Sex Dolls and Pedophelia

[Binary_Digit]

I recently learned about two Kentucky men who were arrested for ordering "child-like" sex dolls from China. While they were also charged with actual child pornography (images of real children) and drug possession that was revealed during the investigation, the charges related to the dolls were dismissed because they did not portray an actual child. Then Kentucky moved to make possession of child-like sex dolls a felony, which passed the Senate but I can't figure out if it also passed the House:

Not illegal to own a child sex doll? KY man remains jailed on separate child porn charges

The Ft. Mitchell man arrested for ordering an underage sex doll from China has had those charges dropped.

www.nbc12.com

KY man facing child porn charges after police were notified he ordered child sex doll

He is charged with 20 counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor.

www.fox19.com

19RS SB 102

apps.legislature.ky.gov

Pedophelia is an emotionally volatile topic. The act of manipulating or forcing an innocent and helpless child to have sex is just plain despicable for about 1000 reasons that I don't even need to mention here. Nothing more really needs to be said about how wrong it is to act on fantasies with a living, breathing child.

But therein lies a subtle yet very important distinction: There are fantasies and then there are actions. One leads directly to tangible and palpable harm inflicted upon an innocent victim, and one does not. Additionally, I believe that fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around. Just think about any sexual act that is repulsive to you and try to imagine doing it until it actually becomes a fantasy. That doesn't work at all, does it? So again, fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around.

The medical science community has not yet been able to figure out how to change anyone's sexual orientation. Conversion therapy for homosexuals has proven to be more harmful than helpful. Unsurprisingly, conversion therapy for pedophiles isn't much better. We've made pedophelia a serious crime, we've made convicts register publicly as sex offenders and humiliate themselves by going door-to-door to tell all their neighbors, and we've enjoyed years of watching them get caught red handed on Dateline. All in the interest of motivating them to keep their internal fantasies from becoming harmful acts. But isn't there anything else that could be done?

Yes there is! Let them experience their fantasies with an inanimate object instead of a living human being. Until doctors can find a treatment that actually works, give them an alternative that is simultaneously effective for them and harmless to others. So what if it's sick and demented and gross to the rest of us? At least they're not doing it to an actual child. And any assumptions that it would just encourage more abuse of living children are unfounded and nonsensical. Assuming the Kentucky House passed that bill, I think they made the wrong decision based on emotional repulsion instead of reason and objectivity.

 

[Dayton3]

All in the interest of motivating them to keep their internal fantasies from becoming harmful acts. But isn't there anything else that could be done?

What about chemical castration?

 

[Binary_Digit]

What about chemical castration?

As I said, pedophelia is an emotionally volatile topic. And this is an emotionally-driven idea. Forcefully cutting peoples' balls off because of their fantasies is even more nonsensical than jailing them for having a lump of silicone that's shaped a certain way.

 

[Dayton3]

As I said, pedophelia is an emotionally volatile topic. And this is an emotionally-driven idea. Forcefully cutting peoples' balls off because of their fantasies is even more nonsensical than jailing them for having a lump of silicone that's shaped a certain way.

I said CHEMICAL CASTRATION. Nothing about "cutting peoples' balls off". In other words, medications that vastly reduce/eliminate sex drive.

Do you know what I'm talking about now?

 

[calamity]

I recently learned about two Kentucky men who were arrested for ordering "child-like" sex dolls from China. While they were also charged with actual child pornography (images of real children) and drug possession that was revealed during the investigation, the charges related to the dolls were dismissed because they did not portray an actual child. Then Kentucky moved to make possession of child-like sex dolls a felony, which passed the Senate but I can't figure out if it also passed the House:

Not illegal to own a child sex doll? KY man remains jailed on separate child porn charges

The Ft. Mitchell man arrested for ordering an underage sex doll from China has had those charges dropped.

www.nbc12.com

KY man facing child porn charges after police were notified he ordered child sex doll

He is charged with 20 counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor.

www.fox19.com

19RS SB 102

apps.legislature.ky.gov

Pedophelia is an emotionally volatile topic. The act of manipulating or forcing an innocent and helpless child to have sex is just plain despicable for about 1000 reasons that I don't even need to mention here. Nothing more really needs to be said about how wrong it is to act on fantasies with a living, breathing child.

But therein lies a subtle yet very important distinction: There are fantasies and then there are actions. One leads directly to tangible and palpable harm inflicted upon an innocent victim, and one does not. Additionally, I believe that fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around. Just think about any sexual act that is repulsive to you and try to imagine doing it until it actually becomes a fantasy. That doesn't work at all, does it? So again, fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around.

The medical science community has not yet been able to figure out how to change anyone's sexual orientation. Conversion therapy for homosexuals has proven to be more harmful than helpful. Unsurprisingly, conversion therapy for pedophiles isn't much better. We've made pedophelia a serious crime, we've made convicts register publicly as sex offenders and humiliate themselves by going door-to-door to tell all their neighbors, and we've enjoyed years of watching them get caught red handed on Dateline. All in the interest of motivating them to keep their internal fantasies from becoming harmful acts. But isn't there anything else that could be done?

Yes there is! Let them experience their fantasies with an inanimate object instead of a living human being. Until doctors can find a treatment that actually works, give them an alternative that is simultaneously effective for them and harmless to others. So what if it's sick and demented and gross to the rest of us? At least they're not doing it to an actual child. And any assumptions that it would just encourage more abuse of living children are unfounded and nonsensical. Assuming the Kentucky House passed that bill, I think they made the wrong decision based on emotional repulsion instead of reason and objectivity.

Thought crimes seem to apply to pedophilia. Obviously, no one is harmed by so and so ****ing a doll. IMO, the law should be overturned.

IMO, the drugs and porn the cops found while investigating the doll should be tossed out of court: fruit of the poisonous tree. However, I doubt that it will. Guy is best served pleading guilty to avoid jailtime.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I said CHEMICAL CASTRATION. Nothing about "cutting peoples' balls off". In other words, medications that vastly reduce/eliminate sex drive.

Do you know what I'm talking about now?

That makes no difference. Forced castration is forced castration whether it's chemical or with a knife. If they ask for it, sure, I'd have no problem with that at all. But forced castration of any methodology as punishment for committing a crime would easily be struck down as "cruel and unusual" and they'd just go back to serving 10 years in solitary like they do today. Forced castration because of fantasies (what people are thinking about) is a non starter from a human rights standpoint alone. Either way, it's not a viable solution at all. It's an emotionally-driven idea that's rooted in dehumanization and vengance.

 

[Dayton3]

It's an emotionally-driven idea that's rooted in dehumanization and vengance.

What's wrong with that?

 

[calamity]

That makes no difference. Forced castration is forced castration whether it's chemical or with a knife. If they ask for it, sure, I'd have no problem with that at all. But forced castration of any methodology as punishment for committing a crime would easily be struck down as "cruel and unusual" and they'd just go back to serving 10 years in solitary like they do today. Forced castration because of fantasies (what people are thinking about) is a non starter from a human rights standpoint alone. Either way, it's not a viable solution at all. It's an emotionally-driven idea that's rooted in dehumanization and vengance.

Desire for children is not by itself a crime. However, when someone actually commits a crime involving sex with minors, they should be locked up with little chance of ever walking freely again.

 

[Binary_Digit]

What's wrong with that?

10,000 years of documented human history shows clearly that emotion and vengeance are extremely poor choices for problem solving.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Desire for children is not by itself a crime. However, when someone actually commits a crime involving sex with minors, they should be locked up with little chance of ever walking freely again.

Yes, crimes against children should carry the harshest penalties because they are among the most heinous and egregious crimes by default. I'm sure that helps as a deterant, and I think what I'm suggesting would further reduce that kind of crime.

 

[Dayton3]

10,000 years of documented human history shows clearly that emotion and vengeance are extremely poor choices for problem solving.

Anyone who says violence is never the answer hasn't been asked the right questions.

 

[calamity]

Anyone who says violence is never the answer hasn't been asked the right questions.

Violence begets more violence. I believe this came from one of the Gospels.

 

[Dayton3]

Violence begets more violence. I believe this came from one of the Gospels.

So? And if you kill people they are violent no longer.

 

[soylentgreen]

Thought crimes seem to apply to pedophilia. Obviously, no one is harmed by so and so ****ing a doll. IMO, the law should be overturned.

IMO, the drugs and porn the cops found while investigating the doll should be tossed out of court: fruit of the poisonous tree. However, I doubt that it will. Guy is best served pleading guilty to avoid jailtime.

It is no longer a thought crime if the person is using props such as dolls or pictures.
There is no reason to take any action against a person for the thought itself. But when a peadophile uses a prop then they are no longer just giving thought.

 

[soylentgreen]

What's wrong with that?

That is the excuse often used by peadophiles. They like you are incapable of seeing their thoughts as harmful.

 

[calamity]

It is no longer a thought crime if the person is using props such as dolls or pictures.
There is no reason to take any action against a person for the thought itself. But when a peadophile uses a prop then they are no longer just giving thought.

A prop that does not depict an actual child being harmed is a thought transferred onto an inanimate object. I cannot see that being anything other than a "thought crime."

It's like that animae shit. Just creepy imagination stuff.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes there is! Let them experience their fantasies with an inanimate object instead of a living human being. Until doctors can find a treatment that actually works, give them an alternative that is simultaneously effective for them and harmless to others. So what if it's sick and demented and gross to the rest of us? At least they're not doing it to an actual child. And any assumptions that it would just encourage more abuse of living children are unfounded and nonsensical. Assuming the Kentucky House passed that bill, I think they made the wrong decision based on emotional repulsion instead of reason and objectivity.

I have no problem with the information you have provided. But your solution is a no.

A prop that does not depict an actual child being harmed is a thought transferred onto an inanimate object. I cannot see that being anything other than a "thought crime."

It's like that animae shit. Just creepy imagination stuff.

In the case of peadophilia this is not just a thought over a picture but also an action that takes a peadophile a potential step closer to start grooming real children.
Do not make the mistake of thinking it is similar to yourself looking at something and having a thought. Unless you are so totally obsessed that concern for others starts to disappear.

 

[Binary_Digit]

It is no longer a thought crime if the person is using props such as dolls or pictures.
There is no reason to take any action against a person for the thought itself. But when a peadophile uses a prop then they are no longer just giving thought.

Pictures of real children involve exploitation and harm to an innocent victim, so they don't belong in the same category as dolls.

Expressing thoughts onto inanimate objects that one personally owns is not harmful to anyone, and there's no reason to take action against someone doing that.

 

[calamity]

I have no problem with the information you have provided. But your solution is a no.

In the case of peadophilia this is not just a thought over a picture but also an action that takes a peadophile a potential step closer to start grooming real children.
Do not make the mistake of thinking it is similar to yourself looking at something and having a thought. Unless you are so totally obsessed that concern for others starts to disappear.

A "potential" step closer to a real crime is a thought crime. No?

 

[Manc Skipper]

So? And if you kill people they are violent no longer.

They may not be, but then you are. And so it goes.

 

[Binary_Digit]

In the case of peadophilia this is not just a thought over a picture but also an action that takes a peadophile a potential step closer to start grooming real children.
Do not make the mistake of thinking it is similar to yourself looking at something and having a thought. Unless you are so totally obsessed that concern for others starts to disappear.

Fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the fantasies and urges of pedophiles are entirely different from those of normal heterosexuals. Why would they be different? Because children? That's an emotional conclusion, not a logical one.

 

[soylentgreen]

A "potential" step closer to a real crime is a thought crime. No?

Not in this case.

 

[soylentgreen]

Fantasies provoke actions, not the other way around.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the fantasies and urges of pedophiles are entirely different from those of normal heterosexuals. Why would they be different? Because children? That's an emotional conclusion, not a logical one.

Your statement " And any assumptions that it would just encourage more abuse of living children are unfounded and nonsensical. " , is misleading.

It should also be noted that there is no evidence that props will prevent progression onto the real thing. While there is a risk that such props could desensitise a peadophile.

There is no cure as such for peadophiles. So instead and until something can be done for them then the focus must be on the safety of the child. Any risky behaviour should not be encouraged in a peadophile as the risk being taken is that of a child.

 

[zyzygy]

How old do these dolls appear to be? Are we talking about paedophilia or hebephelia?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Your statement " And any assumptions that it would just encourage more abuse of living children are unfounded and nonsensical. " , is misleading.

How is it misleading? You made that assumption when you described my idea as "an action that takes a peadophile a potential step closer to start grooming real children." I do not agree with that line of reasoning.

It should also be noted that there is no evidence that props will prevent progression onto the real thing. While there is a risk that such props could desensitise a peadophile.

It's logical. A sex drive is a sex drive, regardless of whether it's normal or whether it's misguided by some unknown mental or physical condition.

A sex drive is not increased when satisfied, it's diminished. That's a basic fact of human sexuality and should not be in dispute.

Why should a sex drive be experienced any differently for pedophiles than for healthy people? Because children?

There is no cure as such for peadophiles. So instead and until something can be done for them then the focus must be on the safety of the child. Any risky behaviour should not be encouraged in a peadophile as the risk being taken is that of a child.

I agree, the safety of children is what's most important here. It's just the methodology we disagree on. I don't believe that expecting them to suppress their sex drives indefinitely is the most effective way to keep them from attacking children. It's no more effective than abstainence-only education is at keeping teenagers from fooling around, and for the same reason.