Congressman fights to ban sick ‘child sex dolls’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/congressman-fights-to-ban-sick-child-sex-dolls

HYPERLINK above has full story

snip

January 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – One member of Congress is shining a bright light on the issue of the manufacture and sale of child sex robots, seeking to prohibit their import into the United States.


While some assert that the increasingly lifelike sex dolls will serve as a deterrent to criminal sexual acts against children by pedophiles, many experts believe the nascent, burgeoning industry will encourage sexual predation, leading to an increase, not a decrease, in the sexual exploitation of children.


Some of these dolls resemble children as young as three years old, and can be customized to feature lifelike facial expressions, including sadness and fear.


The Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act, which aims to ban importation and distribution of child sex dolls, was introduced by New York Congressman Dan Donovan along with a bipartisan coalition of 12 original cosponsors.............


“Additionally, psychologists and researchers believe that these dolls reinforce, normalize, and encourage pedophilic behavior, potentially putting more children at risk to harm.”........................

According to a report published at Harvard Health, society has good reason to be pessimistic about pedophilia, which “remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials.” The report continues, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change.”

end snip

Kudos to the Republican Congressman for being true to his concern for children. As a free market guy, I'm kind of torn. I put in bold a statement that says Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Don't we have anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation? Haven't we made homosexuals a protected class under those laws? That being said, why shouldn't pedophiles be given the same accords as homosexuals?

In this case, it's love-dolls. If we don't stop a homosexual from buying a love doll with the same parts as him/herself, then why should a pedophile be denied?

Let's hear what you think

 

Pass the bill or authorize the CIA to disembowel the first person and next persons who import this.

 

LoL "CREEPER Act".

That acronym really sells it.

Pfff I don't know, it sure seems like something that morality would demand to be banned but I don't like the precedent it could set.

They'll say "people that use kiddy sex dolls are likely to escalate their behavior" and so they ban the dolls.

But then how much of a step is it to saying "people that shoot targets at the range are likely to escalate to shooting people" and so they ban guns.

I guess I'd like to understand how much of a problem this is, if its a problem at all.

I'm all for slow-roasting kiddy diddlers but there is a difference between a chunk of plastic and a human being.

 

Yikes, in a society that banned candy cigarettes it's hard to see these coming here.

 

While these are terribly disturbing I can't support a law whose justification is that a person would be more likely to commit a crime. I'm not 100% libertarian but I think the NAP is a fine basis for law. I don't care what kind of sick **** you do to yourself as long as you stay the **** away from any kids.

 

Where is the scientific evidence that these dolls will increase the sexual predation of children? Nothing in that article (including the links) came to that conclusion. That said, I can't see the harm in banning these things as part of OSHA. I can't imagine what would be going through the head of the manufacturer of these things. I know I couldn't produce one.

 

I think we ought to let people have these dolls but only if they are willing to submit to ongoing monitoring which they would pay for themselves in a licensing fee. Like them or not (and i surely don't) pedophiles are a substantial part of the population and it is better we know who they are if we can.

I would also not do this until the dolls are actually able to approximate a human to a good degree and would require them to do this by law . A doll that only approximates a human might indeed be an invitation to escalate the behavior. A doll that really can't be distinguished from a human would not. There is a difference between an approximation and a substitute

 

"Hello 911, for God's sake help me, I'm stuck in Sandy, my new love doll and the audio is saying it will go into super-total mind bending mode any second now and i should have the protective harness on before this happens but i can't find the assemlby intructions for them

 

make sure the dolls look 18 yrs or older

 

I do not understand how this can be considered a deterrent from acting out on children. Nor do I see how those who argue it is an affront to freedom of choice we now have. That, to me, is even more inane. I mean, then why are bestiality movies illegal? And does anyone here think that “outlet” is a deterrent from one acting upon his impulses with a real animal? As well, does anyone think for a second child porn is a deterrent from seeking children?

When mankind realizes there are moral truths and a God to which we are both accountable to and also one day to be judged, only then will he truly understand right from wrong. This doll is dead wrong.

 

As reprehensible as the dolls might be, it does create a slippery slope as zbr6 stated. And with respect to paying some sort of license fee, isn't that akin to the book "The Minority Report" with a "pre-crime" unit where you are punished before you commit a crime?

I also pointed out how the article cites pedophilia as a sexual orientation and we have laws (no matter how misguided) which provide protections to deviant sexual orientations/behavior; pedophilia is just another of those deviant orientations/behavior.

 

I am conflicted on this one, there is no real crime, other then a thought crime, but it's very sick, I guess the question is, is someone that has this sexual defect more likely to commit a crime against a child or does it prevent them from committing such a crime - but how the heck does one figure that out

 

This will make me the odd man out here but I would rather someone use a doll then an actual child.

 

laws that protect two consenting adults from being arrested for loving one another in no way compares to an adult\child relationship

but in this case your correct, the issue is that they is no child involved, that is what makes it tough to support the law, no matter how much we see the behavior as disgusting

 

You're comparing real animals(in movies) and real children(in movies) to a piece of plastic.

 

Maybe a psychologist would recommend such a doll to a pedophile leaning person who hasn't offended to give them an outlet. And its a DOLL yet fiction with the content can be found all over the internet for those inclined to seek it out where adults in a story have sex with, snuff and do other things to children but that is protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

I kind of like most of your posts ( I really like the Guy Fawkes image) but this statement is indefensible, IMO. There should be no laws that provide protection for pedophilia behavior. Nor am I buying pedophilia was "inherent" so-to-speak in these persons, that in some ways allows it to be categorized as no fault of their own or a disease, etc. In those terms, I know people predisposed to steal or cheat, shall they be granted immunity for their crimes? What about bestiality?
Modern day societies and their ever prevailing attitudes towards sexuality, towards the tyranny of the offended minority dictating the rules for the vast majority, towards moral relativism, towards its totally secular humanist philosophies, it all pretty much is opposition to what God asks. And it shows!

 

I am not comparing anything. I am making the point that a child sex doll is no more of a deterrent to a pedophile seizing the opportunity to engage with a child than child porn movies are a deterrent. Consequently, that argument fails.

Same with animal movies, they are no deterrent. And why is bestiality illegal, which it should be? I hope it's not mostly because of the harm to the dog or whatever? I would hope because it is depraved and not good for mankind.

 

I think most of us think adults\child relationships is wrong except some that defend Roy more with bible nonsense like Joseph and Mary did it

probably not a good time to bring religion into the discussion....

personally, I do not even see the attraction to an adult doll, just seems creepy to me

 

This article is straight from a PRO-LIFE website, so it's pretty fair to say it is heavily biased.

 

Who's god is that? Islam? The Hindus? Jews? Oh I know, Catholics?

God seems to be pretty alright with pedophilia by the religious standards set before us

 

We ought not pass laws because something may make somebody more likely to commit a crime. Again, if they aren't hurting anyone then why not leave them alone to their own sick devices?

 

ya, i gotta go liberty on this one. those dolls are terrible, but they're not people. no victim = no crime, and banning them sets the precedent for thought crime/future crimes type stuff.

allow importation, set the sentence for convicted child rape to 'drawing and quartering'.

 

I would classify pedophilia as a sexual preference because it's biologically natural, some guys like thick women, some like 'em young. We just outlaw that activity to protect the young and innocent. A man liking young boys would be a homosexual with the same preference.

Anyway, what kind of sick mind would make sex dolls of 3 year olds with scared faces? Sick, sick, sick.

 

i sincerely believe that anyone who thinks that the obvious choice to ban pedophilic sex robots raises any serious questions about the way our society regards sexual orientation should be coldly and mercilessly executed in the streets