Congress moves to ban child sex robots favored by pedophiles

[Mifuyne]

Yeah... Unless you're also a teen?

Why? If they look good to me they look good and there's nothing to do about it.
Mind you, I don't look at them in some weird manner or act upon any kind of sexual desire.

It's to bad you're not allowed to have a sexual reaction to a well-developed person that is 15 or 16.

I guess you'd be fine with thought-policing.

[Deleted]

Sexualizing children will taint your interactions with them. And unless you live in a world without kids it's going to impact people.

I don't interact with children. How are they harmed by my sexualization of them?

[Anardel]

you mean like the article in the op where "social scientists say the child sex dolls may reduce pedophilia but Goodlatte said there is no scientific literature to support that view.

“To the contrary, these dolls create a real risk of reinforcing pedophilic behavior and they desensitize the user causing him to engage in sicker and sicker behavior""

so people in a specialized field say it may actually do the opposite and reduce rape, while the politician with NO background in the field himself, and NO studies backing his view point up, says nope, it makes it worse, LALALALALLALA.

right. seems sound.

To be fair, social scientist say this dolls MAY reduce pedophilia, I guess it's an educated statement, they think it can, but maybe there isn't scientific studies on the matter yet, which is the point Mr. Goodlate is using in this law.

I'm agree with you in the sense of a politician ethic view VS a scientific point of view tho.

In my opinion, no sexual practice should be banned if it doesn't involve raping another human being. I mean, toys and dolls don't hurt anyone, and sexual fantasies like bondage, asphyxia etc, are also legal if it's accepted willingly between the sexual companions. Let people be happy with sex.

[Nerovar]

Sometimes when I see a super developed teen girl, I feel aroused.
Should I be worried?

but in all honesty, yes, pedophilia itself is not a problem, it's that some people take actions upon it.
You can hate certain races or things all you want, aslong as it doesn't effect them.
Is it shit that children get abused? yes, absolutely - but it's reality.
We don't have to sit still and do nothing - but banning everything that can help out these people more than it can trigger them, it should be a positive thing.

I don't think that it helps these people to indulge their unhealthy desires in the form of fantasy enactment. They need treatment not encouragement.

[Mifuyne]

Doesn't seem like it's healthy to be aroused simply by the sight of someone who could be considered attractive.
No you should be a decent enough person to police your own thoughts.

I guess you choose who you're attracted too and go beep boop i'm a robot.
Aslong as I don't take action upon the feeling, it's fine isn't it?

I don't think that it helps these people to indulge their unhealthy desires in the form of fantasy enactment. They need treatment not encouragement.

Treatment? What treatment?

[Netherius]

What in the 2018?

[Deleted]

If a teen identifies as a 30 yo, then its okay?

[Mifuyne]

Yeah? I kinda do have some control over my thoughts and actions.
The thing is there is acting on it in a sexual way and there is acting on it in a way to desexualize these people. In the former yeah it's good that you don't, but it's not "fine".

Yeah no, my eyes are there to see and I like to see attractive people.
Children are not attractive to me, but if they are well-developed and have all the signs of sexual maturity and look older than they are, I ain't going to just "oh no I better stop thinking like this".
Do note that I just glimpse at them and think "woah!" and just leave it at that, it's a second of thought.

[Deleted]

Just a reminder to all you sick fucks:

"Paraphilic disorders included in this manual are voyeuristic disorder (spying on others in private activities), exhibitionistic disorder (exposing the genitals), frotteuristic disorder (touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting individual), sexual masochism disorder (undergoing humiliation, bondage, or suffering), sexual sadism disorder (inflicting humiliation, bondage, or suffering), pedophilic disorder (sexual focus on children), fetishistic disorder (using nonliving objects or having a highly specific focus on nongenital body parts), and transvestic disorder (engaging in sexually arousing cross-dressing). These disorders have traditionally been selected for specific listing and assignment of explicit diagnostic criteria in DSM for two main reasons: they are relatively common, in relation to other paraphilic disorders, and some of them entail actions for their satisfaction that, because of their noxiousness or potential harm to others, are classed as criminal offenses."

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.

You bold the wrong parts. I changed it for you.

Also:
- It's listed in the same category and severity as things like BDSM (50 Shaded of Grey stuff) and transvestism (dressing as the opposite sex), which both are quite common and not really seen as an illness. The classifications in DSM are disorders, in the sense that they are different than the norm, which it is, I don't disagree. It's not an illness that can be cured or anything.
- Homosexuality was a disorder in the same category in DSM too, only to be removed in 1973. So it doesn't really mean much.

[Nerovar]

I guess you choose who you're attracted too and go beep boop i'm a robot.
Aslong as I don't take action upon the feeling, it's fine isn't it?


Treatment? What treatment?

I'm not a shrink so I'm no authority on the matter but I'm pretty sure there are ways you can treat these people (pretty sure you can't heal them though).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/c...ons/pedophilia
Found this for example.

[Mifuyne]

I'm not a shrink so I'm not an authority on the matter but I'm pretty sure there are ways you can treat these people (pretty sure you can't heal them though).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/c...ons/pedophilia
Found this for example.

Well, medication that lowers stuff but doesn't remove them complete is fine by me.
Whatever keeps their "selves" intact but does restrict them in some way that might cause harm.

Thing is, theres most likely way more pedophiles than we know off.
Most live normal lives and would never touch a child like that because they know it is frowned upon.
Should we recondition them all or hunt them down?

[Deleted]

Ah thank god you finally admitted it. You do interact with children, directly or indirectly. Unless you don't use the internet and never leave your room.

Yes I exist on the same planet as some children do if that's what your definition of interaction is.

[tyupia]

I don't think that it helps these people to indulge their unhealthy desires in the form of fantasy enactment. They need treatment not encouragement.

Envisage a world where your sexual preference, be it hetrosexual or homosexual or whatever, is illegal. Now imagine you have the choice of remaining celibate all your life or having sex with a robot simulcra. Which is more likely to keep you out of jail? That's the situation here.

This might well work as a means of protecting children. Yes, it is creepy and disgusting, I don't care if it saves children from being raped. The possibility at least needs to be studied scientifically before being arbitarily dismissed.

[Mifuyne]

Cool, you can see attractive people and not get aroused y'know.
Your other comment suggests it's a bit more than a "woah!" reaction.
Intrusive thoughts can be managed too.

It's not intrusive to me because I don't act upon it.

[Mifuyne]

Intrusive thoughts are normally not acted upon???? I'd be long dead if that were the case.

I wrote it down wrongly, my apologies.
English is pretty hard sometimes.

In the end, it doesn't really matter since you and I both think differently about the subject and neither of us will change stance.

[Mixxy]

A gay person does not rationalize their desire to be with other people fo the same sex by projecting their desires upon them unless they actually are mentally ill. Just because I like guys does not mean I rationalize my desire by kidnapping random guys and saying that in truth they really love me. Pedophiles routinely rationalize their desire to be with someone who cannot consent and will often show visible signs of pain during intercourse and will romanticize those relationships and even brain wash children. They also often trade the kids around.
There is no equivalence here.

This statement only works if you're going on the assumption that a majority of people attracted to children also act on that attraction. And, honestly, I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Most pedophiles are very keenly aware of the fact that if they ever DO act on that desire, it'll destroy both their own life and that of their victim.
Especially in the modern world, where anyone even suspected of it is figuratively crucified before the ravenous masses.

[Mifuyne]

This statement only works if you're going on the assumption that a majority of people attracted to children also act on that attraction. And, honestly, I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Most pedophiles are very keenly aware of the fact that if they ever DO act on that desire, it'll destroy both their own life and that of their victim.
Especially in the modern world, where anyone even suspected of it is figuratively crucified before the ravenous masses.

Only pedophiles with additional issues leash out, just like school shooters or any other kind of destructive behaviour.

[Mixxy]

I'd like to see some proof that this actually reduces victims of sexual abuse. Regardless having child sex robots is hardly a good thing either.

There's no proof that it does. And there's no proof that it doesn't either. Because no one actually wants to be the person who researches that. And NO ONE wants to be the person who potentially finds results that might actually support the use of child-like sex-dolls. Imagine the... uh... "opposition" a scientist would face if he tried to publish a study that connects these sex toys to lower abuse rates.

When it comes to child abuse, we as a society have decided we'd just rather clap our hands over our ears and yell LALALALALA while waiting for someone else to just make the problem go away.

[Mehrunes]

“Once an abuser tires of practicing on a doll, it’s a small step to move on to a child."
First, they are not abusers. They didn't abuse anyone. They are pedophiles. Second, they aren't practicing. Hetero- or homosexuals that use sexdolls aren't practicing either, they're having sex (or masturbating, depending on your definition). So the sentence should be "Once a pedophile has sex with a doll, it's a small step to move on to a child." No evidence of that though, so you can just as easily argue that it helps to keep them from using real children: "Once a pedophile has sex with a doll, they can (more) easily control their urges and will stay away from a child."

I prefer pedophiles to have sex with child dolls instead of with real children, so I'm against banning the dolls.

Pretty much this. The main argument is a slippery slope. Then there's the practice nonsense you brought up that I didn't think of. Then there's the name of the bill. How is sex with a robot, even one like these, "exploitative"? They aren't a true intelligence, they are a shittier Alexa in a silicon doll with holes. Kinda hard to exploit that shit. Also in the name is the "pedophilic robot acts" part. And while sure, chances are most people buying those dolls are indeed pedophiles. But the robot acts itself are not exactly pedophilic since pedophilia refers to actual humans.

Then near the end is the part "there is no scientific source for the idea that these dolls lower the risk of actual abuse" which is followed by “To the contrary, these dolls create a real risk of reinforcing pedophilic behavior and they desensitize the user causing him to engage in sicker and sicker behavior,”. While he offered no scientific source for the contrary view either, like an honest republican.

Yeah, the dolls may be creepy, but the CREEPER act does not meet basic legislative criteria and is based on fallacies and prejudice right now.

[Mifuyne]

snip

It is shown in this thread that the masses dislike it very much and portray them as some kind of monsters.
There are monsters out there, but not everyone is one.
Too bad we can't actually give them the support they deserve.

Since we're "apologists".

We just have to wait until we can alter things like sexuality into something else since the masses can't control their actual feelings.