Hardcore History has a great episode about public capital punishment throughout history, and how it has not deterred criminals at all.
Predators are opportunists, they don’t abuse children with an expectation to be caught. I don’t expect an opportunist to announce themselves as capable of deceit before committing a crime, so I don’t think permitting them to be honest with others is something they’d want to do.
Even with the most charitable perspective, people would still view virtuous pedophiles as live grenades.
Consider if someone said “I have a rape kink, I’d never act on it, so I’d still like to be invited to [insert event where people might stray from the group, or drink so much they pass out.]”
The only real answer is to remove the stigma around existing, so they can get professional help. Which is hard when “kill pedophiles” is seen as a socially acceptable reaction to news articles about child abuse (my point is that pedophiles aren’t inherently criminals).
I think this needs to be highlighted here as well. A lot of people sexually assaulting children and underage teens are not even “true” pedophiles (as in attracted to minors), it can be more about preying on the weak, and seeking satisfaction of the power over others, and of the power to break the taboos. All the rich assholes are not pedophiles, they are just goddamn evil abusers.
Well said. It doesn’t help that discussion about this topic gives people the ick and makes whoever brings it up “the creepy one”-- making a point about how not all pedophiles are rapists is a good way to get yourself labelled as both.
Nobody wants to touch this topic with a ten foot pole, which makes it an inherently interesting topic for me.
These issues need to be discussed rationally and pragmatically by politicians to change laws in order to maximise child safety.
Unfortunately, a great deal of what seems to contribute to child safety is unintuitive and provokes a reactive disgust response.
There was a news article recently about an Australian importing a child-sized sex doll. This is illegal, but it really shouldn’t be.
The evidence seems to suggest adult-sized sex dolls reduce sexual violence, so why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different?
The sad fact is it is political suicide to suggest legalising child-sized sex dolls, even if it was statistically likely to reduce crimes against children.
Topics that people refuse to discuss are often ones where there’s the least logic in how society acts.
Like, the more open society is to talking about religion, the less religious the society tends to be. In ones where people are punished for blasphemy, people naturally either believe or claim to believe the religion completely.
why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least. But, it also seems plausible that someone might be able to satisfy their urges or work through something that way and be less dangerous. It’s the sort of thing that would need scientific study – but good luck getting funding to study it.
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least.
You make a great point, and one which has so much nuance than most people want to consider.
It’s similar to the discussion around lolicon/shotacon (hentai featuring girls/boys). Some people say that it acts as a pressure valve, and others say that it desensitises those which use it.
The nuanced point: to some it acts as a pressure valve, and to a smaller minority, it may desensitise and become a hazard for risk prone individuals.
This is basically true of any population; the subset of risk prone individuals is smaller than the one which rehabilitation efforts will facilitate.
Hardcore History has a great episode about public capital punishment throughout history, and how it has not deterred criminals at all.
Predators are opportunists, they don’t abuse children with an expectation to be caught. I don’t expect an opportunist to announce themselves as capable of deceit before committing a crime, so I don’t think permitting them to be honest with others is something they’d want to do.
Even with the most charitable perspective, people would still view virtuous pedophiles as live grenades.
Consider if someone said “I have a rape kink, I’d never act on it, so I’d still like to be invited to [insert event where people might stray from the group, or drink so much they pass out.]”
The only real answer is to remove the stigma around existing, so they can get professional help. Which is hard when “kill pedophiles” is seen as a socially acceptable reaction to news articles about child abuse (my point is that pedophiles aren’t inherently criminals).
I think this needs to be highlighted here as well. A lot of people sexually assaulting children and underage teens are not even “true” pedophiles (as in attracted to minors), it can be more about preying on the weak, and seeking satisfaction of the power over others, and of the power to break the taboos. All the rich assholes are not pedophiles, they are just goddamn evil abusers.
Well said. It doesn’t help that discussion about this topic gives people the ick and makes whoever brings it up “the creepy one”-- making a point about how not all pedophiles are rapists is a good way to get yourself labelled as both.
Nobody wants to touch this topic with a ten foot pole, which makes it an inherently interesting topic for me.
These issues need to be discussed rationally and pragmatically by politicians to change laws in order to maximise child safety.
Unfortunately, a great deal of what seems to contribute to child safety is unintuitive and provokes a reactive disgust response.
There was a news article recently about an Australian importing a child-sized sex doll. This is illegal, but it really shouldn’t be.
The evidence seems to suggest adult-sized sex dolls reduce sexual violence, so why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different?
The sad fact is it is political suicide to suggest legalising child-sized sex dolls, even if it was statistically likely to reduce crimes against children.
Topics that people refuse to discuss are often ones where there’s the least logic in how society acts.
Like, the more open society is to talking about religion, the less religious the society tends to be. In ones where people are punished for blasphemy, people naturally either believe or claim to believe the religion completely.
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least. But, it also seems plausible that someone might be able to satisfy their urges or work through something that way and be less dangerous. It’s the sort of thing that would need scientific study – but good luck getting funding to study it.
Thanks for making half my point :p
You make a great point, and one which has so much nuance than most people want to consider.
It’s similar to the discussion around lolicon/shotacon (hentai featuring girls/boys). Some people say that it acts as a pressure valve, and others say that it desensitises those which use it.
The nuanced point: to some it acts as a pressure valve, and to a smaller minority, it may desensitise and become a hazard for risk prone individuals.
This is basically true of any population; the subset of risk prone individuals is smaller than the one which rehabilitation efforts will facilitate.
It’s also similar to a point that playing violet video games make you a violent criminal. This one was studied as far as I know