Congress moves to ban child sex robots favored by pedophiles - Polidicks

It's not an "ew gross" situation. It's a situation that shows that an individual is showing a sexual attraction towards a fucking child, whether drawn or not. Just because they are both related to sex it does not mean at all that they are the same.

Monitoring usage without consent is a major breach of privacy, if they are aware, they'll feel vilified despite not committing a crime and may resent such institutions, instilling a desire to lash out, or cease compliance with any kind of therapy programs. If someone is addicted to heroin and voluntarily goes to rehab and perhaps takes up smoking to cope, one would be ill advised to decide to install an ankle monitor and prevent them from smoking. If a website tells severe addicts that smoking might help curb their desire to use heroin while they work through their addiction, that's not promoting cigarette addiction, it is allowing a more severe addiction to be replaced with a less severe one, and then once that's done successfully, one can focus on trading in their smoking for something non harmful at all, if possible. In the case of severe addictive personalities, complete independence is almost never possible. Treatment consists of getting to a point where there is the least harm. We can't cure pedophilia, we can only promote non harmful alternatives and therapy until a cure is found.

I feel like there's an argument to be made for a 'private' non-offender's registry. Not visible to the general public but queryable by institutions that work with children such as schools as summer camps so as to prevent hiring into positions where minors might be put in danger, and help prevent offenses in other ways. The way I see it, you wanna' fiddle yourself to awful fictional stuff? Fine, so be it, especially if it makes offense less likely. But if you wanna' do it legally, you go on the list. The ideal would be to encourage treatment-seeking by preventing ostracization while simultaneously mitigating risks. There are probably counter-arguments to this, and there's something to be said about the danger of normalization, but yeah.

Are you seriously comparing digital breasts to physical child shaped fuck toys

Of the millions of people that go to shadbase unironically, or look up "Loli" online, only a fraction or a fraction of a fraction every look up real versions, and of those, even smaller numbers act on them. It is unwise to try and monitor millions of people at 0 risk of acting on these urges, and only stretches resources away from actual severe cases and gettting treatment for those.

And none of that is even implied. The article states why, but ignores any specificity or exemplary data, and the proposed bill seems to do the same. But nowhere is there a sipulation on either side of the argument that normalization or looking the other way is preferential, especially to an individual with a history of acting out or with a record of offense. The senator's logic however has no basis in fact concerning trends or a long string of verifiable incidents, and given that this senator has argued long and loud that buying a gun doesn't make you a murder in training, his rapist in training thesis is dubious as fuck and hypocritical as hell. to whit: Gun Control and Second Amendment Rights | Congressman Dan Donova.. aka guns are just tools, and only criminals and mentally ill people misuse them hm.

I think the best thing to do would be to promote support, therapy, and openness. There's no shortage of condemnation. What there is a shortage of, however, is help and support. Implementing a system that is prejudiced will work against that, and I think it will do more harm than good. Strong condemnation online also makes dialogue difficult, which I also think is harmful, and can for example result in vulnerable people with these feelings congregating on websites infested with delusional pedophiles arguing that even acting it out is okay. You implied your reasoning for being against even drawn material is that it makes you think of real child abuse. But if you could get over that, you might be able to help promote an open and honest culture where pedophiles who don't want to cause harm won't be afraid of communicating with people like you - who has valuable insights into the reality of the consequences of acting out those desires. For this reason, I think a culture where fictive material is considered okay is better than a culture of immediate condemnation. In a sense, your idea of 'dismissing it as a good thing' and 'careful observation' can go hand in hand, since a dangerous pedophile is more likely to reveal their intentions if they feel free to speak openly, than if they're hidden from view.

If you tell someone "you can get help for your condition BUT if you do then you basically lose all your privacy" means that nobody will fucking seek help. The people who are most likely to seek help are probably going to be the least likely to offend. Treating them like a RAPIST IN WAITING and "very closely monitoring them" will completely remove any incentive to be open and honest.

Applying harm reduction strategies on a topic like pedophellia would be really interesting. It's such a taboo topic that any kind of intervention that isn't straight criminalizing or banning things could really help people who need it.

imagine actually sympathizing with pedos

Are there any studies that indicate pedophiles having access to stuff like this actually reduce their chance to go out and molest real children?

This is one of those things that is virtually impossible to debate to any degree due to obvious emotional reactions and biases from both sides because anyone who argues a certain perspective that is not absolute condemnation is automatically vulnerable to being suspected as well. As a result expressing any sort of personal opinion that is not utterly disapproving of it is futile. It's like arguing about abortion except ten times worse.

It's not just about urges or preventing crime, it's also about the artist's rights. My view is that it's okay to think those things are gross, because they are, however I don't consider it very good to punish (in the case of lolicon) artists for doing fictional works, it just doesn't sit right with me that you can go to jail for what is basically a drawing of made up characters, yes there are lines you shouldn't cross (such as directly encouraging commiting a crime), but for the most part, I don't think people should go to jail or be punished over it. (In my country "manga style" lolicon is legal, however realistic 3d renderings aren't, as the studies done by the government reached the conclusion that people can be attracted to hentai while at the same time not being attracted to real children).

lol the fuck is he talking about tho? Unless I've missed some massive and incredible breakthrough in robotics technology, sex dolls of any stripe are literally just big floppy chunks of molded silicon with some pvc pipes shoved in them for rigidity. You can't "program" them

A what? Judging by the context of your post, I'd probably get put on a list for googling that, so please explain.

am i the only one here who thought commercial sex robots didn't even exist yet

Here's a couple, although they only tangentially support it, and it's difficult to find anything specifically about fictive material as an outlet for pedophiles. I haven't read through these entirely, so I can't speak for their accuracy: Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan (1999), "Indeed it appears from our data from Japan, as it was evident to Kutchinsky (1994), from research in Europe and Scandinavia, that a large increase in available sexually explicit materials, over many years, has not been correlated with an increase in rape or other sexual crimes. Instead, in Japan a marked decrease in sexual crimes has occurred." Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic (2011), "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." Pornography, Sex Crime, and Paraphilia (2013) "[...] observational studies in natural settings consistently find no association or an inverse association of pornography with sexual aggression." These find that the availability of pornography, violent pornography, or even actual child pornography, can decrease child abuse and sex crimes in general. Obviously there are good reasons to keep real child pornography illegal, but I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say that availability of fictive material should have a similar effect if there really is causality. I'd certainly be interested to see if anyone has been able to find anything better and/or more specific.

I'm not sure what he's going on about. Onaholes arebasically the Japanese analogue to a fleshlight. A silicon mold that you put your dick in that could be shaped in any manner of ways. How this could in any way be affected by this law is entirely beyond me.

imagine being so boring and simple that the only thought you put into a very serious issue is the most banal, surface-level analysis that's entirely devoid of any real thought. While you sit there and refuse to actually think about the issue beyond "PEDO BAD MUST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE HUMANITY", people are being hurt. If your actual goal is to help people and reduce the likelihood that someone would rape a fucking child then maybe you should allow yourself to consider that there are reasons people do things and sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- we, as a society, can give someone the support they need to not offend. Not only can we save potential victims of sexual exploitation, we can produce functional members of society.

Imagine completely missing the point and making a useless shitpost to sound morally superior. If you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to get some oxygen you might realize everyone in this thread that's against it is explicitly arguing against it because of the very real possibility that allowing this shit rather than going "ew, gross! Banned!" like a reactionary moron could in fact protect more children from getting harmed by people who don't have adequate self control.

In the end, the children are being hurt by the pedos, one way or the other. I don't buy that these fuckers can ever be introduced into society, I just want them executed. Including people that are into lolicon as well.

And if fucking these stupid ass sex dolls can provably keep them from harming children? What then? Yeah, we should get rid of those gays, blacks, and mentally disabled people too. They have traits they have no choice in possessing and you're using slippery slope logic here that can easily be extended to ANY group someone dislikes. And what have they done wrong exactly? Have they all gone out and diddled kids? Or is this just a reactionary response because it's gross and you can't abide it. I don't know about your latter point, only thing I can think of is JWJ but I don't recall him ever being a moderator. As for the first part, did you even read what I said? Because I literally stated outright that the focus here is on protecting children and not helping pedophiles. My point of view, and that of a lot of people here, is this: Does it stop pedophiles from harming children and doesn't harm people who have committed no crime? Yes? Well then why the fuck aren't we allowing it? The children come first. End of story. If that lets some pedophile get off to some fucked up fantasies in the process then so be it. All I give a shit about is preventing them from harming children.

yes because gays and blacks are totally comparable to pedos, good one. not even going to bother wasting more of my brain cells (whatever's left of them, after browsing this shitty forum for so long) on your posts. "you just don't like the pedos so you want to execute them"

Do you know what the difference and similarity between paedophile and child molester is?

just perma ban me please, I don't want to be part of this garbage community anymore.

I mean that's literally exactly what you said so I don't know why you're implying I was making weird claims or anything. "Wow, what a shitty community not supporting executing people I don't like!!

Newer adult sex robots, some manufactured in the United States, have detailed facial expressions and allow limited conversations. One prototype sex robot, Roxxxy by True Companion, has programmable personalities, such as “Wild Wendy,” “Mature Martha,” and “Frigid Farrah.” In an article in the Journal of Internet Law in December, two researchers described “Frigid Farrah” as the most disconcerting because it has a setting in which the doll rejects all advances and encourages the user to rape it. the future is now old man

As someone raped twice as child, I have zero sympathy, and I'd like it to never happen another actual child which proxy material has been proven to encourage, ya twat.

“These dolls can be programmed to simulate rape. The very thought makes me nauseous,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican Sex robots are increasingly lifelike, composed of silicon flesh-like material, some with basic artificial intelligence that allow conversations based on moods. These people are lying out of their asses. Sex robots don't even exist. How did sex robots as a concept even become a meme topic in the news cycle, anyway?

Having emotional connection to an issue does not give you the best perspective, at all.