you can accept that a few times a year, some 5-year-old is going to eat Daddy’s pistol, but somehow a sex doll that might possibly encourage a sex predator at some point is unacceptable.
People are afraid this will “normalize” set with children.
Sexual practices previously thought sick and disgusting are now acceptable, such as furry-ism and B&D and whatever.
I think this is a false fear, as long as people acknowledge that sex requires competent consent, but I think it deserves to be talked through.
Agreed. I think a lot of the opposition to the dolls comes from a visceral, emotional reaction of disgust rather than a rational dissection of the details.
Yes, and I still see it, though I know it doesn’t say that.
There have constantly been claims that having simulations of the real thing–in books, photos, movies, video games, etc.–would cause more people to do the bad things. But research seems to indicate otherwise in the situations in which I am aware. Porn seems to decrease the need for sex. People who play violent video games seem to have a better handle on aggression.
I think it’s highly likely that these dolls would help decrease the number of offenders. Pedophilia is NOT merely an orientation, but a disorder. Pedophiles feel an intense desire to do these things, even if they know it’s wrong. If they had something to help with those urges, it could help. Child porn isn’t acceptable, because it hurts real kids. But dolls like this, and entirely fake stuff? It seems like it would be helpful.
Barring them getting into the hands of kids just developing their sexuality, there’s basically no chance that a non-pedophile will turn into a pedophile. So you definitely aren’t creating more of them. And most child molesters don’t identify as pedophiles, so you’re not likely to have them getting these dolls.
I don’t see any sign that guys that get fleshlights or realdolls are more likely to have sex with women.
I do think it’s just a visceral reaction–one that is evolutionary. But we can’t really create laws based on visceral reactions. That way results in a lot of other things being a problem. We outlaw things we wouldn’t want happening to us.
Face palm
Sorry about that, everyone, some autocorrect mistakes are funny, but that ones really not.
The purpose of being against pedophilia is to protect children from being harmed, not to prevent pedophiles from enjoying themselves. That’s why child pornography is illegal, but virtual child pornography, or getting off on images or videos of children that are not pornography are legal. Since pedophilia is probably innate and cannot be cured, anything that gives pedophiles an outlet that doesn’t hurt real kids is a good thing.
It has nothing to do with not wanting pedophiles to “enjoy themselves”, it’s worrying that this may be a “gateway” kind of thing.
One problem: unless you’re talking about drawn or written porn, most child pornography requires a child to be molested. It’s not “just pictures”. Besides, I’m sure the victim loves the idea of their abuse being viewed over and over and over.
Perhaps for some, this might work. But for others, it just might only wet their appetite.
Also, not all pedophiles believe what they’re doing is wrong – some believe it’s society that’s wrong. (Remember Cesario?)
The Protect Act of 2003 makes computer-generated child porn illegal in America, even if no actual people were involved in the making of the porn.
What’s wrong with emotions? We’re not robots. Sure, we shouldn’t immediately *act *on every emotion we have, but they’re a valuable input stream in our decision making, and should not be sold short.
A big chunk of society would stridently disagree.
So let me get this straight. When you say it will be a gateway into molestation, are you saying that having these dolls available will cause people who otherwise would never molest a child to do so? That is some reefer madness stuff right there. And I would argue that most all pedophiles do know it’s wrong to molest children. Some simply do not care.
Nothing is wrong with emotions, inherently. But when it comes to making lasting, important decisions that affect many people, they need to be tightly controlled. This is because of their power. Emotions, if allowed, affect decision making more strongly than any other influence. Sometimes this works out well, many times it does not. Some things have a counter-intuitive solution. I don’t think they should be neglected, just contained. Emotions should never be the dictating force when making decisions that need to be well thought out and carefully implemented.
When we have a working predictive model of human social interactions, I’ll buy a purely rational/analytical format for legislating said interactions. Until then, the supposedly “rational” side is loaded with just as much voodoo science and bullshit as the supposedly irrational emotional side, so I greatly prefer a happy medium.
I’m not saying “lynch paedophiles because they give us icky feels”, but I’m also not down with “ignore everyone’s icky feels completely - in making this social decision.”
We’re not talking about which sort of medical treatment to give paedos, by all means base that on just the data. We’re talking about which social sanctions they should have.
The thing where certain subtypes of people are protected from social sanction (including legal sanction) in spite of popular (even if not majority) desire for that sanction is called “a protected class”. Are you saying paedophiles should be a protected class?
Of course not. And please don’t mischaracterize my position. I never advocated a “purely rational” approach. I advocated careful vigilance and control of the emotional factor because of the much greater strength of emotional impact vs rational insight. In weighing the benefits gained by pedophiles with these dolls vs the costs of social protestations and outrage over their existence, I think it would be easy to let the emotional influence of the social stigma of the issue disproportionately affect the final outcome of one’s decision making if the emotional factor isn’t recognized and controlled. That’s all.
Fair enough.
That sounds to me like children aren’t really the point then. It’s just the same moral ick factor that used to surround other deviant sexual preferences. Ironically, that’s where a slippery slope actually is dangerous. What is icky today will be less icky tomorrow in all likelihood. Whereas focusing on the welfare of children makes more sense and avoids the slippery slope.