• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sex Dolls and Pedophelia

No, there are no treatments there is no management. What your link described was merely a way of reducing the sexual urge. It does nothing to prevent the predator aspect of grooming a child which is just as harmful to a child as the rape is.
 
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:

How do they define "childlike"?

What's next, making it illegal to have sex with a 25 year old who can really pass for 15?
 
If one fantasizes about having sex with an adolescent while having sex with an adult, should they be arrested? After all, they are simply using another person as a prop. How is that different from using a molded piece of plastic?
Let's make this a little more realistic. Having sex with a legal aged adult because they look underage.
 
They are expressing that fantasy into action through an adult, instead of pictures or dolls. Now what?
 
Hitting a character limit. Managed to get this part down. Working on the first part.

You are still working under the stereotyping of pedophiles.



Treatment is possible, and where there is not fear of being punished simply for being, they are seeking help. There can be no guarantee, just like there can be no guarantee on any disorder or disease. To ask for such is unrealistic. The last line of this quote is a key point. The position that you are taking increases the risk to the child because you are wanting to punish them for simply having the disorder. As someone else noted, that is like punishing a person with HIV with monitoring and registration at the least, simply because they have HIV, and others are at risk.
 

First off, nothing assures the safety of a child. Not from child molesters (pedophiles or not), not from sports injuries, not from biking accidents, not from automobiles, nothing. We can mitigate and minimize these risks to the best of our ability and continue to improve on those reductions.

You are correct that there is no cure at this time, as there is not to a great many other things. That doesn't mean that management is not available.


 
Continued from the quote in post #231:

 

'Someone who is curious'. What does that mean?
 
'Someone who is curious'. What does that mean?
I am going to guess that you are not asking for the dictionary definition of the word.

But from your question i am going to assume you must lack in education if you do not understand the meaning of being sexually curious.

Seriously, this is a debate not an education site. Go away and learn something of the subject and stop wasting my time with silly questions.
 
From your link;

As has been discussed. Not all peadophiles are the same. Your argument is good but it still has the fatal flaw that it relies on trusting the word of a person who must by the very nature of his deviance tell lies.
From your other link;
These include the fact that sex crime rates are dropping, the incidence of sex crimes decreases as people age,
Of course they do. Criminal action in any area drops as people age. Unfortunately waiting for a peadophile to become an old man means many years in which their attitude does not change.
 

So you want criminal liability to pedophiles who own child-like sex dolls, but you're going to give a pass to those who are 'merely' curious? That would an interesting argument in court: "Your honor, yes, I did murder my wife, but I was just curious what it would be like to go a day without being nagged."

You're the one with the silly/ridiculous propositions. Don't be surprised when you get responses in kind.
 
If we come across a person who has toys and drawings related to having sex with a child then i can fully understand the reasoning that we might be dealing with a peadophile. You however are so clueless on the subject that you think somebody hugging a pillow might be a peadophile. Please learn something about this subject rather than be such a waste of space that the best you can do is make worthless silly comments.
 

A pedophile doesn't have to harm a child either. It takes an act of volition to drive drunk, and it takes an act of volition to molest a child. Both should be illegal, and those that do should face justice. There is no justice in punishing someone for what they might do but haven't done.
 
If we come across a person who has toys and drawings related to having sex with a child then i can fully understand the reasoning that we might be dealing with a peadophile.

Whether or not they are a pedophile should not determine whether they should be charged with the crime. It is the illegal act or illegal possession that matters to the law.

You however are so clueless on the subject that you think somebody hugging a pillow might be a peadophile.

I used the example of a pillow to point out the ridiculousness of your claim that possession of an inanimate object that can neither be harmed nor do harm to others should be illegal.


Please learn something about this subject rather than be such a waste of space that the best you can do is make worthless silly comments.

Keep giving us silly arguments and you'll get silly responses. It's only fair.
 
Sensitive subject for me. Had some trouble with a boy in the neighborhood when I was 9 years old. As far as I am concerned, people who practice pedophilia should be locked up and castrated.

But if a doll helps him to stay of kids, well than that may not be such a bad idea. I'd say let it go and do not criminalize little sex dolls.

Joey
 
I have not made any argument that just being a peadophile should be cause to charge them with a crime. My argument is that they need to be watched as that is the best way we have of ensuring a childs safety. You are doing nothing more than making up your own argument and pretending it is mine.

You used the example of a pillow because you lack the wit to make any real point about this subject.

My argument has not been silly. yours however is a good example of someone who is clueless about the subject.
 
A pedophile doesn't have to harm a child either.
they can't slip up once ever. An alcoholic can slip up and have a drink and I have a good possibility of not causing any damage.

Pedophiles have to be perfect.
It takes an act of volition to drive drunk, and it takes an act of volition to molest a child.
again you keep using this poor analogy. You can drive drunk and get caught and arrested without ever getting in a car accident without ever even hurting anybody.

You can't molest a child without ever hurting anybody.
Both should be illegal, and those that do should face justice. There is no justice in punishing someone for what they might do but haven't done.
you keep arguing against points I never made. I never suggested we punish somebody for what they might do.
 

Yes they do. Therapy seeks to help pedophiles manage their urges, including "grooming." Someone who is grooming a child for sex is a child molester. Not all pedophiles must necessarily engage in this behavior. A pedophile who has never harmed a child and who is committed to never harming a child and getting help for his condition is not a danger to society. That doesn't mean that you should trust your children with him. That means that you can't put him on a registry and restrict his freedom against his will for an unfortunate condition that he is capable of managing.

Does therapy for pedophiles prevent every incident of child molestation? Of course not. Nor does therapy for alcoholics prevent drunk driving. But that doesn't mean that either type of therapy doesn't prevent a lot of bad things from happening, nor does it change the fact that it is unjust to legally punish a person for a crime that you think they might commit.
 

According to Dr. Cantor, the vast majority of pedophiles would never act on their feelings. That is a very slippery slope you propose. If it turned out someone killed animals as a kid, should they be stalked by the police because that is often the sign of a serial killer? After all, isn't that the only way to ensure the community's safety? Anyways, our officers are too busy already to bother monitoring 24/7 whoever they deem a pedo.

You used the example of a pillow because you lack the wit to make any real point about this subject.

Do you have any other objects you'd like to propose banning?


My argument has not been silly. yours however is a good example of someone who is clueless about the subject.

I have family members who have been molested by pedophiles, so forgive me as I laugh at your ridiculously ignorant statement.
 

You are equivocating "slip up" to suit your argument. Why do you presume a pedophile "slip up" equates to sex with a minor, while an alcoholic "slip up" is nothing more than having a drink?

The pedophile slip up equivalent of an alcoholic having a drink might be to google pictures of children on the internet. A pedophile slip up equivalent of driving drunk might be chatting with a minor on the internet but not actually meeting them in person. A comparable slip up of the magnitude of having sex with a child would be an alcoholic driving drunk and seriously injuring or killing someone.

A pedophile can slip up as much as an alcoholic can without harming anyone. A severe slip up for the pedophile can result in a child being molested. A severe slip up for an alcoholic can result in a child being killed.
 
Last edited:
If they are uncontollable then what will a therapy do as a therapy is a way of controlling impulses. You seem not to recognise an obvious contradiction in terms.

My mistake. I should have elaborated that uncontrollable impulses can be managed with therapy such that we don't act on them. The impulses are uncontrollable, but the behavior is not. And there is therapy than can do this successfully if the patient is committed to it.


People with anger management issues are not put on a watch. Criminals may be, but law abiding people in anger management don't have to register with the government because they might be unsafe. So should it be with any law abiding citizen who is struggling with emotional or sexual issues. You can't legally assume someone is going to commit a crime because of a disorder.
 
It is not that i disagree with the sentiment of your argument but we also must realise that if we treat peadophile by putting trust in their word they will do harm then the consequence if we are wrong is that child will be harmed.
It is the nature of this particular deviance that putting the safety of the child is more important than any consideration for the freedom of a peadophile. Even those who peadophiles who are trying to do the right thing need to understand that. It is not putting blame on them or saying it is their fault. It is simply recognising that this is a deviance that is dangerous to children.
 
No, there are no treatments there is no management. What your link described was merely a way of reducing the sexual urge. It does nothing to prevent the predator aspect of grooming a child which is just as harmful to a child as the rape is.

Yes it does. That is exactly what therapy is for. It teaches people with this disorder how to manage their behavior and avoid potentially dangerous situations. And it is successful more often than not.
 
The nature of peadophile is that it effects those who have no self protection, children. Someone with anger management usually takes it out on adults who do have the rights and abilities to deal with it or at least seek help. Children do not have that ability and peadophilia is such that children are tricked into being victims. This can not be compared to anger management.

And the problem with therapy is that they only work with the willingness of the peadophile. You rely on the hope they will do the right thing. and again we get back to that that is ok right up until we are proven wrong in our hope and another child is harmed.

It is unfortunate for them and us that the very nature of this affliction means we must put the childs safety above that of the peadophiles freedom.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…