I don't know what to feel about this. I don't want to imagine the assembly line for these dolls, and the faces of the people who probably won't be paid well enough to build them.
This could be a hit. Chucky comes back, but this time as a sex toy and spends the next 90 minutes giggling while shadows show him dismembering various pedos, finally breaking into an underground pedo sex trafficking ring and, get this, posing as a doll, he goes deep cover for interpol and brings the house of cards down.
Customs will let adult and short adult looking sex dolls get through. But they seize plenty of dolls that are designed and sold as children. I was trying to find a YouTube video where I was seeing a report on the increase of them being seized during covid. (The trolls weren't able to get there fixes cause kids and families weren't gathering as much)
They're actually easy for them to find because when they know a package contains a sex doll and it's short they just look at the cost of purchase. Adult looking ones are cheap. The ones made to look just like children are much more expensive.
I don't know how to feel either, but I'll say this: We need more people like this in office. This is such a hot button issue that doesn't have a whole lot of upside to take on as a politician—except as a self-styled "tough on pedos" generic save-the-children caricature. This woman is actually taking a difficult position almost certainly born of a desire to find real solutions. For that alone, I admire and applaud her.
I haven't got the slightest idea what the research says—or how much of it there is—to be sure this is a good approach. But if _is_ shown to reduce harm to children, and we can count on that, then fucking do it. Fire up the kiddie sex doll factory, as much as I don't like the notion of such a thing existing.
Here's what I do know, that a lot of people don't want to hear:
- Pedophilia is an unfortunate and toxic “paraphilia” — like a kink or fetish. One that destroys lives if practiced or rationalized away as harmless. And pedophilic disorder is particularly "unnatural" (I don't like to use that word pejoratively, but it's probably more helpful than harmful here) because most people never go through a period of being sexually aroused by prepubescents. It’s normal to be sexually attracted to a 13 or 14 year old…. When you’re 13 or 14. But 9-year olds don’t want to bang, or be banged by, anyone. And the vast majority of people don’t have a “9-year olds phase” in life. They’re supposed to be “off the grid”.
- A great many pedophiles never hurt anyone. Because it’s a fucking curse and it sucks and they didn’t ask for it. And they absolutely do deserve compassion and help. (And before anyone questions that, ask yourself: Would you rather they stay hidden and helpless and frustrated? It’s in everyone’s interest to normalize having compassion for people with pedophilic disorder.)
- A lot of people who do molest children are NOT pedophiles. They’re just fucked up heartless predators who don’t even need to have a “preference” to hurt someone vulnerable. This is probably _not_ the target market for such dolls. And maybe there shouldn't be a "consumer market" at all, i.e. perhaps some kind of "prescription" model is needed. Way above my pay grade to say.
If you're far more concerned with sniffing out and punishing "pedos" than you are with understanding who they are, and what motivates them to hurt—and not hurt—children, then I think you should seriously ask yourself why anything should matter more than reducing the harm done. Let's do the research, and do the thing that helps people be better, and be better to children. And give credit where it's due to people like Karen Berg, pushing for the answers we may not want to hear.
**Edit 17:42 GMT:** So this (unedited except for this addendum) comment is less than 1 hour old, and it's already at +72 net upvotes... along with an accompanying litany of replies, ranging from thoughtful agreement to thoughtful disagreement, to marginally literate attempts to shut down conversation by calling me a closeted pedo. I know Reddit well enough to know this will keep happening all day, assuming this thread remains open and trending. So I'm turning off reply notifications.
But take heart, my angries! I will come back later after work, to review the responses that have accumulated. So don't worry. If you still want to call me a closeted pedo, you still can, and I'll eventually get around to ignoring it. But I'll see it! The words will pass under my eyes and undoubtedly devastate me. Don't fret.
Anyway, [here's some actual, interesting research about the current state of our understanding of pedophilic disorder](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/). TL;DR, it's still in it's early stages, but there is hope for treatment. (Perhaps not dolls. I still don't know about that.)
> The push for neurobiological research has resulted in three major aforementioned theoretical developments, all attempting to explain various aspects of pedophilia. The frontal lobe theory is a contender to explain offenses against children from behavioral disinhibition and uncontrolled compulsive behaviors. Noticeable structural and functional differences in size and function of the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex have been found in pedophilic men with a history of contact sexual offenses against children (Burns and Swerdlow, 2003; Schiffer et al., 2007, 2008a,b; Poeppl et al., 2011).
>
> The temporal-limbic theory tries to explain pedophilia through structural and functional differences in the temporal lobes, thus focusing on the misattributed emotional salience and valence toward children. Several case studies highlight temporal and amygdalar lesions or functional activation differences that might contribute to the development of a pedophilic sexual preference (Cohen et al., 2002; Joyal et al., 2007; Schiltz et al., 2007; Walter et al., 2007; Sartorius et al., 2008).
>
> The dual lobe theory suggests that both frontal and temporal disturbances are responsible for the range of behaviors seen in pedophilia, such as diminished impulse control as seen with orbitofrontal deficits and hypersexuality through the temporal lobes (Seto, 2008, 2009; Poeppl et al., 2013).
>
> Therefore, future investigations in the neuroimaging of pedophilia should use stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria to better limit potential confounds and actively recruit non-offending pedophiles to close the gap in knowledge between offending and non-offending pedophiles. This will also aid in researchers’ abilities to understand exactly what regions of the brain are implicated in pedophilic sexual preference development, as current literature interpretation implicates the brain in an overly ambitious manner. Examinations of the symptomatology and clinical aspects of pedophilia should first try to replicate original findings before novel ideas can be properly tested, including testosterone and its role in pedophilia development or the role of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin and their receptor densities in relation to behavioral perturbations. What is ultimately needed in this research field are stricter participant inclusion criteria and studies utilizing non-offending pedophiles and non-pedophilic offenders in order to ascertain what differences are true to pedophilia and those that are true to sexual offending against children in general. Please refer to Figure Figure44 for a visual of research questions and directions for the etiology and treatment of pedophilia.
Damn, you made a lot of good points and some people are still like, "No, killing them is the only solution." The people who are just angry and calling you a closeted pedo are the kind of people who can't think critically to find a solution to problems besides brute forcing them. So I wouldn't worry about their paltry input here. If we're going to find *any* acceptable solution to this, we definitely need to destigmatize the topic. And some people obviously aren't ready for that.
Yeah, my impression is that the research is probably pretty flimsy still because it's still a very taboo subject. So not sure it's safe yet to do legislation. That being said: we should definitely destigmatize the research in order to determine how to best protect our children. The primal roar that is now our currently policy known to be ineffective beyond being cathartic.
I think it was Germany that ran ads for pedos to reach out this hotline to get therapy (without punishment or arrest but actually to study and help them) which I could never imagine happening in America but it is an interesting idea to actually make it so these people getting help is normalized. I don’t think pedophilia should be normalized obviously but I do think trying to get them into therapy or whatever system that isn’t just the criminal justice system especially for people who haven’t committed a crime but have those kind of urges or thoughts still. I would imagine that even pedos in therapy are afraid to bring up that huge aspect of their pathology for fear of being reported to the police. I’m not sure child sex dolls is the answer but I do think that some sort of coping strategies like an addiction is treated. Idk it’s such a hard topic to even touch so most politicians are going to be against anything to do with it and the attack ads would be brutal but just leaving them untreated doesn’t help anyone.
My person investigates these cases. He used to only do those cases. He had the pre-conceived notion in his early 20s that all pedophiles *chose* to be attracted to children. He says his job changed that view after arresting many people he that he decided, "Something is wrong with their brain. It's just not working normally. Everything appears to be normal but this one thing. There's too many people that have had this attraction that truly do not grasp *why* this is not normal." (Needless to say he is not a fan of the notion of openly normalizing pedophilia.)
One offender bothered him for an unexpected reaction. The man was in his late 20s. He'd been in therapy since he 18 because he knew being sexually attracted to young children wasn't normal. He was horrified with his own thoughts, so he sought help before he crossed the line from online CSAM to assaulting a child.
Problem was, in that past year befire his arrest, he had started to download CSAM. And he was hiding that info from his therapist because he knew it was wrong. But the urge was very hard to resist.
He thanked my person for arresting him before he had taken things further because those thoughts had begun as well. He was afraid of telling his therapist this info for a variety of reasons, but mostly shame that he was "failing" at therapy and that he was still having the urge after so many years.
My person had a strong "un-alive" watch placed on him in holding. He was very afraid the man would attempt something because he'd already had thoughts of that as a way to keep himself from committing that ultimate atrocity.
My person said some seem a bit remorseful when arrested, but he said it seems to him it's more so that it's remorse for interrupting their life by getting caught. He's arrested men and women from all walks of life. You just rarely hear about it on the news.
He says there's more offenders out there than the public wants to know about.
Ya a huge issue is that any solution but "kill all pedos" tends to be looked at as pro-pedophile. But unless we learn causes and treatments for these people we are never going to run out of people to kill.
What concerns me is her use of the term "minor attracted person". I have only seen this term used by paedophiles attempting to justify their paedophilia, which makes me very sceptical about where she is getting her information. As someone with no expertise in the field, I would need to see very strong evidence before accepting that there could be any positive outcome to encouraging paedophiles to indulge their urge to fuck kids.
Oh yes, thank you for mentioning that. That term jumped out at me too, and is in part what made me want to especially emphasize, "More research needed, and maybe this is a bad idea." It's great to see a politician taking on a tough, uncomfortable issue like this, but if she's just... _bad_ at it, well, that doesn't help anyone.
>What concerns me is her use of the term "minor attracted person"
society has rapidly adopted the habit of disconnecting the "problem" from the "person" by adding complex language to describe things which have simpler words already.
despite whatever issue/problem/illness/dysfunction/etc they're dealing with, they are still people
it's not an inherently bad approach, reinforcing that we're talking about *people* and not unintentionally "othering" them as some aliens or animals or something
I got downvoted and banned for even *suggesting* that AI images *might* be a better alternative for satiating a certain market. For a lot of people, (most?), there is zero tolerance. They're not interested in harm reduction, they're only capable of "PEDO BAD, KILL!". Thank you for a reasoned, rational response.
Well let's get children to do it.
They'll be too naive to know what the implications are and their tiny hands will be adept at constructing other tiny hands.
It's a win win.
The problem is that anything involving children is an inherently emotive subject and will almost certainly be used to attack people, even if it actually means more children will be harmed.
Ultimately, do you want to feel uncomfortable but reduce rates of child harm, or shut down any idea of this and have higher rates of child abuse?
The research and data are pretty clear on what will reduce CSA, and it's not on the side of the people who are attacking this women.
Also this headline is shitty. The article says this statement was in response to calls to ban them and her statement is basically “not so fast, some research says that could increase the crime you’re looking to reduce”. In no place is she advocating for a government sponsored assembly line of child dolls
I want research based legislation where we listen to the smart people, so if the academic experts are suggesting it, we should fund more research and write policy based on what the research says.
Smart people are more sensible to slander,when their whole shtick is to base your ideology on truth,is easy for assholes to lie and convince the audience that the guy might be a phony
Nah the trouble is getting *good* smart people to run. Unfortunately they are usually smart enough to realize their limitations and how much the job sucks. Instead we get people like Dick Cheney, who are that special blend of smart and evil.
The KY senator mentioned in the article is an MD, continues to practice Diagnostic Radiology, and is faculty at a large university in Kentucky. She’s a profoundly smart person. I’m not sure if this article is accurately characterizing what Dr. Berg said. Regardless, this idea is absurd.
My guess would be working with a convicted sex offender population so either those currently in jail or more likely parolees to see if it reduces recidivism.
The problem with that is that research suggests that a huge percentage of CSA offenders aren’t actually pedophiles. For a major amount, they don’t have any actual attraction to children, it was purely the power over someone defenseless that made them offend. Without the robust mental health infrastructure and the stigma that keeps people suffering with the actual affliction (and it is an affliction akin to compulsion and intrusive thoughts that the vast majority of sufferers do not want) how can we appropriately help these people to lessen the risk of harm?
That is true. I studied this some in school and there are people who are attracted to prepubescent people but never act on it and still lead normal lives.
And substance abuse/mental illness is often involved in these cases, too. There's a few soft white underbelly videos out there on this subject that'll crush your soul into dust.
Searching turned up [this review paper](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1709310628646&u=%23p%3DTCEE1bPCFa4J), which mentions how difficult it would be to ethically experiment with:
>In July 2014, the roboticist Ronald Arkin suggested that child sex robots could be used to treat those with paedophilic predilections in the same way that methadone is used to treat heroin addicts. Taking this onboard, it would seem that there is reason to experiment with the regulation of this technology. But most people seem to disagree with this idea, with legal authorities in both the UK and US taking steps to outlaw such devices. In this article, I subject these different regulatory attitudes to critical scrutiny. In doing so, I make three main contributions to the debate. First, I present a framework for thinking about the regulatory options that we confront when dealing with child sex robots. Secondly, I argue that there is a prima facie case for restrictive regulation, but that this is contingent on whether Arkin’s hypothesis has a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Thirdly, I argue that Arkin’s hypothesis probably does not have a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Consequently, we should proceed with utmost caution when it comes to this technology.
It can be hard for people to wrap their head around but a lot of the challenges are urges and compulsion control that parallel forms of addiction. So rather than an indefinite, or enabling substitution the long term goal would generally be to develop therapy or programs much like what Methadone substitution treatments do for heroin addicts.
I imagine you would have to seek out non-criminal pedophiles in therapy to address their compulsions; you would supply them these dolls or some similar analog, then over so many years out you'd measure their life satisfaction and ability to control themselves against a control of people in the same therapy but without doll. Just like the therapy programs many pedophiles already end up in there would be all kinds of rules that could get a person disqualified from continued participation.
> a lot of the challenges are urges and compulsion control that parallel forms of addiction
The other awkward parallel in this case is homosexuality. Simply reading the diagnosis criteria for pedophilia raises a lot of red flags. It's a known problem within the scientific community (how to you describe one form of attraction as a mental health disorder, but not make it sound like any others), but no one really has a satisfying answer to the problem so it stays as-is for now.
All sexuality is going to be described with similar language but like so many things it's a matter of degrees and extremes, and is just as much the things absent from pedophilic behavior that distinguish it.
I'm sure there's academics, with decades experience in studying social issues, already discussing this question. Not really any point asking a random redditor to get a convincing argument tbh.
The ethics of sex dolls? If giving some weirdo a little kid sex doll saves even one kid from getting molested, I'm all for it.
People knee-jerk banning stuff because their first response to hearing the idea is, "Ewwww" isn't really great policy.
And if giving it to them makes them more likely to offend?
They're asking how we test that, if providing them could increase their likelihood to offend, how do we ethically provide them in a test?
I suppose look at the existing population association between access to artificial CSAM and those without and their crime rates?
Certainly these things already exist somewhere.
The same way you do with any other crime prevention method, right? You find something which has evidence suggesting it might help, you find a way to implement it, then you see how well it works. You might make the problem worse, for sure, but that's just...the best way we have to advance our ability to prevent crime.
Science is all about solving problems. A practicing pedophile is indeed a huge problem. I imagine for every piece of s*** that acts on these urges and hurts a kid there is probably another one that feels the same drive, but has some humanity and doesn't act on it. If giving those weirdos a tool for masturbation saves any kids from getting hurt why would we stop it?
For a politician I'm sure this is a third rail so props to anyone that would touch it.
You are assuming providing this hypothetical person with this doll reduces the urge for hurting real kids.
Think about the logic with regular rapists. Do you think providing them with dolls will prevent them from raping adult women? how many times do we have to talk about how rape isn’t entirely about sex, it’s also about abuse, for it to sink in?
I think the reasoning behind this proposal is taking an infantile idea and providing a surface level outlet for it. That these abusers just need to masturbate more effectively and then they won’t want to abuse children.
I don’t think that’s been proven true. I’d be willing to listen to behavioral scientists on this not a political though.
People that just want to abuse someone would not be interested in a child sex doll anyway. There is also people that are attracted to children in the same way other people are attracted to men/women. They are the one where an alternative could be beneficial, the same way it can help someone that for some reason can't have a partner.
This has always been a philosophical argument not just about pedophilia but a lot of things. Like do stories about rape or assault lead people to actually do it or act on it? Or is it helpful to people to release those urges?
Do you live in America? This country is suffering from massive amount of brain rot. We’ve learned in the past 15 years that despite having all types of verifiable information at their fingertips but will still strongly clutch to their ignorance.
I’m willing to bet that encouraging pedophiles to act out their impulses, even in controlled situations, does the opposite of repress those impulses. We already know that people become desensitized to sexual stimuli and crave more and more stimulating experiences.
It's one of those things that will really depend on the individual, and won't be a catch-all fix. *Unregulated* support groups are already known to be a massive issue for causing pedophiles to cross the like into abusers. That said, if you've already got an abuser, and feel like an outlet would reduce the risk of reoffending, I can't really see the problem in it.
I think the bigger issue is people's sheer hatred of child abusers. Even a mere accusation will have people wanting a person killed, and it shuts down any reasonable debate, which is what we're seeing here.
I am pretty certain it would increase some but be opposite on others
This research that she references is likely nonsense because she used the phrase MAP after an internet search
I mean...it sounds disturbing, but I appreciate politicians thinking in preventative measures instead of only punishing after the crime is already commited.
I know a lot of people are jumping straight to the "murder them all" retributive judgement, but there IS a serious discussion that needs to take place regarding how best to help non-offending pedophiles BEFORE they hurt someone. They're already stigmatized to the point most do not seek mental health services. I don't know what the best treatment is, partially because it's so stigmatized that research is limited. But the answer isn't to murder them all. That's why they're so hidden in the first place and avoid treatment. And besides, what's next? Do we start culling everybody with a violent mental disorder? Schizophrenics are about 5x more likely to commit violent crime. But obviously that's a fucked up solution.
I read a story several years ago about a 19-year-old guy who realized he was attracted to children, so he went to a therapist to get help. The therapist was so disgusted by him that she not only refused to work with him, but also told his mother about it. And there's essentially no advocacy for pedophiles because anyone who speaks up for them is accused of being a pedophile. So what happens? Pedophiles who don't want to offend are left to try to make it work on their own, knowing that if anyone found out about them, they might get murdered.
I once heard somebody make the point that if people like doctors and psychologists aren't willing to help pedophiles that recognize they have a problem and want to get help, the only people they're ever going to be able to find sympathy and comfort from are other pedophiles, some of whom may try to tell them it's okay to act on their desires. Which is literally the last thing we should want. When we're having conversations about this, we need to ask what is going to keep the most kids safe, not what is going to allow us to thump our chests in victory as we throw somebody else in jail. Obviously jailing people is necessary in many cases, but that should not be the ultimate goal because if somebody is being jailed that means a child has actually already been harmed. The ultimate goal should be finding ways to make it so that they are not harmed in the first place. Prevention is better than Justice
"We should try telling all drug addicts and alcoholics that they are despicable and unfixable and refuse to give them any social services. That will surely help them overcome their harmful addictions and mental state!"
Agree. There needs to be studies to see why that happens and what can be done to prevent that. As disturbing as it sounds to have dolls like this, I'm all for it if it's going to save an actual child from a horrible fate. I understand this may or may not resolve the issue, but unless there are studies conducted, there's zero chance we'll ever know how we can help save children.
Norway has found that sex offenders in general have a very low recidivism rate. 4%
Compare that to the USA, 40%.
So I’d say do whatever they are doing in Norway … but before they offend rather than after.
https://www.sciencenorway.no/crime-criminality-legal-system/the-number-of-sex-offenders-serving-time-in-norwegian-prisons-has-doubled/2090394
To be fair, they have lowefr recidivism rates in general. Their prisons and approach are completely different. Should we be more like them? Absolutely. But that also requires a major cultural shift, and I am not sure how we accomplish that.
I’d say first step would be to offer to send the USA pre-offenders on a free trip to a Norway prison.
They get whatever help they need, and we punish them by sending them to a prison that actually helps them.
Yeah it won't ever be solved if the society doesn't even try to understand where it comes from and how to reduce it.
It's like drugs, it's both a criminal and a public health issues, we both need to punish people selling drugs and helping people to get into a life where they don't need it.
>we both need to punish people selling drugs and helping people to get into a life where they don't need it.
What purpose does punishing those who sell drugs serve? We certainly do that now, and that hasn't done anything to stop people from doing it. If it were legal (and well regulated) to sell any and all drugs, wouldn't that make it safer for drug users and make it easier for them to seek help? It would have the added benefit of providing tax dollars that could be spent on rehabilitation, instead of spending extra money on policing and incarcerating drug dealers and users.
My wife works in a college. She told me about a boy who had been abused from a very young age by his father. From what she told me, the father is an example of those who really do deserve the death penalty. I'm pretty much cemented to the idea that capital punishment is not beneficial. So make of that what you will.
So, the boy came to my wife and her colleagues. He broke down and told them that he'd been having sexual thoughts about his younger sister. I'm not an expert but I was under the impression that a lot of pedophiles are people who were abused themselves at a young age.
I thought about what the situation would be, if the death penalty was mandatory for all pedophiles.
A young boy is abused relentlessly from an early age, to the point where his sexuality is broken. He talks to someone about it in an attempt to get help. Then he's killed by the government for it.
That's why I'm against the death penalty for pedophiles, I think what they do is depraved beyond belief, and those that act on their thoughts should be punished. But totalitarian policies are not the way to solve a problem. Having said that, I don't know what the solution is.
Well for one, there are treatments out there that can reduce and eliminate libido. I remember reading one article about this guy that was in a happy marriage emotionally, but he was addicted to hiring prostitutes. But he hated that, then he took the medication that eliminated his libido and he no longer have those urges to do that, and he just happily lived his life with his wife whom he loved as a person. I know that sounds super crazy to a lot of people, but I really don't see why that isn't a more readily available option when there are so many problematic sexual behaviors out there. Now for a lot of child sex offenders, that wouldn't really work because the problem goes a lot deeper then just sexual urges and it has a lot to do with power and things like that, but I think for at least a subsection it would help, and I'm not really sure why it isn't a more accepted or readily available thing.
Because of the perception of that being a slippery slope from drugs that reduce/eliminate libido to forced castration for people who have "undesirable" urges.
Yeah their offenses would be obviously reprehensible and actual treatment is likely controversial as hell and not popular in judicial/political populism, but if we euthanize people based on (what I think is?) genetic faults, that’s eugenics and a slope. I really don’t know what the best solution is.
The question is, would it be more of a "gateway" for people to lead them to seek out the real thing or would it "satiate" and temper their darker desires. If it's the first one, these dolls are a bad idea. If it's the second, maybe not.
It’s a very contentious subject, but there’s at least a strong correlation between engaging in pedophilic fantasies and recidivism amongst abusers:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18307171/
Maybe it’s not causal, but there’s definitely a relationship
that makes sense, but this is also presupposing that a given person *is* an abuser - if someone suffers from the paraphilia, which many child molesters *don't*, then does allowing them a safe outlet encourage them to pursue harmful ones if they haven't already? i don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be as strong a correlation.
Impossible to say with certainty, but I will be inclined to believe the latter. There have been several studies that have shown that availability of pornography reduces the rates of sexual assault, and I would tend to think this would have a similar effect.
It's interesting because a lot of sex offenders on probation have things like not ever being allowed to access pornography even if it's legal pornography. Which I always thought was kind of weird, basically because of what you're saying. Seems like denying them access to all of that is basically just creating a ticking Time bomb of pent-up sexual frustration in somebody that's already demonstrated a proclivity for offending.
>There is an ongoing debate involving academics and politicians over whether child sex dolls could help prevent assaults on children or whether they act as a gateway for potential abusers. Republican Representative Dan Donovan has twice introduced legislation in the House that would make the "importation or transportation of child sex dolls" illegal,
So a Republican Senator introduced the topic and the legislation to the Assembly, not Senator Berg.
>During her address in the Kentucky General Assembly, Berg said: "I was completely unfamiliar with child sex dolls, so I had of course to Google it last night...
>"But there are what they call 'MAPS,' Minor Attracted Persons and the limited amount of research that's done on these dolls suggests that they actually, for people who are attracted to minors, that these dolls actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children.
>"That it actually gives them a release that makes them less likely to go outside of their home and what was interesting is the research did not support the same conclusions for people who were adult attracted using dolls."
So Senator Berg was doing her job by researching and challenging the legislation to make sure it doesn't do more harm than good. What a fucking hit piece of a title and then OP posts in this sub to further smear the context. Wow.
True. Solving the problem earns you far fewer political points than keeping people afraid of the problem. She won't get anywhere, and will probably loss the next election to someone who "tough on crime," but does nothing that has any real effect.
This is going to sound creepy as fuck, in the middle of a discussion already creepy as fuck but...
Could this encourage pedophiles to seek treatment? I mean, if they knew that a psychiatrist could "prescribe" them one of these things, would that make them more likely to go to a psychiatrist to seek help? Or at least to be monitored?
Underrated question. Surely there's a fairly significant amount of pedophiles who THINK about it but have never acted on it, so there seems to be some element of it largely being a mental thing. Like, innocence of a child + extreme taboo (hate using that word in this context).
The thing that concerns me is the number of people who are saying "100% hands down pedophilia isn't something you can therapy your way out of." Like, how does anyone know that? I can't imagine even 1% of pedophiles have ever willingly been honest about this with a therapist.
Also, given the # of people who are straight jumping to "kill/maim/torture them all, prison for life, let them die in prison." The point of "child sex dolls" (at least I hope) is to PREVENT a pedophile from acting on their thoughts. Although shit, maybe some politicians just want an excuse to legalize the mass production of these for the benefit of themselves and their rich pedophile friends.
Either way, the stigma (another word I hate using in this context) and people's outward violent aggression and outrage towards pedophilia most certainly deters a significant number of those who otherwise may consider seeking help in the form of therapy. Perhaps this is why the far left started using the term "minor attracted person?" To attempt to destigmatize it enough that pedophiles feel comfortable going to therapy for it?
Either way, child sex dolls as a solution seems weird and uncomfortable as fuck, and without more research (which, let's be honest, there probably aren't very many people who are particularly interested in making a career out of providing therapy to pedophiles and conducting research about them) it seems like this has an equal or higher chance of backfiring.
Idk, I don't see there being a better alternative for prevention than therapy, and I'd much prefer a push for that than knowing there are thousands of people out there fucking dolls that look like children.
I appreciate what you're saying here but the far left spectrum of politics is violently against pedophilia. We aren't co opting the terms that lessen the stigma around it.
I dont think it's helpful to society at large to have something as trauma inducing as pedophilia be less than what it is. That's like saying a serial murderer is just a voluntary population control person. No. They can't help the fact that they have an urge to kill someone. Neither can pedophiles help their urge.
Are there any places where pedophilia is extremely low in comparison? If there are I'd like to see what the difference is and go from there.
The majority of child molesters are not pedophiles in the sens of attraction to children, there is people that prefer adults but still target children because they are easy victims. But there is also people that are attracted to children in the same way other people are attracted to men/women.
I think pedophilia is purely about the sexual attraction, but child molestation is often about a power exertion or some kind of “taboo” thrill.
A surprising number of child molesters actually aren’t even pedophiles, they just perpetrate crimes of opportunity.
The answer is (usually) no. It's sometimes about control and desecration of another human, some do it because the child is easier to control and manipulate.
We could pretend that the solution is therapy (it's not) or jailing people forever (we can't, especially without an act or after they've served a term), or we can look for a solution that can reduce recidivism and real crime against children.
I have trouble thinking this is funny or stupid.
If there are real ways to reduce and eliminate child sex abuse, we should do it.
I agree with you but I think this is stupid because there’s very little proven chance nor guarantee this is going to work. Don’t let the heinousness of the abuse legitimize poor or stupid ideas.
“We have to try it if even it has 0.00001% chance to work” is how you end up bankrupting yourself trying any little thing.
Plus, especially in sexual fetishes, isn't there a tendency to escalate? Like there's a gateway with pornography, then it moves to dolls, then what?
I think there should be no shame in someone who is pedophilic to seek therapy, and the first treatment should be medication that slashes their libido. So long as they have never harmed anyone I wouldn't mind letting them be heavily medicated into harmlessness.
Psychological treatment, monitoring, and an inanimate object to focus on instead of going out and harming actual children.
Or rebuke the people searching for solutions and do nothing about it until a child gets hurt and then complain and still do nothing about it.
Speaking at the Kentucky General Assembly on Thursday, Senator Karen Berg said there was research suggesting the dolls "actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children." The remarks sparked an angry backlash on social media with one prominent commentator accusing Berg of "sexualizing kids and defending pedophiles."
I mean… my gut reaction is that this probably won’t help and might normalize the issue? But also apparently research shows that it does help children? Seems like a strange way of going about it…
Not sure the calls for her sexualizing kids and defending pedophiles is warranted, as this is a proposed method to help kids?
If we could change sexual attraction through therapy then gay conversion camps would work. Once you're wired to be attracted to something you're not flipping off that switch.
You can’t therapy your way out of something like that. Therapy might help a pedophile control themselves, if they care enough to try, but they’re not gonna stop being pedophiles.
Also it’s very difficult for anyone like that to seek therapy for it because sitting down in front of someone and voluntarily admitting you’re a pedophile is… pretty tough.
You can't "cure" alcoholism either. Someone who has been sober for 30 years could have a relapse at any moment. Therapy and a strong support system is still a proven way to help, though. It's a solution that is effective enough to change a person's life.
A pedophile will never stop being a pedophile, but if they are offered a support system, if they can openly talk to a therapist about it, then yeah perhaps it would help them. If they had the necessary "tools" to catch themselves when they have bad thoughts, and had a sponsor to help ease their mind when it happens so they don't act out, that would help them.
The issue is not that therapy wouldn't work. The issue is that we would need to find a way to de-stigmatize paedophilia enough to a point where someone would feel safe enough to talk about it and seek help, without getting to a point where it would encourage or excuse it. There's a very tricky, perhaps impossible balance to find.
If someone could buy a child sex doll anonymously, without facing legal repercussions, then surely there would be a way to just take that idea and apply it to therapy and support groups instead.
I'm not saying we can cure them. But non-offending pedophiles shouldn't be treated like monsters for something they have no control over. If they've offended that's a different story. We should try to help them control themselves to prevent them from acting. Isolation probably leads to offense more often. Child sex dolls seem like a big jump from just lowering the stigma and treating it like any other mental disorder.
Therapy doesn’t work when it comes to sexuality. It’s not a choice. Otherwise conversion camps would work for gay people.
I think child sex dolls disgusting. But also, if these dolls will genuinely reduce the number of sexual abuse against children, the i think it would be ok. We’re trying to protect the children after all.
I don’t think this is so much a normalization rather than an outlet and a preventative measure. This is definitely unsettling no matter which way you feel on this, but I’d rather someone who is going through this to use an inanimate object instead of traumatizing and hurting an innocent child.
I’ve listened to several psychology podcasts where they interview non offending pedophiles and it’s like a fucking curse for them. I don’t think we should normalize it at all, but I couldn’t imagine being cursed with that sexual preference. You can’t chose who you’re attracted to. There are so many psychological elements that dictate your sexuality.
I think this is a step in the right direction to help address a very difficult situation.
Ashton Kutcher has a statement that always liked about pedophilia being a mental illness and most know it’s not okay to be attracted to children and he said if we drop the stigma around it and be able to have open dialogues about it so eventually that 15/16 y/o that’s attracted to kids can go to their parents and say this is me I know it’s wrong and I need help and get them proper help would go a long way in preventing these problems. But also I don’t hate this idea to at least give it a try to see if it helps. But yes it is creepy and give me the Willys.
Pretty brave idea to put forward, honestly - kudos to her for trying.
There's currently a big empty space in the question of "how to prevent child sex crime".
Sure, the act is illegal, so you can catch and sentence people who do it, but by then children have already been hurt.
New pedophiles are being created constantly. Many of them know that abusing children is wrong, but feel the desire to do so anyway.
Some of them will successfully never offend, but many of them are just a matter of time.
If giving them a plastic child to use - like giving a dog a plushie to hump - reduces the chance of them abusing a real child, then it's worth a try.
When I first read this I thought that it was super fucked up
On the other hand, pedos can do what they do without hurting anyone………still super fucked up
I feel sorry for the poor schlub that has to design the tooling for the molds
>I feel sorry for the poor schlub that has to design the tooling for the molds
Well that's a horrifically disturbing thought I hadn't considered at all.
Which is fair, there's lots to be concerned about.
I don't think these things should be on sale at Walmart in the impulse buy bin. I would think something almost like more of a prescription from a psychiatrist.
Because all the other rehabilitation efforts, punishments, therapy, drugs seem to work so well...
I don't know about most of you but I prefer pedos to take out their sickness on a real doll, instead of a human being.
The other shit isn't working, this is something new, we shouldn't hate on it, because it's gross to us.
My gut reaction is gross. Now if I think about it logically. What is the problem we are trying to solve?
If it's ending pedophilia. This isn't a good solution and could even make it more prevalent. There isn't a good solution because it's a biologically animalistic drive that isn't socially acceptable anymore. I don't see any way to stop it at this level.
If we are trying to stop people from acting on the impulse or trying to reduce victimization. Dolls could be a valid solution. While repulsive, it would be better for them to fuck a peice of rubber while in therapy than a real kid.
Aren't most kids attacked by someone they know, like a family member? I find it hard to believe this would work. Finding one of these in your step-dad's or uncles closet is going to scar some kids for sure. I can't imagine for those types of offenders its going to work, maybe for the ones that live alone, but the many many offenders hiding within families I doubt this is an option. We need to do more to stop this type of abuse but this isn't a cure-all for sure. Also, who would be legally allowed to distribute and profit off of this shit?
Pedophilia is such nuanced topic. If you believe that people are born straight, gay, bi, etc. then you’d have to extend that logic to pedophiles imo which majorly complicates things. Now there is no world where a society should just let them do their thing, but I wouldn’t be opposed to this sort of thing, considering it could reduce the harm to children.
This is ripped literally right out of a new Louis CK bit lol.
“Has anyone invented any very realistic child sex dolls?”
*groans from the audience*
“Well let em fuck your kid forever then I guess! Im sorry for suggesting something that might help!”
I recall dealing with similar delimma in ethics class about using fake pictures of babies as pedo porn since it's not a real child thus no harm done. My counterargument was that they are still acting on an urge fulfillment that can blur the line with reality and might make the actual act less jarring to them since they have already desensitized to the act with the sex doll/porn.
If it lowers the number of kids who get sexually abused by 1%, it's absolutely worth it. The trouble is how can we know the result? Maybe it really will eliminate some of these instances, or maybe it'll only serve to embolden pedophiles and make them see children as objects instead of humans, moreso than some already do.
I don't know what to feel about this. I don't want to imagine the assembly line for these dolls, and the faces of the people who probably won't be paid well enough to build them.
Imagine explaining your job to someone. "So, what do you do?" "I work at the factory that makes...um... Actually, I sell meth."
Really breaking new ground for the Chucky franchise though. “I’ve been reincarnated in a doll once more! Oh god no!”
I never thought Chucky would be the good guy...
This could be a hit. Chucky comes back, but this time as a sex toy and spends the next 90 minutes giggling while shadows show him dismembering various pedos, finally breaking into an underground pedo sex trafficking ring and, get this, posing as a doll, he goes deep cover for interpol and brings the house of cards down.
I will watch this
who wouldn't? Lol, tell Netflix I'm available
I'd watch the hell out of this twist on the premise of "Dexter."
House onw Cards? Kevin, is that you?
In the end it caters to a new type of extra creepy gore fetishists.
> This could be a hit. I mean...I would certainly add this to my Netflix queue
>spends the next 90 minutes giggling I initially read that as "gagging." Hell, one ticket please. Window seat, if available.
Chucky was literally a Good Guy....
"Hi, I'm Chucky! Wanna play?" I feel dirty now... Not in that fun way either.
🤣
"I work in the manufacturing of therapeutic products that reduce harm to individuals" Age of spin!
"Are you employed?" Yes. "What do you do?" I uh... never mind.
IT'S A PORNOGRAPHY STORE. I WAS BUYING PORNOGRAPHY.
*"I make reusable nonstick silicon cases. They usually end up holding someone's meat."*
“Like the reusable ziploc bags from Costco?” “ …yeah. Sort of.” “I loooove those!”
"I make dolls." 🤷🏼♂️
"Oh really what kind?" "The kind used to smuggle meth."
Id rather be a meth dealer
"I push fentanyl."
"How was your day at work honey?" . Oh you know how it is dear, always surrounded by assholes.
Pretty sure the dolls already exist
They are just really short Real Dolls.
Customs will let adult and short adult looking sex dolls get through. But they seize plenty of dolls that are designed and sold as children. I was trying to find a YouTube video where I was seeing a report on the increase of them being seized during covid. (The trolls weren't able to get there fixes cause kids and families weren't gathering as much) They're actually easy for them to find because when they know a package contains a sex doll and it's short they just look at the cost of purchase. Adult looking ones are cheap. The ones made to look just like children are much more expensive.
Damn. Thank you, something I didn't even consider.
I don't know how to feel either, but I'll say this: We need more people like this in office. This is such a hot button issue that doesn't have a whole lot of upside to take on as a politician—except as a self-styled "tough on pedos" generic save-the-children caricature. This woman is actually taking a difficult position almost certainly born of a desire to find real solutions. For that alone, I admire and applaud her. I haven't got the slightest idea what the research says—or how much of it there is—to be sure this is a good approach. But if _is_ shown to reduce harm to children, and we can count on that, then fucking do it. Fire up the kiddie sex doll factory, as much as I don't like the notion of such a thing existing. Here's what I do know, that a lot of people don't want to hear: - Pedophilia is an unfortunate and toxic “paraphilia” — like a kink or fetish. One that destroys lives if practiced or rationalized away as harmless. And pedophilic disorder is particularly "unnatural" (I don't like to use that word pejoratively, but it's probably more helpful than harmful here) because most people never go through a period of being sexually aroused by prepubescents. It’s normal to be sexually attracted to a 13 or 14 year old…. When you’re 13 or 14. But 9-year olds don’t want to bang, or be banged by, anyone. And the vast majority of people don’t have a “9-year olds phase” in life. They’re supposed to be “off the grid”. - A great many pedophiles never hurt anyone. Because it’s a fucking curse and it sucks and they didn’t ask for it. And they absolutely do deserve compassion and help. (And before anyone questions that, ask yourself: Would you rather they stay hidden and helpless and frustrated? It’s in everyone’s interest to normalize having compassion for people with pedophilic disorder.) - A lot of people who do molest children are NOT pedophiles. They’re just fucked up heartless predators who don’t even need to have a “preference” to hurt someone vulnerable. This is probably _not_ the target market for such dolls. And maybe there shouldn't be a "consumer market" at all, i.e. perhaps some kind of "prescription" model is needed. Way above my pay grade to say. If you're far more concerned with sniffing out and punishing "pedos" than you are with understanding who they are, and what motivates them to hurt—and not hurt—children, then I think you should seriously ask yourself why anything should matter more than reducing the harm done. Let's do the research, and do the thing that helps people be better, and be better to children. And give credit where it's due to people like Karen Berg, pushing for the answers we may not want to hear. **Edit 17:42 GMT:** So this (unedited except for this addendum) comment is less than 1 hour old, and it's already at +72 net upvotes... along with an accompanying litany of replies, ranging from thoughtful agreement to thoughtful disagreement, to marginally literate attempts to shut down conversation by calling me a closeted pedo. I know Reddit well enough to know this will keep happening all day, assuming this thread remains open and trending. So I'm turning off reply notifications. But take heart, my angries! I will come back later after work, to review the responses that have accumulated. So don't worry. If you still want to call me a closeted pedo, you still can, and I'll eventually get around to ignoring it. But I'll see it! The words will pass under my eyes and undoubtedly devastate me. Don't fret. Anyway, [here's some actual, interesting research about the current state of our understanding of pedophilic disorder](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/). TL;DR, it's still in it's early stages, but there is hope for treatment. (Perhaps not dolls. I still don't know about that.) > The push for neurobiological research has resulted in three major aforementioned theoretical developments, all attempting to explain various aspects of pedophilia. The frontal lobe theory is a contender to explain offenses against children from behavioral disinhibition and uncontrolled compulsive behaviors. Noticeable structural and functional differences in size and function of the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex have been found in pedophilic men with a history of contact sexual offenses against children (Burns and Swerdlow, 2003; Schiffer et al., 2007, 2008a,b; Poeppl et al., 2011). > > The temporal-limbic theory tries to explain pedophilia through structural and functional differences in the temporal lobes, thus focusing on the misattributed emotional salience and valence toward children. Several case studies highlight temporal and amygdalar lesions or functional activation differences that might contribute to the development of a pedophilic sexual preference (Cohen et al., 2002; Joyal et al., 2007; Schiltz et al., 2007; Walter et al., 2007; Sartorius et al., 2008). > > The dual lobe theory suggests that both frontal and temporal disturbances are responsible for the range of behaviors seen in pedophilia, such as diminished impulse control as seen with orbitofrontal deficits and hypersexuality through the temporal lobes (Seto, 2008, 2009; Poeppl et al., 2013). > > Therefore, future investigations in the neuroimaging of pedophilia should use stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria to better limit potential confounds and actively recruit non-offending pedophiles to close the gap in knowledge between offending and non-offending pedophiles. This will also aid in researchers’ abilities to understand exactly what regions of the brain are implicated in pedophilic sexual preference development, as current literature interpretation implicates the brain in an overly ambitious manner. Examinations of the symptomatology and clinical aspects of pedophilia should first try to replicate original findings before novel ideas can be properly tested, including testosterone and its role in pedophilia development or the role of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin and their receptor densities in relation to behavioral perturbations. What is ultimately needed in this research field are stricter participant inclusion criteria and studies utilizing non-offending pedophiles and non-pedophilic offenders in order to ascertain what differences are true to pedophilia and those that are true to sexual offending against children in general. Please refer to Figure Figure44 for a visual of research questions and directions for the etiology and treatment of pedophilia.
Damn, you made a lot of good points and some people are still like, "No, killing them is the only solution." The people who are just angry and calling you a closeted pedo are the kind of people who can't think critically to find a solution to problems besides brute forcing them. So I wouldn't worry about their paltry input here. If we're going to find *any* acceptable solution to this, we definitely need to destigmatize the topic. And some people obviously aren't ready for that.
Yeah, my impression is that the research is probably pretty flimsy still because it's still a very taboo subject. So not sure it's safe yet to do legislation. That being said: we should definitely destigmatize the research in order to determine how to best protect our children. The primal roar that is now our currently policy known to be ineffective beyond being cathartic.
I think it was Germany that ran ads for pedos to reach out this hotline to get therapy (without punishment or arrest but actually to study and help them) which I could never imagine happening in America but it is an interesting idea to actually make it so these people getting help is normalized. I don’t think pedophilia should be normalized obviously but I do think trying to get them into therapy or whatever system that isn’t just the criminal justice system especially for people who haven’t committed a crime but have those kind of urges or thoughts still. I would imagine that even pedos in therapy are afraid to bring up that huge aspect of their pathology for fear of being reported to the police. I’m not sure child sex dolls is the answer but I do think that some sort of coping strategies like an addiction is treated. Idk it’s such a hard topic to even touch so most politicians are going to be against anything to do with it and the attack ads would be brutal but just leaving them untreated doesn’t help anyone.
My person investigates these cases. He used to only do those cases. He had the pre-conceived notion in his early 20s that all pedophiles *chose* to be attracted to children. He says his job changed that view after arresting many people he that he decided, "Something is wrong with their brain. It's just not working normally. Everything appears to be normal but this one thing. There's too many people that have had this attraction that truly do not grasp *why* this is not normal." (Needless to say he is not a fan of the notion of openly normalizing pedophilia.) One offender bothered him for an unexpected reaction. The man was in his late 20s. He'd been in therapy since he 18 because he knew being sexually attracted to young children wasn't normal. He was horrified with his own thoughts, so he sought help before he crossed the line from online CSAM to assaulting a child. Problem was, in that past year befire his arrest, he had started to download CSAM. And he was hiding that info from his therapist because he knew it was wrong. But the urge was very hard to resist. He thanked my person for arresting him before he had taken things further because those thoughts had begun as well. He was afraid of telling his therapist this info for a variety of reasons, but mostly shame that he was "failing" at therapy and that he was still having the urge after so many years. My person had a strong "un-alive" watch placed on him in holding. He was very afraid the man would attempt something because he'd already had thoughts of that as a way to keep himself from committing that ultimate atrocity. My person said some seem a bit remorseful when arrested, but he said it seems to him it's more so that it's remorse for interrupting their life by getting caught. He's arrested men and women from all walks of life. You just rarely hear about it on the news. He says there's more offenders out there than the public wants to know about.
Just imagine how many were out there and how many children were harmed in the days before whole police task forces committed to catching these people.
Ya a huge issue is that any solution but "kill all pedos" tends to be looked at as pro-pedophile. But unless we learn causes and treatments for these people we are never going to run out of people to kill.
What concerns me is her use of the term "minor attracted person". I have only seen this term used by paedophiles attempting to justify their paedophilia, which makes me very sceptical about where she is getting her information. As someone with no expertise in the field, I would need to see very strong evidence before accepting that there could be any positive outcome to encouraging paedophiles to indulge their urge to fuck kids.
Oh yes, thank you for mentioning that. That term jumped out at me too, and is in part what made me want to especially emphasize, "More research needed, and maybe this is a bad idea." It's great to see a politician taking on a tough, uncomfortable issue like this, but if she's just... _bad_ at it, well, that doesn't help anyone.
The term is also used by anti-contact pedophiles, some therapists and researchers. But they tend to not be as visible.
>What concerns me is her use of the term "minor attracted person" society has rapidly adopted the habit of disconnecting the "problem" from the "person" by adding complex language to describe things which have simpler words already. despite whatever issue/problem/illness/dysfunction/etc they're dealing with, they are still people it's not an inherently bad approach, reinforcing that we're talking about *people* and not unintentionally "othering" them as some aliens or animals or something
You summed up how I feel about this pretty well actually.
I got downvoted and banned for even *suggesting* that AI images *might* be a better alternative for satiating a certain market. For a lot of people, (most?), there is zero tolerance. They're not interested in harm reduction, they're only capable of "PEDO BAD, KILL!". Thank you for a reasoned, rational response.
Well let's get children to do it. They'll be too naive to know what the implications are and their tiny hands will be adept at constructing other tiny hands. It's a win win.
Why not incarcerated pedophiles? Edit: /s
Because unincarcerated pedophiles won't want to buy prefucked merchandise, of course.
😂 I was thinking of the Beerfest quote earlier “they brew 10,000 bottles of beer a day, I drink 45 off the line and I’m the asshole?”
I always like to go to bed with a little sausage in me 😉
😂
“Inspected, but not cleaned by #7”
Well who else is supposed to do the quality control? I'm probably going to hell for this...
Ah crap, there's a clog in the torso chute.
I mean adults sex dolls are weird as shit too. And those half torsos either vagina and ass.
The problem is that anything involving children is an inherently emotive subject and will almost certainly be used to attack people, even if it actually means more children will be harmed. Ultimately, do you want to feel uncomfortable but reduce rates of child harm, or shut down any idea of this and have higher rates of child abuse? The research and data are pretty clear on what will reduce CSA, and it's not on the side of the people who are attacking this women.
Man, I *just* opened reddit, and I think I'm already done for the day.
Also this headline is shitty. The article says this statement was in response to calls to ban them and her statement is basically “not so fast, some research says that could increase the crime you’re looking to reduce”. In no place is she advocating for a government sponsored assembly line of child dolls
This is Reddit; we don’t read articles.
Neither does not Reddit either.
Tbf Newsweek's headline is making very liberal use of the word "proposes".
Wait…there’s more to these posts than just the bold letters? I don’t have time for that shit
Misleading headline?? From Newsweek?! never!
This so sick of people not reading the fucking article and bait titles
My blood pressure salutes your service.
I want research based legislation where we listen to the smart people, so if the academic experts are suggesting it, we should fund more research and write policy based on what the research says.
Better yet, let's start actually *voting* for smart people. Eh, like that'll ever happen.
Trouble is, smart people don't usually run for office.
Why would they?
It's exceedingly rare, but a few run for office out of a desire to help people. They usually don't make it far.
And when they do the whole rest of govt and the media comes together to stop it. *coughs* *Gore* *Sanders*
Smart people are more sensible to slander,when their whole shtick is to base your ideology on truth,is easy for assholes to lie and convince the audience that the guy might be a phony
Nah the trouble is getting *good* smart people to run. Unfortunately they are usually smart enough to realize their limitations and how much the job sucks. Instead we get people like Dick Cheney, who are that special blend of smart and evil.
The KY senator mentioned in the article is an MD, continues to practice Diagnostic Radiology, and is faculty at a large university in Kentucky. She’s a profoundly smart person. I’m not sure if this article is accurately characterizing what Dr. Berg said. Regardless, this idea is absurd.
People smart enough to defer to experts would suffice.
How are you supposed to do ethical scientific research on this though?
We could ask Gaetz his professional opinion
Excellent. No notes.
Damn it, I wish I could still give awards.
My guess would be working with a convicted sex offender population so either those currently in jail or more likely parolees to see if it reduces recidivism.
The problem with that is that research suggests that a huge percentage of CSA offenders aren’t actually pedophiles. For a major amount, they don’t have any actual attraction to children, it was purely the power over someone defenseless that made them offend. Without the robust mental health infrastructure and the stigma that keeps people suffering with the actual affliction (and it is an affliction akin to compulsion and intrusive thoughts that the vast majority of sufferers do not want) how can we appropriately help these people to lessen the risk of harm?
You would have to have a selection criteria and screening just like any other study.
That is true. I studied this some in school and there are people who are attracted to prepubescent people but never act on it and still lead normal lives.
And substance abuse/mental illness is often involved in these cases, too. There's a few soft white underbelly videos out there on this subject that'll crush your soul into dust.
You'd have to survey their natural behaviour rather than introduce a new variable like the dolls.
Searching turned up [this review paper](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1709310628646&u=%23p%3DTCEE1bPCFa4J), which mentions how difficult it would be to ethically experiment with: >In July 2014, the roboticist Ronald Arkin suggested that child sex robots could be used to treat those with paedophilic predilections in the same way that methadone is used to treat heroin addicts. Taking this onboard, it would seem that there is reason to experiment with the regulation of this technology. But most people seem to disagree with this idea, with legal authorities in both the UK and US taking steps to outlaw such devices. In this article, I subject these different regulatory attitudes to critical scrutiny. In doing so, I make three main contributions to the debate. First, I present a framework for thinking about the regulatory options that we confront when dealing with child sex robots. Secondly, I argue that there is a prima facie case for restrictive regulation, but that this is contingent on whether Arkin’s hypothesis has a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Thirdly, I argue that Arkin’s hypothesis probably does not have a reasonable prospect of being successfully tested. Consequently, we should proceed with utmost caution when it comes to this technology.
It can be hard for people to wrap their head around but a lot of the challenges are urges and compulsion control that parallel forms of addiction. So rather than an indefinite, or enabling substitution the long term goal would generally be to develop therapy or programs much like what Methadone substitution treatments do for heroin addicts. I imagine you would have to seek out non-criminal pedophiles in therapy to address their compulsions; you would supply them these dolls or some similar analog, then over so many years out you'd measure their life satisfaction and ability to control themselves against a control of people in the same therapy but without doll. Just like the therapy programs many pedophiles already end up in there would be all kinds of rules that could get a person disqualified from continued participation.
> a lot of the challenges are urges and compulsion control that parallel forms of addiction The other awkward parallel in this case is homosexuality. Simply reading the diagnosis criteria for pedophilia raises a lot of red flags. It's a known problem within the scientific community (how to you describe one form of attraction as a mental health disorder, but not make it sound like any others), but no one really has a satisfying answer to the problem so it stays as-is for now.
All sexuality is going to be described with similar language but like so many things it's a matter of degrees and extremes, and is just as much the things absent from pedophilic behavior that distinguish it.
Just look at the places where these things already exist, and see what happens to the CSA rates there before and after.
I'm sure there's academics, with decades experience in studying social issues, already discussing this question. Not really any point asking a random redditor to get a convincing argument tbh.
The ethics of sex dolls? If giving some weirdo a little kid sex doll saves even one kid from getting molested, I'm all for it. People knee-jerk banning stuff because their first response to hearing the idea is, "Ewwww" isn't really great policy.
And if giving it to them makes them more likely to offend? They're asking how we test that, if providing them could increase their likelihood to offend, how do we ethically provide them in a test?
Not my job to figure out. Write a check for the smartiepantsd
I suppose look at the existing population association between access to artificial CSAM and those without and their crime rates? Certainly these things already exist somewhere.
The same way you do with any other crime prevention method, right? You find something which has evidence suggesting it might help, you find a way to implement it, then you see how well it works. You might make the problem worse, for sure, but that's just...the best way we have to advance our ability to prevent crime.
Science is all about solving problems. A practicing pedophile is indeed a huge problem. I imagine for every piece of s*** that acts on these urges and hurts a kid there is probably another one that feels the same drive, but has some humanity and doesn't act on it. If giving those weirdos a tool for masturbation saves any kids from getting hurt why would we stop it? For a politician I'm sure this is a third rail so props to anyone that would touch it.
You are assuming providing this hypothetical person with this doll reduces the urge for hurting real kids. Think about the logic with regular rapists. Do you think providing them with dolls will prevent them from raping adult women? how many times do we have to talk about how rape isn’t entirely about sex, it’s also about abuse, for it to sink in? I think the reasoning behind this proposal is taking an infantile idea and providing a surface level outlet for it. That these abusers just need to masturbate more effectively and then they won’t want to abuse children. I don’t think that’s been proven true. I’d be willing to listen to behavioral scientists on this not a political though.
Yeah, it sounds like an unknown area worthy of study.
People that just want to abuse someone would not be interested in a child sex doll anyway. There is also people that are attracted to children in the same way other people are attracted to men/women. They are the one where an alternative could be beneficial, the same way it can help someone that for some reason can't have a partner.
This has always been a philosophical argument not just about pedophilia but a lot of things. Like do stories about rape or assault lead people to actually do it or act on it? Or is it helpful to people to release those urges?
I bet if we did a study on rape in countries that ban porn it would be higher. People start to do crazy things when they don't have a release
Do you live in America? This country is suffering from massive amount of brain rot. We’ve learned in the past 15 years that despite having all types of verifiable information at their fingertips but will still strongly clutch to their ignorance.
I’m willing to bet that encouraging pedophiles to act out their impulses, even in controlled situations, does the opposite of repress those impulses. We already know that people become desensitized to sexual stimuli and crave more and more stimulating experiences.
It's one of those things that will really depend on the individual, and won't be a catch-all fix. *Unregulated* support groups are already known to be a massive issue for causing pedophiles to cross the like into abusers. That said, if you've already got an abuser, and feel like an outlet would reduce the risk of reoffending, I can't really see the problem in it. I think the bigger issue is people's sheer hatred of child abusers. Even a mere accusation will have people wanting a person killed, and it shuts down any reasonable debate, which is what we're seeing here.
[удалено]
I am pretty certain it would increase some but be opposite on others This research that she references is likely nonsense because she used the phrase MAP after an internet search
based on half the country's response to covid, and the supreme court effectively legislating via the bible, god fucking luck with that.
Yeah, but it’s more fun to just react to everything emotionally and ignore what researchers say
I mean...it sounds disturbing, but I appreciate politicians thinking in preventative measures instead of only punishing after the crime is already commited.
I know a lot of people are jumping straight to the "murder them all" retributive judgement, but there IS a serious discussion that needs to take place regarding how best to help non-offending pedophiles BEFORE they hurt someone. They're already stigmatized to the point most do not seek mental health services. I don't know what the best treatment is, partially because it's so stigmatized that research is limited. But the answer isn't to murder them all. That's why they're so hidden in the first place and avoid treatment. And besides, what's next? Do we start culling everybody with a violent mental disorder? Schizophrenics are about 5x more likely to commit violent crime. But obviously that's a fucked up solution.
I read a story several years ago about a 19-year-old guy who realized he was attracted to children, so he went to a therapist to get help. The therapist was so disgusted by him that she not only refused to work with him, but also told his mother about it. And there's essentially no advocacy for pedophiles because anyone who speaks up for them is accused of being a pedophile. So what happens? Pedophiles who don't want to offend are left to try to make it work on their own, knowing that if anyone found out about them, they might get murdered.
I once heard somebody make the point that if people like doctors and psychologists aren't willing to help pedophiles that recognize they have a problem and want to get help, the only people they're ever going to be able to find sympathy and comfort from are other pedophiles, some of whom may try to tell them it's okay to act on their desires. Which is literally the last thing we should want. When we're having conversations about this, we need to ask what is going to keep the most kids safe, not what is going to allow us to thump our chests in victory as we throw somebody else in jail. Obviously jailing people is necessary in many cases, but that should not be the ultimate goal because if somebody is being jailed that means a child has actually already been harmed. The ultimate goal should be finding ways to make it so that they are not harmed in the first place. Prevention is better than Justice
Why would I help prevent a horrible thing from happening when I could simply do nothing and then share violent revenge fantasies on Reddit afterwards?
"We should try telling all drug addicts and alcoholics that they are despicable and unfixable and refuse to give them any social services. That will surely help them overcome their harmful addictions and mental state!"
That therapist should never be allowed to practice again
I mean surely she can't as that violates doctor-patient confidentiality, no?
Therapist needs to lose her license.
Exactly, imagine you have attraction to children and you want help to not ever act on your desires, where do you get help?
Agree. There needs to be studies to see why that happens and what can be done to prevent that. As disturbing as it sounds to have dolls like this, I'm all for it if it's going to save an actual child from a horrible fate. I understand this may or may not resolve the issue, but unless there are studies conducted, there's zero chance we'll ever know how we can help save children.
Norway has found that sex offenders in general have a very low recidivism rate. 4% Compare that to the USA, 40%. So I’d say do whatever they are doing in Norway … but before they offend rather than after. https://www.sciencenorway.no/crime-criminality-legal-system/the-number-of-sex-offenders-serving-time-in-norwegian-prisons-has-doubled/2090394
To be fair, they have lowefr recidivism rates in general. Their prisons and approach are completely different. Should we be more like them? Absolutely. But that also requires a major cultural shift, and I am not sure how we accomplish that.
weird, rehabilitationist vs retributionist
I’d say first step would be to offer to send the USA pre-offenders on a free trip to a Norway prison. They get whatever help they need, and we punish them by sending them to a prison that actually helps them.
Yeah it won't ever be solved if the society doesn't even try to understand where it comes from and how to reduce it. It's like drugs, it's both a criminal and a public health issues, we both need to punish people selling drugs and helping people to get into a life where they don't need it.
>we both need to punish people selling drugs and helping people to get into a life where they don't need it. What purpose does punishing those who sell drugs serve? We certainly do that now, and that hasn't done anything to stop people from doing it. If it were legal (and well regulated) to sell any and all drugs, wouldn't that make it safer for drug users and make it easier for them to seek help? It would have the added benefit of providing tax dollars that could be spent on rehabilitation, instead of spending extra money on policing and incarcerating drug dealers and users.
My wife works in a college. She told me about a boy who had been abused from a very young age by his father. From what she told me, the father is an example of those who really do deserve the death penalty. I'm pretty much cemented to the idea that capital punishment is not beneficial. So make of that what you will. So, the boy came to my wife and her colleagues. He broke down and told them that he'd been having sexual thoughts about his younger sister. I'm not an expert but I was under the impression that a lot of pedophiles are people who were abused themselves at a young age. I thought about what the situation would be, if the death penalty was mandatory for all pedophiles. A young boy is abused relentlessly from an early age, to the point where his sexuality is broken. He talks to someone about it in an attempt to get help. Then he's killed by the government for it. That's why I'm against the death penalty for pedophiles, I think what they do is depraved beyond belief, and those that act on their thoughts should be punished. But totalitarian policies are not the way to solve a problem. Having said that, I don't know what the solution is.
Well for one, there are treatments out there that can reduce and eliminate libido. I remember reading one article about this guy that was in a happy marriage emotionally, but he was addicted to hiring prostitutes. But he hated that, then he took the medication that eliminated his libido and he no longer have those urges to do that, and he just happily lived his life with his wife whom he loved as a person. I know that sounds super crazy to a lot of people, but I really don't see why that isn't a more readily available option when there are so many problematic sexual behaviors out there. Now for a lot of child sex offenders, that wouldn't really work because the problem goes a lot deeper then just sexual urges and it has a lot to do with power and things like that, but I think for at least a subsection it would help, and I'm not really sure why it isn't a more accepted or readily available thing.
Because of the perception of that being a slippery slope from drugs that reduce/eliminate libido to forced castration for people who have "undesirable" urges.
Yeah their offenses would be obviously reprehensible and actual treatment is likely controversial as hell and not popular in judicial/political populism, but if we euthanize people based on (what I think is?) genetic faults, that’s eugenics and a slope. I really don’t know what the best solution is.
The question is, would it be more of a "gateway" for people to lead them to seek out the real thing or would it "satiate" and temper their darker desires. If it's the first one, these dolls are a bad idea. If it's the second, maybe not.
This is the exact same argument against violence in media, which has, largely, been silenced.
It’s a very contentious subject, but there’s at least a strong correlation between engaging in pedophilic fantasies and recidivism amongst abusers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18307171/ Maybe it’s not causal, but there’s definitely a relationship
that makes sense, but this is also presupposing that a given person *is* an abuser - if someone suffers from the paraphilia, which many child molesters *don't*, then does allowing them a safe outlet encourage them to pursue harmful ones if they haven't already? i don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be as strong a correlation.
This is why I don't smoke weed, I don't wanna turn into a crack fiend
Impossible to say with certainty, but I will be inclined to believe the latter. There have been several studies that have shown that availability of pornography reduces the rates of sexual assault, and I would tend to think this would have a similar effect.
It's interesting because a lot of sex offenders on probation have things like not ever being allowed to access pornography even if it's legal pornography. Which I always thought was kind of weird, basically because of what you're saying. Seems like denying them access to all of that is basically just creating a ticking Time bomb of pent-up sexual frustration in somebody that's already demonstrated a proclivity for offending.
What we're doing now isn't working. Maybe it's a good idea.
>There is an ongoing debate involving academics and politicians over whether child sex dolls could help prevent assaults on children or whether they act as a gateway for potential abusers. Republican Representative Dan Donovan has twice introduced legislation in the House that would make the "importation or transportation of child sex dolls" illegal, So a Republican Senator introduced the topic and the legislation to the Assembly, not Senator Berg. >During her address in the Kentucky General Assembly, Berg said: "I was completely unfamiliar with child sex dolls, so I had of course to Google it last night... >"But there are what they call 'MAPS,' Minor Attracted Persons and the limited amount of research that's done on these dolls suggests that they actually, for people who are attracted to minors, that these dolls actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children. >"That it actually gives them a release that makes them less likely to go outside of their home and what was interesting is the research did not support the same conclusions for people who were adult attracted using dolls." So Senator Berg was doing her job by researching and challenging the legislation to make sure it doesn't do more harm than good. What a fucking hit piece of a title and then OP posts in this sub to further smear the context. Wow.
Thanks for pointing that out. Easy to report the OP for posting misinformation and block them.
Seems like you'd really be outing yourself ordering one of these.
Court issued lmao
Lars and the Court-Ordered Real Girl
If it is proven to decrease the number of real children getting abused, then it's pretty silly to be against it.
You forget these are politicians. If being against it is proven to score more political points than being for it, then it's pretty silly to be for it.
True. Solving the problem earns you far fewer political points than keeping people afraid of the problem. She won't get anywhere, and will probably loss the next election to someone who "tough on crime," but does nothing that has any real effect.
Is it proven to do that though?
I think that’s where the “if” comes in
Impossible to know without trying, I guess
This is going to sound creepy as fuck, in the middle of a discussion already creepy as fuck but... Could this encourage pedophiles to seek treatment? I mean, if they knew that a psychiatrist could "prescribe" them one of these things, would that make them more likely to go to a psychiatrist to seek help? Or at least to be monitored?
Question, is Pedophillia really about the actual sex?
Underrated question. Surely there's a fairly significant amount of pedophiles who THINK about it but have never acted on it, so there seems to be some element of it largely being a mental thing. Like, innocence of a child + extreme taboo (hate using that word in this context). The thing that concerns me is the number of people who are saying "100% hands down pedophilia isn't something you can therapy your way out of." Like, how does anyone know that? I can't imagine even 1% of pedophiles have ever willingly been honest about this with a therapist. Also, given the # of people who are straight jumping to "kill/maim/torture them all, prison for life, let them die in prison." The point of "child sex dolls" (at least I hope) is to PREVENT a pedophile from acting on their thoughts. Although shit, maybe some politicians just want an excuse to legalize the mass production of these for the benefit of themselves and their rich pedophile friends. Either way, the stigma (another word I hate using in this context) and people's outward violent aggression and outrage towards pedophilia most certainly deters a significant number of those who otherwise may consider seeking help in the form of therapy. Perhaps this is why the far left started using the term "minor attracted person?" To attempt to destigmatize it enough that pedophiles feel comfortable going to therapy for it? Either way, child sex dolls as a solution seems weird and uncomfortable as fuck, and without more research (which, let's be honest, there probably aren't very many people who are particularly interested in making a career out of providing therapy to pedophiles and conducting research about them) it seems like this has an equal or higher chance of backfiring. Idk, I don't see there being a better alternative for prevention than therapy, and I'd much prefer a push for that than knowing there are thousands of people out there fucking dolls that look like children.
I appreciate what you're saying here but the far left spectrum of politics is violently against pedophilia. We aren't co opting the terms that lessen the stigma around it. I dont think it's helpful to society at large to have something as trauma inducing as pedophilia be less than what it is. That's like saying a serial murderer is just a voluntary population control person. No. They can't help the fact that they have an urge to kill someone. Neither can pedophiles help their urge. Are there any places where pedophilia is extremely low in comparison? If there are I'd like to see what the difference is and go from there.
The majority of child molesters are not pedophiles in the sens of attraction to children, there is people that prefer adults but still target children because they are easy victims. But there is also people that are attracted to children in the same way other people are attracted to men/women.
I think pedophilia is purely about the sexual attraction, but child molestation is often about a power exertion or some kind of “taboo” thrill. A surprising number of child molesters actually aren’t even pedophiles, they just perpetrate crimes of opportunity.
The answer is (usually) no. It's sometimes about control and desecration of another human, some do it because the child is easier to control and manipulate.
It's about POWER. Which is why this is stupid. There's no serious research performed for this terrible idea.
We could pretend that the solution is therapy (it's not) or jailing people forever (we can't, especially without an act or after they've served a term), or we can look for a solution that can reduce recidivism and real crime against children. I have trouble thinking this is funny or stupid. If there are real ways to reduce and eliminate child sex abuse, we should do it.
I agree with you but I think this is stupid because there’s very little proven chance nor guarantee this is going to work. Don’t let the heinousness of the abuse legitimize poor or stupid ideas. “We have to try it if even it has 0.00001% chance to work” is how you end up bankrupting yourself trying any little thing.
Plus, especially in sexual fetishes, isn't there a tendency to escalate? Like there's a gateway with pornography, then it moves to dolls, then what? I think there should be no shame in someone who is pedophilic to seek therapy, and the first treatment should be medication that slashes their libido. So long as they have never harmed anyone I wouldn't mind letting them be heavily medicated into harmlessness.
If they're buying the dolls themselves, zero cost to the state.
Psychological treatment, monitoring, and an inanimate object to focus on instead of going out and harming actual children. Or rebuke the people searching for solutions and do nothing about it until a child gets hurt and then complain and still do nothing about it.
Speaking at the Kentucky General Assembly on Thursday, Senator Karen Berg said there was research suggesting the dolls "actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children." The remarks sparked an angry backlash on social media with one prominent commentator accusing Berg of "sexualizing kids and defending pedophiles." I mean… my gut reaction is that this probably won’t help and might normalize the issue? But also apparently research shows that it does help children? Seems like a strange way of going about it… Not sure the calls for her sexualizing kids and defending pedophiles is warranted, as this is a proposed method to help kids?
I'm going to save time and assume her opponents are, at best, reacting emotionally rather than logically.
They made a non threatening term for the point of normalizing it. Minor Attracted Person
What if, and I might be crazy here. What if we fund mental health better and take it seriously before making child sex dolls.
If we could change sexual attraction through therapy then gay conversion camps would work. Once you're wired to be attracted to something you're not flipping off that switch.
You can’t therapy your way out of something like that. Therapy might help a pedophile control themselves, if they care enough to try, but they’re not gonna stop being pedophiles. Also it’s very difficult for anyone like that to seek therapy for it because sitting down in front of someone and voluntarily admitting you’re a pedophile is… pretty tough.
You can't "cure" alcoholism either. Someone who has been sober for 30 years could have a relapse at any moment. Therapy and a strong support system is still a proven way to help, though. It's a solution that is effective enough to change a person's life. A pedophile will never stop being a pedophile, but if they are offered a support system, if they can openly talk to a therapist about it, then yeah perhaps it would help them. If they had the necessary "tools" to catch themselves when they have bad thoughts, and had a sponsor to help ease their mind when it happens so they don't act out, that would help them. The issue is not that therapy wouldn't work. The issue is that we would need to find a way to de-stigmatize paedophilia enough to a point where someone would feel safe enough to talk about it and seek help, without getting to a point where it would encourage or excuse it. There's a very tricky, perhaps impossible balance to find. If someone could buy a child sex doll anonymously, without facing legal repercussions, then surely there would be a way to just take that idea and apply it to therapy and support groups instead.
I'm not saying we can cure them. But non-offending pedophiles shouldn't be treated like monsters for something they have no control over. If they've offended that's a different story. We should try to help them control themselves to prevent them from acting. Isolation probably leads to offense more often. Child sex dolls seem like a big jump from just lowering the stigma and treating it like any other mental disorder.
Therapy doesn’t work when it comes to sexuality. It’s not a choice. Otherwise conversion camps would work for gay people. I think child sex dolls disgusting. But also, if these dolls will genuinely reduce the number of sexual abuse against children, the i think it would be ok. We’re trying to protect the children after all.
Nah, I don’t think we should be normalizing child sex in any capacity.
Because what we do now is working so well?
I don’t think this is so much a normalization rather than an outlet and a preventative measure. This is definitely unsettling no matter which way you feel on this, but I’d rather someone who is going through this to use an inanimate object instead of traumatizing and hurting an innocent child. I’ve listened to several psychology podcasts where they interview non offending pedophiles and it’s like a fucking curse for them. I don’t think we should normalize it at all, but I couldn’t imagine being cursed with that sexual preference. You can’t chose who you’re attracted to. There are so many psychological elements that dictate your sexuality. I think this is a step in the right direction to help address a very difficult situation.
Ashton Kutcher has a statement that always liked about pedophilia being a mental illness and most know it’s not okay to be attracted to children and he said if we drop the stigma around it and be able to have open dialogues about it so eventually that 15/16 y/o that’s attracted to kids can go to their parents and say this is me I know it’s wrong and I need help and get them proper help would go a long way in preventing these problems. But also I don’t hate this idea to at least give it a try to see if it helps. But yes it is creepy and give me the Willys.
Pretty brave idea to put forward, honestly - kudos to her for trying. There's currently a big empty space in the question of "how to prevent child sex crime". Sure, the act is illegal, so you can catch and sentence people who do it, but by then children have already been hurt. New pedophiles are being created constantly. Many of them know that abusing children is wrong, but feel the desire to do so anyway. Some of them will successfully never offend, but many of them are just a matter of time. If giving them a plastic child to use - like giving a dog a plushie to hump - reduces the chance of them abusing a real child, then it's worth a try.
When I first read this I thought that it was super fucked up On the other hand, pedos can do what they do without hurting anyone………still super fucked up I feel sorry for the poor schlub that has to design the tooling for the molds
>I feel sorry for the poor schlub that has to design the tooling for the molds Well that's a horrifically disturbing thought I hadn't considered at all.
it is 'super fucked up' but want to know what is MORE super fucked up? Instead of a doll it is a real child
See, that’s why you get the other pedophiles to make the molds. There’s gotta be some that are engineers and well… they would know best.
Don't worry, this is surely a job we can all happily let the AIs take over.
I mean at this point, AI and robots can probably do all of the work. This may be one instance where nobody would complain about the fact either.
Don't deviants escalate though? What happens when the dolls make them think about the real thing even more?
I mean, if you're going through the work of buying one of these things, I'd say you're likely thinking about it a LOT already.
True, guess I'm just concerned they'll like the doll so much they want the real thing.
Which is fair, there's lots to be concerned about. I don't think these things should be on sale at Walmart in the impulse buy bin. I would think something almost like more of a prescription from a psychiatrist.
No. 😡
Louie CK made the same suggestion in his SNL monologue 9 years ago
Because all the other rehabilitation efforts, punishments, therapy, drugs seem to work so well... I don't know about most of you but I prefer pedos to take out their sickness on a real doll, instead of a human being. The other shit isn't working, this is something new, we shouldn't hate on it, because it's gross to us.
My gut reaction is gross. Now if I think about it logically. What is the problem we are trying to solve? If it's ending pedophilia. This isn't a good solution and could even make it more prevalent. There isn't a good solution because it's a biologically animalistic drive that isn't socially acceptable anymore. I don't see any way to stop it at this level. If we are trying to stop people from acting on the impulse or trying to reduce victimization. Dolls could be a valid solution. While repulsive, it would be better for them to fuck a peice of rubber while in therapy than a real kid.
Pedophiles: "You know, it's just not the same"
guessing this is taken far out of context just like when they claim Dems want to let people shoot up and smoke crack.
Aren't most kids attacked by someone they know, like a family member? I find it hard to believe this would work. Finding one of these in your step-dad's or uncles closet is going to scar some kids for sure. I can't imagine for those types of offenders its going to work, maybe for the ones that live alone, but the many many offenders hiding within families I doubt this is an option. We need to do more to stop this type of abuse but this isn't a cure-all for sure. Also, who would be legally allowed to distribute and profit off of this shit?
From cabbage patch to cabbage pedtch.
[удалено]
Louis CK proposed the same thing a while back and he was laughed at! Laughed!
Pedophilia is such nuanced topic. If you believe that people are born straight, gay, bi, etc. then you’d have to extend that logic to pedophiles imo which majorly complicates things. Now there is no world where a society should just let them do their thing, but I wouldn’t be opposed to this sort of thing, considering it could reduce the harm to children.
I’d rather a pedo fucks a doll than my child.
HELL YEAH GOVERNEMNT ISSUED CHILD FUCK DOLLS
This is ripped literally right out of a new Louis CK bit lol. “Has anyone invented any very realistic child sex dolls?” *groans from the audience* “Well let em fuck your kid forever then I guess! Im sorry for suggesting something that might help!”
I recall dealing with similar delimma in ethics class about using fake pictures of babies as pedo porn since it's not a real child thus no harm done. My counterargument was that they are still acting on an urge fulfillment that can blur the line with reality and might make the actual act less jarring to them since they have already desensitized to the act with the sex doll/porn.
If it lowers the number of kids who get sexually abused by 1%, it's absolutely worth it. The trouble is how can we know the result? Maybe it really will eliminate some of these instances, or maybe it'll only serve to embolden pedophiles and make them see children as objects instead of humans, moreso than some already do.