Society would probably actually benefit from a non political purely objective science-based commission to review published data, make recommendations for new studies, and come up with an evidence-based recommendation to governments about whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
I haven’t deep dived on this so maybe it’s already well known among sociologists/psych pathologists. But the key is a trusted science-based policy. We did it for violent video games and found no correlation. Not at all obvious to me if that also holds for pederasty.
Yeah I know, the trusted scientific commission is not going to happen
whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
It could but I doubt that it would. Pedophiles don’t rape children - rapists do. Being both is rare. Having been born with attraction to children doesn’t mean they automatically also lack a moral compas and self-control. Most of them know it’s wrong and never offend. The vast majority of people in prison for child sexual abuse aren’t pedophiles but just good old rapists. Kids simply make an easy target.
Yeah that’s a thing. CSA can happen as part of bullying, for example, or someone forced into it by a partner or because of circumstances like drug addiction or poverty.
Pedophilia doesn’t describe behaviour but attraction. If a rapist is not exlusively attracted to children then they’re by definition not a pedophile. I’m well aware that in everyday language that word is used interchangeably with child molester but those terms are not synonymous.
agree with all of that except the exclusive bit, i’m going to go with the wikipedia definition
a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children
which presents a problem for my point, doesn’t it. if you are attracted to children, but not primarily, what are you? a semipaedo? if you only ever told one lie, it doesn’t make you a liar. that is acceptable, even obvious to me. but you only fucked one kid so you’re not a paedophile? i can’t get my head round that
i tried to look up the case but only get loads of results for fritzl
what age was his daughter? was he popping viagras and crying ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?’ i would previously have thought that being able to maintain a boner long enough to rape your own daughter (assuming prepubescent) makes you a paedophile. but having just read the ‘primary or exclusive’ bit of the definition i don’t know what to make of it
yes of course in this or any other specific case it’s not particularly relevant. but it’s something to consider against the general question of what is a paedophile
re laws, that would be thoughtcrime so i don’t expect there are
Yeah, thoughtcrime is pretty much BS and there better be no laws about it.
I mean, how many times have you had intrusive thoughts about stomping the person you are talking to, without any particular reason and how many times have you actually done that?
Then there was this guy who actually stomped on my pre-fractured toe and it is pretty easy to distinguish from a thought crime, so I see no grey area here.
Society would probably actually benefit from a non political purely objective science-based commission to review published data, make recommendations for new studies, and come up with an evidence-based recommendation to governments about whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
I haven’t deep dived on this so maybe it’s already well known among sociologists/psych pathologists. But the key is a trusted science-based policy. We did it for violent video games and found no correlation. Not at all obvious to me if that also holds for pederasty.
Yeah I know, the trusted scientific commission is not going to happen
It could but I doubt that it would. Pedophiles don’t rape children - rapists do. Being both is rare. Having been born with attraction to children doesn’t mean they automatically also lack a moral compas and self-control. Most of them know it’s wrong and never offend. The vast majority of people in prison for child sexual abuse aren’t pedophiles but just good old rapists. Kids simply make an easy target.
Most reformed pedophiles also get reformed before offense, so…
This is the most relevant point I have seen to the current scene, so far.
Also, boarding schools.
aren’t paedophiles? yes your honour, i fucked that kid but i didn’t like it
Yeah that’s a thing. CSA can happen as part of bullying, for example, or someone forced into it by a partner or because of circumstances like drug addiction or poverty.
Pedophilia doesn’t describe behaviour but attraction. If a rapist is not exlusively attracted to children then they’re by definition not a pedophile. I’m well aware that in everyday language that word is used interchangeably with child molester but those terms are not synonymous.
agree with all of that except the exclusive bit, i’m going to go with the wikipedia definition
which presents a problem for my point, doesn’t it. if you are attracted to children, but not primarily, what are you? a semipaedo? if you only ever told one lie, it doesn’t make you a liar. that is acceptable, even obvious to me. but you only fucked one kid so you’re not a paedophile? i can’t get my head round that
In Hungary, there was a case, where a father who raped his daughter as punishment used that defense.
i tried to look up the case but only get loads of results for fritzl
what age was his daughter? was he popping viagras and crying ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?’ i would previously have thought that being able to maintain a boner long enough to rape your own daughter (assuming prepubescent) makes you a paedophile. but having just read the ‘primary or exclusive’ bit of the definition i don’t know what to make of it
It was a younger, and the rapist’s name never got out here. Got quickly buried for whatever reason.
I don’t see why it matters whether the rapist is or isn’t a paedophile.
He raped a child. That makes him a CSA offender.
Is there even laws specifically to deal with paedophiles rather than people who rape children?
yes of course in this or any other specific case it’s not particularly relevant. but it’s something to consider against the general question of what is a paedophile
re laws, that would be thoughtcrime so i don’t expect there are
Yeah, thoughtcrime is pretty much BS and there better be no laws about it.
I mean, how many times have you had intrusive thoughts about stomping the person you are talking to, without any particular reason and how many times have you actually done that?
Then there was this guy who actually stomped on my pre-fractured toe and it is pretty easy to distinguish from a thought crime, so I see no grey area here.