Congress moves to ban child sex robots favored by pedophiles

[Themius]

Theimus buzz off with your pedophilia apologist behavior in yet another thread, just because it is 100% apparent what you spend your free time doing you don't need to spread that sickness to every thread on the topic through your endless defense of pedophiles. I am no longer interested in discussing this topic with you specifically.

You know... you are absolutely out of line.

Spread my sickness that's all about trying to reduce harm , trying to make sure there are no more people like me, that's my fucking sickness? Trying to explain how the relationship between abuse stats and CP is inverse so more children get protected and you have less people who are like me, people who need to grow up trying to deal with their abuse and make sense of it all and feeling utterly disgusting and confused and lost for years because of being victimized and seeing these studies and looking at them seeing the relationship and saying... maybe there would be less people like me if possession wasn't illegal... maybe there would be less suicides and wanting to kill yourself for years and fighting through feeling worthless.

But no no no no no no no i'm just a fucking sicko apparently that's all I am.

Fucking nonsense, fucking non-objective, not pragmatic, emotional response and blind to anything but your own views nonsense, you don't care about child abuse, you care about optics, that's all.

[Celista]

You know... you are absolutely out of line.

Spread my sickness that's all about trying to reduce harm , trying to make sure there are no more people like me, that's my fucking sickness? Trying to explain how the relationship between abuse stats and CP is inverse so more children get protected and you have less people who are like me, people who need to grow up trying to deal with their abuse and make sense of it all and feeling utterly disgusting and confused and lost for years because of being victimized and seeing these studies and looking at them seeing the relationship and saying... maybe there would be less people like me if possession wasn't illegal... maybe there would be less suicides and wanting to kill yourself for years and fighting through feeling worthless.

But no no no no no no no i'm just a fucking sicko apparently that's all I am.

Fucking nonsense, fucking non-objective, not pragmatic, emotional response and blind to anything but your own views nonsense, you don't care about child abuse, you care about optics, that's all.

I hope you get the help you need. I don't have any empathy here because I have seen how pedophiles use cognitive dissonance to justify their behaviors far too often. The ones who truly do not want to molest are few and far between.

[Shadowferal]

This is what I mean, you want to attack me? So you're literally not making threats against me based on my idea that data shows fewer child abuse cases when CP possession is decriminalized?

I'm sure your pedophile-friendly data is credible to you...
But most people would love to know who would think this is ok. After all, "Megan's Law" still exists for a reason.

[Themius]

I'm sure your pedophile-friendly data is credible to you...
But most people would love to know who would think this is ok. After all, "Megan's Law" still exists for a reason.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21116701

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

That is all I care about.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you get the help you need. I don't have any empathy here because I have seen how pedophiles use cognitive dissonance to justify their behaviors far too often. The ones who truly do not want to molest are few and far between.

This isn't cognitive dissonance, none of my arguments have been that my arguments have done nothing but point to fucking relationships between cp and child abuse stats, and you are the one who decided to literally attack me and call me a sicko. My only argument has been if it protects children... it shows that it does... i care about having less fucking child victims, but then you fucking attack me for that instead and you call me a pedo for that instead. Fucking ridiculous.

You didn't even try to fucking understand the point at all, you didn't even try to think differently or critically or from another standpoint at all.

and this is why nothing will change, this is why pedos won't get help this is why they won't have outlets and this is why child abuse rates will go up. But who cares, optics.

[Hitei]

It should be pretty clear why I quoted you, I answered your question. What do you think the pedophile is thinking about while having sex with a doll? Obviously we can't police thoughts but why aren't pedophiles OK with simply using mental imagery if they truly have a "sexual orientation" as they like to claim? Because they feel a compelling need to move on to things that more closely resemble what they fetishize. Otherwise they wouldn't need the doll in the first place. In fact therapists with pedophiles have to be careful with how they discuss the acts with their clients because in group therapy especially, they will start to feed off of one another when they talk about what they want to do to children.

You did not answer my question.

You said someone couldn't provide any peer-reviewed evidence that things like these dolls prevent child molestation. I asked if you had any to prove that they encourage it. It is a very easy "Yes." or "No." question. The logic you are using is identical to what people tried to use 10-20 years ago to make violent video games illegal:

What do you think the psychopath is thinking about while shooting other players in a video game? Obviously we can't police thoughts but why aren't these people OK with simply using mental techniques if they truly want to "relieve stress" as they like to claim? Because they feel a compelling need to move on to things that more closely resemble what they fetishize. Otherwise they wouldn't need the violent games in the first place. In fact therapists with these psychopaths have to be careful with how they discuss the acts with their clients because in group therapy especially, they will start to feed off of one another when they talk about how they want to kill other players.

You say they have a compulsion to move on to the real thing or they wouldn't need the doll, but that's just not logically sound--they are using the doll. If their compulsion is to abuse real children, why are they abusing the dolls then? The very fact that the doll is there and is the thing being abused fundamentally says that they see there is a problem with abusing real children (whether that's a legal or moral problem to them) and are instead abusing something else that doesn't have that legal or moral problem, whichever it is to them.

No normal person thinks "Wow, I don't have any interest in molesting kids, but I wonder what these dolls are like" buys one and then decides "wow, I like this, I better go molest kids". The person is already attracted to kids and thinks "Wow, if I molest kids I will get arrested." or "Molesting kids is awful, I don't want to hurt other people" and then buys the doll to abuse instead.

So,

Do you have peer-reviewed evidence counter to this logic to suggest that these dolls/robots encourage molestation?
Or do you not have peer-reviewd evidence counter to this logic to suggest that these dolls/robots encourage moelstation?

Very simple, yes or no.

[Celista]

You did not answer my question.

You said someone couldn't provide any peer-reviewed evidence that things like these dolls prevent child molestation. I asked if you had any to prove that they encourage it. It is a very easy "Yes." or "No." question. The logic you are using is identical to what people tried to use 10-20 years ago to make violent video games illegal:



You say they have a compulsion to move on to the real thing or they wouldn't need the doll, but that's just not logically sound--they are using the doll. If their compulsion is to abuse real children, why are they abusing the dolls then? The very fact that the doll is there and is the thing being abused fundamentally says that they see there is a problem with abusing real children (whether that's a legal or moral problem to them) and are instead abusing something else that doesn't have that legal or moral problem, whichever it is to them.

No normal person thinks "Wow, I don't have any interest in molesting kids, but I wonder what these dolls are like" buys one and then decides "wow, I like this, I better go molest kids". The person is already attracted to kids and thinks "Wow, if I molest kids I will get arrested." or "Molesting kids is awful, I don't want to hurt other people" and then buys the doll to abuse instead.

So,

Do you have peer-reviewed evidence counter to this logic to suggest that these dolls/robots encourage molestation?
Or do you not have peer-reviewd evidence counter to this logic to suggest that these dolls/robots encourage moelstation?

Very simple, yes or no.

I don't have time to link everything but here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307171

Study of 341 child molesters in Canada, researchers studied pornography use (including toys like sex dolls) and recidivism rates.

From the abstract:

Results for both frequency and type of pornography use were generally consistent with our predictions. Most importantly, after controlling for general and specific risk factors for sexual aggression, pornography added significantly to the prediction of recidivism. Statistical interactions indicated that frequency of pornography use was primarily a risk factor for higher‐risk offenders, when compared with lower‐risk offenders, and that content of pornography (i.e., pornography containing deviant content) was a risk factor for all groups.

I can access the whole article but if you can't you might be able to through a work or academic search engine.

I'll be back later if you want more, because I can shut your ass down all day.

[Themius]

I don't have time to link everything but here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307171

Study of 341 child molesters in Canada, researchers studied pornography use (including toys like sex dolls) and recidivism rates.

From the abstract:



I can access the whole article but if you can't you might be able to through a work or academic search engine.

I'll be back later if you want more, because I can shut your ass down all day.

You are literally looking at people who have already offended while the study I linked focuses on the overall numbers of child abuse cases, the study I linked points to people potentially using it as a way to not become criminals to begin with.

Don't you think a study that looks at overall stats of child abuse over several countries and their laws paints a more clear picture than a study following 341 already convicted child molesters? Your study is tainted compared to this one off the bat.

[Celista]

You are literally looking at people who have already offended while the study I linked focuses on the overall numbers of child abuse cases, the study I linked points to people potentially using it as a way to not become criminals to begin with.

Don't you think a study that looks at overall stats of child abuse over several countries and their laws paints a more clear picture than a study following 341 already convicted child molesters? Your study is tainted compared to this one off the bat.

No I do not when studies rely on self-reporting measures or the study does not account for other variables that impact statistics (correlation vs causation, etc) and that article in particular cited by you had to publish an erratum after publication due to faulty data.

[Drusin]

Because being attracted to children is different than someone liking to watch kinky porn.

I wouldn't call it kinky lol.

[Hitei]

I don't have time to link everything but here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307171

Study of 341 child molesters in Canada, researchers studied pornography use (including toys like sex dolls) and recidivism rates.

From the abstract:



I can access the whole article but if you can't you might be able to through a work or academic search engine.

I'll be back later if you want more, because I can shut your ass down all day.

That is a lot of confidence for someone who can't even manage to address the argument once, let alone shut it down.

"Static 99 risk level made a significant contribution to the prediction of sexual recidivism. Frequency of pornography use was added in Block 2 and did not make a significant contribution to the prediction of sexual recidivism,after controlling for Static 99 risk level (w2change 5 1.85, df 5 1, P 5 .174). The interaction between Static 99 and pornography use was also not significant"

"Of note, the main effects and interactions between frequency of pornography use and sexual recidivism were not significant. This was somewhat surprising given research suggesting that pornography use is associated with sexual coercion"

And again, you still have not answered my question. "The amount of porn watched can predict whether a criminal will be violent again, but has no real relation to if they will be sexually aggressive" is not "child-like dolls or robots increase the likelihood of pedophiles molesting kids." Do you have a study for the subject of the thread, or do you not? Please do not bother to reply if you cannot answer the question this time. As funny as it is watching you literally hand me research that says you are wrong, I am fairly bored of your extremely ineffective dodging of the issue at hand.

[Themius]

No I do not when studies rely on self-reporting measures or the study does not account for other variables that impact statistics (correlation vs causation, etc) and that article in particular cited by you had to publish an erratum after publication due to faulty data.

The error related to how they calculated adult sex crimes, they used the child abuse numbers. So it doesn't change the child abuse issue.

[Celista]

That is a lot of confidence for someone who can't even manage to address the argument once, let alone shut it down.

"Static 99 risk level made a significant contribution to the prediction of sexual recidivism. Frequency of pornography use was added in Block 2 and did not make a significant contribution to the prediction of sexual recidivism,after controlling for Static 99 risk level (w2change 5 1.85, df 5 1, P 5 .174). The interaction between Static 99 and pornography use was also not significant"

"Of note, the main effects and interactions between frequency of pornography use and sexual recidivism were not significant. This was somewhat surprising given research suggesting that pornography use is associated with sexual coercion"

And again, you still have not answered my question. "The amount of porn watched can predict whether a criminal will be violent again, but has no real relation to if they will be sexually aggressive" is not "child-like dolls or robots increase the likelihood of pedophiles molesting kids." Do you have a study for the subject of the thread, or do you not. Please do not bother to reply if you cannot answer the question this time, as funny as it is watching you literally had me research that says you are wrong, I am fairly bored of your extremely ineffective dodging of the issue at hand.

I have to log off, but I already answered your question several times and now you are cherry-picking when the findings of the article are clear. I'm going to have to assume at this point that you are not able to cognitively process things like sentences because I'm tired of repeating myself and proving you wrong.

In spite of these limitations, this current research supported and extended the results reportedby other studies with noncriminal sexual aggressors
indicating that pornography exposure was a significant predictor of aggression when examined in confluence with other risk factors. Specifically,
this study highlighted the importance of considering various interactive factors that can act synergistically in determining the probability for a particular
behavioral outcome. The important implications of the cumulative-conditional-probability conceptualization, as described in research investigating the HMC [Malamuth et al., 2000], is not limited to pornography use but has important implications for examining the complex relationships between distal and proximal factors as predictors of sexual aggression.

Last paragraph.

[Hitei]

No, Hitei. I do not have any peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that child-like dolls or robots contribute to the molestation of real children.

Thanks, that was all I was curious about.

"C-cherrypicking!!!"

You mean looking at the part of the study relevant to child abuse and porn? "How much porn is watched can predict if a criminal will commit more crimes, except it does not seem to have any impact on sexual crimes" should tell you whether watching porn makes it more likely for someone to sexually abuse children.

We're done here. Four tries and you literally can't swallow your pride enough to admit you don't have any research for the topic at hand. Don't worry, I did it for you, you can go now.

[Knaar]

I mean, the number one country with the most sex doll is Japan, yet they have one of the lowest sex crime numbers..... They most be doing something right, right?
(for the record, for rapes, in USA it's at 27%, in Japan it's at 1% (per 100 000 citizens))

[Ghier]

These need to be next. I bought one of these to take my anger out on, and it was great for awhile. Eventually, though, it just wasn't enough. I wanted the real thing. Before I knew it, I was chasing down real armless men to beat them senseless. Who knows how many innocent armless men have suffered because of these things.

[Celista]

Thanks, that was all I was curious about.

"C-cherrypicking!!!"

You mean looking at the part of the study relevant to child abuse and porn? "How much porn is watched can predict if a criminal will commit more crimes, except it does not seem to have any impact on sexual crimes" should tell you whether watching porn makes it more likely for someone to sexually abuse children.

We're done here. Four tries and you literally can't swallow your pride enough to admit you don't have any research for the topic at hand. Don't worry, I did it for you, you can go now.

You know that article THAT YOU JUST SUPPOSEDLY READ linked several other studies with similar findings, correct? Are you on some sort of drugs right now or are hoping that you can look good in an internet forum because you think no one will bother to check out what you typed?

[Hitei]

You know that article THAT YOU JUST SUPPOSEDLY READ linked several other studies with similar findings, correct? Are you on some sort of drugs right now or are hoping that you can look good in an internet forum because you think no one will bother to check out what you typed?

I said you could go. We've already covered that you can't produce anything about what this thread is about

[Celista]

I said you could go. We've already covered that you can't produce anything about what this thread is about

Except that I just did, and you seem butthurt about it. But if you want more articles let me know, I'll be back online later and have lots of time to prove you wrong.

[Hitei]

Except that I just did, and you seem butthurt about it. But if you want more articles let me know, I'll be back online later and have lots of time to prove you wrong.

I'd honestly love even one article about child sex robots. But your track record is already 0-6 for finding one.

[xskarma]

This was always going to be a tense topic, but I think the way it's going is not healthy for the forum. Closing this here.



CLOSED.