Sex Dolls and Pedophelia

[soylentgreen]

No there aren't simple solutions. I don't advocate letting a pedophile be in a position where they have contact with children. What I argue against is the notion that I have some inherent right to access their medical records in order to determine if a someone is a pedophile. I can access their criminal records, but not their medical records. If I find out that they suffer from pedophilia and are being treated for it, I have every right to keep them away from children using any legal means. But I don't have a right to access their medical records in the first place to find out.

There is nothing easy about this problem of peadophilia. If the public had access to information then any peadophile living in house somewhere would be subject to harassment which will send them into hiding. . On the other hand if the peadophile does attack a child then the parents and much of the public are going to want someone's head to role over that.

This is the reason I have started in this thread with the answer of no to child sex toys. If we ignore people who have these types of toys or pictures and do not keep an eye on them yet still have the information that they are suspect. Then who is being protected, the child or the authority?

 

[Geoist]

My saying that the solution you present is based on ignorance of the subject does not mean I have contradicted myself when I also say that there is no solution.

When you say I present no solution that implies that I have given no proposal. That is false and you know it clearly by your own words. Just because you disagree with my solution doesn't mean you get to make up your own 'facts.'

Look back to post #251. That, as you admit from the start is your assumption, not my words.

My god.

I literally used the word assumption in that post. I never said those were your words.

You do not appear to even know what you are going on about.

As a relative of victims, I have been studying the subject for years. For someone upset about others making assumptions you sure make a lot of them yourself.

I have presented you with nothing that would suggest i would advocate for what you, I repeat, you suggested in post #251.

That post was mostly tongue-in-cheek (although there are people on this forum who actively advocate what I brought up). It was meant to pull suggestions of solutions out of you.

And you call me out for insulting you when you twist my argument to pretend to assume I have suggested such harsh penalties.

Did I ever compare you to a pedophile? Because that is what you compared me to. Your posts suggest a clearly triggered individual who resorts to personal insults when challenged. It's sad, really. Learn how to debate.

This excuse of wanting to get then help through therapy are just well meaning wishes. There is no guarantee that therapies will work.

Nobody said there are guarantees.

Which means that a child is in fact at risk.

Children are always at risk. There is no fail-safe solution to protecting children. We should be looking for ways to mitigate the risk as much as possible while protecting the Constitutional rights of the people.

So to get back to the argument of this thread. While a sex doll in the form of a small child of any age, may look like therapy, might even act like it for awhile. It gives you **** all guarantee that the particular peadophile using the doll will never molest a child.

Nobody said there is a guarantee.

What such a doll does offer the rest of society is that person who is only using one, is a person who we should be keeping an eye on at the very least and above any other method as suggested by you in post #251.

And what does 'keeping an eye on' entail? You have not specified from what I've seen.

 

[soylentgreen]

When you say I present no solution that implies that I have given no proposal. That is false and you know it clearly by your own words. Just because you disagree with my solution doesn't mean you get to make up your own 'facts.'




My god.

I literally used the word assumption in that post. I never said those were your words.

Is was not your solution that I was disagreeing with. It was your assuming that it was what I have been implying. It is not. Do you really want to shift the argument over to what I think about prisons?
An assumption by definition relies on their being also a person who has implied for the assumption to be correct. I did not imply.

As a relative of victims, I have been studying the subject for years. For someone upset about others making assumptions you sure make a lot of them yourself.

I do not see what I have been saying is assumptions.

That post was mostly tongue-in-cheek (although there are people on this forum who actively advocate what I brought up). It was meant to pull suggestions of solutions out of you.



Did I ever compare you to a pedophile? Because that is what you compared me to. Your posts suggest a clearly triggered individual who resorts to personal insults when challenged. It's sad, really. Learn how to debate.



Nobody said there are guarantees.




Children are always at risk. There is no fail-safe solution to protecting children. We should be looking for ways to mitigate the risk as much as possible while protecting the Constitutional rights of the people.

There is no constitutional right here. Your authority can legally obtain warrants to investigate suspects of crime.

Nobody said there is a guarantee.

But they are saying that they want peadophiles to get therapy. While failing to acknowledge that nobody said there is a guarantee.

And what does 'keeping an eye on' entail? You have not specified from what I've seen.

And there in is another problem we must contend with. How far to go, what to do with them. The compassionate side argues that each should be treated as an individual and judged on their actions. Sex toys in the shape of children is action not thoughts. The preventative side argues keeping an eye. Such as computer access to bank accounts as well as employment. More high risk more effort in keeping an eye.

 

[grip]

I don't think there's any help for them.

Where there's life, there is hope.

 

[lwf]

There is nothing easy about this problem of peadophilia. If the public had access to information then any peadophile living in house somewhere would be subject to harassment which will send them into hiding. . On the other hand if the peadophile does attack a child then the parents and much of the public are going to want someone's head to role over that.

This is the reason I have started in this thread with the answer of no to child sex toys. If we ignore people who have these types of toys or pictures and do not keep an eye on them yet still have the information that they are suspect. Then who is being protected, the child or the authority?

It is not the job of the authorities to protect children from pedophiles beyond making abusing a child a crime. Authorities can't tell you how to raise your child, all they can do is make it a crime to abuse them. It is the job of parents and legal guardians to protect children as they see fit from any adults that they think might do them harm, including pedophiles, and it is the job of all adults, including pedophiles, to not victimize children. If they do victimize a child, then it is the job of the authorities to arrest and charge them with a crime and to remove them from society.

Yes, it would be nice to grant ourselves the power to better protect our children by removing basic rights from law-abiding sick people solely because they are sick, but we collectively forego this power in order to live in a free society. Being sick or disgusting alone is not sufficient to lose your basic right to medical privacy in America. The way you involuntarily lose your right to privacy is to commit a crime, and it should stay that way.

In terms of sex toys, if a child-shaped toy falls into the category of child pornography, then owning one should obviously be a crime, and someone purchasing one would be guilty of possession of child pornography, and would have to register as a sex offender. If it doesn't fall into the category of child pornography, then it should not be a crime and people who purchase them, while revolting, should not be required to register as sex offenders. Regardless of how disgusting I think someone is, I cannot simply make up a law that allows me to track and punish them for being revolting under the guise of protecting society from what they could do. As far as I'm concerned, that's the same backward logic that is used to justify the outlawing of assault rifles based on the fact that they might be misused.

 

[CLAX1911]

Where there's life, there is hope.

Hope is the belief that the unlikely will happen. I think it comes from a good place in humanity. That being said hope alone is no strategy. The only way we were able to treat illnesses was because of people doing the work, not the hopeful.

That is probably going to be how it is with this.

 

[maquiscat]

This is good if you can't behave like everyone else you deserve to be punished.

I remember when this was said about homosexuals.

 

[maquiscat]

By having urges they are a danger.

Then every person having urges to have sex with other people are a danger of rape to those other people as well.

 

[maquiscat]

Thought policing is such a dangerous thing to do, I would think conservatives would understand this but I guess not.

Especially since conservatives are more likely to be child molesters than liberals.

 

[maquiscat]

Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

Sadly not, unless you want to specify certain topics. Liberals can be just as bad, especially when it comes to other people's money.

 

[maquiscat]

You made the claim that many pedophiles want to seek help.

Can you support that claim? Or do you just want to talk about me some more?

https://www.virped.org/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=1fd07521332535b418a8e9567c09ef408e0595c3-1606097700-0-AdytG9KjTi1W5Xd_Fsl8Ew9zDBAtN3cZ1W0SMfAm5sh3mwpX7dt3uU5sqVn-VaiUGxvvOM1tchsvbv47Z1Oa3XlRMoJqITfXg5Dw86e9Q9Nu5bqEWGg9jwoqTDee72XCGMaDFBwkwoPIeBbsm9KazLvLGCWkN4yAhAlpbFuRcVDqERWGZ1lcDYBWyyaCY32sXgJ_yCEhOaNLIojy_dtrUBXczSIv8iUwLTc6NZYjObPgnDihWQwVeVCnFm45ake2hYt9CsvVG45YKz5ctq0q5G_GQKg4ny7zndo4N3d7pU0pwgFgoWkdFPiE9HbZOYprXg

 

[maquiscat]

no I'm not, child molesters are pedophiles.

You are factually wrong.

FACT: Not everyone who sexually abuses children is a pedophile. Child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a wide range of individuals with diverse motivations. It is impossible to identify specific characteristics that are common to all those who molest children. Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress and begin offending later than pedophilic offenders. They also have fewer victims (often family), and have a general preference for adult partners.16 Pedophilic offenders often start offending at an early age, and often have a large number of victims (frequently not family members).16

pedophilia and child sexual assault are two different things, and conflating them is not a good idea.]

The evidence has been presented. It is now upon you to present to contrary evidence. Not that you will. You'll just try to dismiss the above.

 

[maquiscat]

Child molesters are pedophiles (or just ****ed up sadists), but not all pedophiles are child molesters. It seems you are acting willfully ignorant here.

This too is wrong, as shown above. Not all child molesters are pedophiles. All child sexual assault is wrong, but not all are due to pedophilia.

 

[maquiscat]

Second, I never mentioned prosecuting people for thoughts.

If you want them registered and monitored, when they never have committed a crime, then that is exactly what you are saying.

 

[maquiscat]

You draw the line at what is considered a danger for a child.

No more football or other potentially dangerous sports for children.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

This post made me rethink the alcoholic idea/argument. The parallel of the pedophile not assaulting a child is not an alcoholic not drinking, but the drunk alcoholic not driving. It's the resisting of making the harmful decision, or giving in to the harmful impulse.

 

[CLAX1911]

I remember when this was said about homosexuals.

Homosexuals don't get off on the idea of assaulting children.

I don't see any hypocrisy you're trying to highlight.

perhaps you're just trying to say that pedophilia is no different than homosexuality also known as trying to normalize it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Then every person having urges to have sex with other people are a danger of rape to those other people as well.

False. Anyone having urges to rape is a danger of rape. Unless you believe rape is the only way you can have sex.

 

[maquiscat]

Homosexuals don't get off on the idea of assaulting children.

I don't see any hypocrisy you're trying to highlight.

perhaps you're just trying to say that pedophilia is no different than homosexuality also known as trying to normalize it.

Homosexuals don't "behave like everyone else (and) deserve to be punished." Your argument of how people behave is shortsighted and what leads to loss of freedoms for all. When a behavior harms another, yes, punishment is due. Having urges does not harm others and being on a registration and monitored is a punishment.

 

[CLAX1911]

https://www.virped.org/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=1fd07521332535b418a8e9567c09ef408e0595c3-1606097700-0-AdytG9KjTi1W5Xd_Fsl8Ew9zDBAtN3cZ1W0SMfAm5sh3mwpX7dt3uU5sqVn-VaiUGxvvOM1tchsvbv47Z1Oa3XlRMoJqITfXg5Dw86e9Q9Nu5bqEWGg9jwoqTDee72XCGMaDFBwkwoPIeBbsm9KazLvLGCWkN4yAhAlpbFuRcVDqERWGZ1lcDYBWyyaCY32sXgJ_yCEhOaNLIojy_dtrUBXczSIv8iUwLTc6NZYjObPgnDihWQwVeVCnFm45ake2hYt9CsvVG45YKz5ctq0q5G_GQKg4ny7zndo4N3d7pU0pwgFgoWkdFPiE9HbZOYprXg

I don't know if you expect me to click on this link and read someone else's opinion that you Cherry picked but I'm not interested and I don't click on garbage like that if you can't make your argument then you don't have one.

 

[maquiscat]

False. Anyone having urges to rape is a danger of rape. Unless you believe rape is the only way you can have sex.

Your argument holds within it the idea that having an urge will cause the person to act upon it regardless of consent. Then that would hold true regardless of the target being adult or child.

 

[maquiscat]

I don't know if you expect me to click on this link and read someone else's opinion that you Cherry picked but I'm not interested and I don't click on garbage like that if you can't make your argument then you don't have one.

You made the claim that pedophiles are not seeking help, and I provided the proof they are. Translation: You don't want to look at that which proves you wrong.

 

[CLAX1911]

Homosexuals don't "behave like everyone else (and) deserve to be punished."

sure they do.

having consensual sex with other adults is behaving like everyone else raping children is not wanting to rape children is not.

Your argument of how people behave is shortsighted and what leads to loss of freedoms for all.

I didn't make a comment about how people behaved I made a comment about how pedophiles behave it's not my fault you're neglecting context so you can feel like you had a got you a moment I'm done playing these games with you Marquis

When a behavior harms another, yes, punishment is due. Having urges does not harm others and being on a registration and monitored is a punishment.

having pedophilic urges could and often does. I've never said we should put anybody on the list I don't know where you come up with this crap.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your argument holds within it the idea that having an urge will cause the person to act upon it regardless of consent.

having the urge to have a sexual encounter with somebody is not the same thing as having the urge to rape somebody I know you think that that was clever but it wasn't.

Your stupid little gotcha trick failed. You just might have to abandon this stupid little failed attempt to play your clever little mind games and argue honestly. I know it's a tall order but just try it once you might find out you could possibly be wrong about something.

Oh wait I forgot that's not possible.

Then that would hold true regardless of the target being adult or child.

the desire to have sex with somebody is not the desire to rape somebody this stupid little trick you tried to pull failed.

I know you pull these linguistic little green games and you think you're clever for doing it but you're not. It's it's actually rather sophomoreic and boneheaded in my opinion.

 

[Geoist]

This too is wrong, as shown above. Not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Agreed, that's why I put in parenthesis "or sadists" although there may be a more accurate term for such people.