Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn


Machjo
#1
Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn - Newfoundland & Labrador - CBC News

My opinion? Though I agree that an artificial prepubescent sex doll can qualify as 'child pornography' can can escalate a pedophile's activities over time, I don't necessarily agree that buying one should result in a permannent police record since no child would have yet been hurt by it.

Should the buyer of the child sex doll be fined for it? That might be reasonable as a deterrent. Furthermore, we might want to introduce a law requiring any law or immigration enforcement officer who intercepts such a doll to provide the buyer with information on sex-addiciton therapy that might be locally available, sex-addiction-focused local 12-step groups, and other possible consultation-based, mechanical, and herbal and other chemical remedies that might be available to him including chemical castration; but leave it up to him to decide what to do with that information according to his circumstances. After all, he knows himself best.

Should the purchase of a child-sex doll result in a child-pornography and child-abuse investigation against the buyer? I'm in two minds about that. Since he has not hurt anyone yet, we might be willing to be discreet about it, but it would seem to me that at least his present spouse (if he is married) should have a right to know what he bought and be asked by police if there is any reason to suspect him of child molestation. Of course even a person's spouse won't always know everything about him, but it would be the minimum we should expect for someone who should have bought such a doll.

If he has children or teaches children or works with children, it might be reasonable to at least interview them to ask them if he'd ever abused them in any way without necessarily revealing to them what he'd bought.

Again, since he'd not hurt anyone yet, I think there would be no reason to humiliate him in public for its own sake, but no doubt some kind of reasonable action would be needed as a preventative measure.

Your thoughts on this?
 
gerryh
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Child sex doll trial opens Pandora's box of questions about child porn - Newfoundland & Labrador - CBC News
My opinion? Though I agree that an artificial prepubescent sex doll can qualify as 'child pornography' can can escalate a pedophile's activities over time, I don't necessarily agree that buying one should result in a permannent police record since no child would have yet been hurt by it.
Should the buyer of the child sex doll be fined for it? That might be reasonable as a deterrent. Furthermore, we might want to introduce a law requiring any law or immigration enforcement officer who intercepts such a doll to provide the buyer with information on sex-addiciton therapy that might be locally available, sex-addiction-focused local 12-step groups, and other possible consultation-based, mechanical, and herbal and other chemical remedies that might be available to him including chemical castration; but leave it up to him to decide what to do with that information according to his circumstances. After all, he knows himself best.
Should the purchase of a child-sex doll result in a child-pornography and child-abuse investigation against the buyer? I'm in two minds about that. Since he has not hurt anyone yet, we might be willing to be discreet about it, but it would seem to me that at least his present...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post


what if, instead of a doll it was books...stories.... cartoons....... drawings.....?
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

what if, instead of a doll it was books...stories.... cartoons....... drawings.....?

Again, any of these can serve as an escalatory step towards hurting a child and so ought to be discouraged. That said, if no child has been hurt in any way, not even through pictures of a real child, and there is no evidence that he tried to hurt a real child, then I would say that though there ought to be some kind of deterrence-based punishment for his actions and maybe compulsory educaiton on where he can turn for help, imprisonment and a permenent record for an action that did not hurt anyone other than the buyer himself and that does not reveal any attempt to hurt another person does not deserve imprisonment. A fine? Yes, as a deterrent to such escalatory behaviour that could serve as a gateway to more serious actions later. Obligatory sex educaiton pertaining to available sex-addiciton therapies? Yes to that too, to ensure that he is aware of the help that is available. An investigation of any child he might have been in contact with? Yes to that too, ditto informing his present spouse.

But imprisonment for this I think would be excessive given that there is no victim but himself at this point.
 
gerryh
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Again, any of these can serve as an escalatory step towards hurting a child and so ought to be discouraged. That said, if no child has been hurt in any way, not even through pictures of a real child, and there is no evidence that he tried to hurt a real child, then I would say that though there ought to be some kind of deterrence-based punishment for his actions and maybe compulsory educaiton on where he can turn for help, imprisonment and a permenent record for an action that did not hurt anyone other than the buyer himself and that does not reveal any attempt to hurt another person does not deserve imprisonment. A fine? Yes, as a deterrent to such escalatory behaviour that could serve as a gateway to more serious actions later. Obligatory sex educaiton pertaining to available sex-addiciton therapies? Yes to that too, to ensure that he is aware of the help that is available. An investigation of any child he might have been in contact with? Yes to that too, ditto informing his present spouse.

But imprisonment for this I think would be excessive given that there is no victim but himself at this point.


I didn't read any where that he is being imprisoned. Yes, the max sentence if found guilty is imprisonment, but that doesn't mean he will get the max sentence IF he is found guilty.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I didn't read any where that he is being imprisoned. Yes, the max sentence if found guilty is imprisonment, but that doesn't mean he will get the max sentence IF he is found guilty.

I wasn't thinking of the specific accused, but more of the principle brought up in the article asking about what the legalities surrounding a child sex doll are. Judges are not always objective or just. With that, the law itself should split hairs so as to avoid a judge abusing his powers. In a case in which the accused never hurt a child nor showed any intent to hurt a child, it should not be possible to give him imprisonment.

It may be that the person in this case is innocent. For example, did he even know what was in the box? Could there have been a mistake, a wrong address, etc. Of course I beleive in the presumption of innocence, and the article states that though he accepted the box, he never opened it so might not necessarily know what's in it if for example the company had put the wrong item in the box.

Inversely, we might discover that he has hurt children before, but then that would be a separate case at that point.

Again, I'm not talking about the specific case of the accused in this article. That's a decision for a judge to decide. I was just talking about the basic principle of whether a judge should have the power to imprison someone for merely buying a sex doll for his own personal use.
 
gerryh
#6
How is this any different than what I have already mentioned. Those examples I gave have been considered "child pornography" from the beginning. Just like an 80 yr' old woman in a catholic school girls uniform, in pig tails, bent over a chair and getting nailed from behind is also child pornography.
 
Machjo
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

How is this any different than what I have already mentioned. Those examples I gave have been considered "child pornography" from the beginning. Just like an 80 yr' old woman in a catholic school girls uniform, in pig tails, bent over a chair and getting nailed from behind is also child pornography.


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n...ia-and-the-law (external - login to view)

If that's the case, then the law needs to be rewritten. Imprisonment ought to be reserved for cases in which the accused harmed or intended to harm a real child, not an imaginary one. When dealing with an imaginary one, a fine, compulsory sex-addiction education, informing a present spouse, and a discreet investigation of any possible harm committed against a real child should suffice.

At the end of the day, it's a question of whether we want our tax dollars going towards housing and feeding buyers of sex dolls in prison or whether we'd rather that money go after abusers of real children.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#8  Top Rated Post
Good God what a good topic. It raises the questions what if and under what circumstance?
The first part of this is trying to imagine why someone would buy such an item as a child sex
doll? It is extremely hard to prove purchase and ownership would result in real harm, by that
I mean harm to a real live child.
The problem is how does society regulate through a law and a criminal law at that the definition
of any fantasy? Does the fantasy of committing rape equate to the actual crime of committing a
rape? Once a law is enacted it might. In society would we see people or institutions going on a
witch hunt to ferret depraved fantasies? Laughable you say? Once upon a time there was a witch
hunt that existed in Europe and later in America. During the time of the Taliban in Afghanistan
there were those convicted and executed for impure thoughts.
Personally the prospect of someone actually buying one stands my hair on end. Then again sex
toys of any kind were prohibited by law especially being transported by mail and that included books
films and so on.. Some of that material is shown in public theaters today
I confess it is disturbing to me that anyone would want to purchase such an item
 
Hoof Hearted
+1
#9
"Just like an 80 yr' old woman in a catholic school girls uniform, in pig tails, bent over a chair and getting nailed from behind is also child pornography."

 
damngrumpy
+1
#10
We are going to go back and discuss the what is and what is not pornography.
The definition really changes with societal attitudes in many but not all cases.
All I said previously is it starts with a doll and ends with where does one stand
on fifty shades of gray for example. Treatment for correction is one thing but if
we are going to teat people because the might commit a crime we open the door
to concentration camps instead of mental hospitals and prisons potentially.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#11
We are going to go back and discuss the what is and what is not pornography.
The definition really changes with societal attitudes in many but not all cases.
All I said previously is it starts with a doll and ends with where does one stand
on fifty shades of gray for example. Treatment for correction is one thing but if
we are going to teat people because the might commit a crime we open the door
to concentration camps instead of mental hospitals and prisons potentially.
 
Hoof Hearted
+1
#12
This is ridiculous. It's an inflatable doll. How far are we to take this? If the sex doll looked like the guy's sister, should police lay incest charges against him?

The dude is creepy, but no harm was done to anyone. He'll beat this rap I believe.

I thought Pierre Trudeau said the state has no place in the nation's bedrooms.
 
Johnnny
#13
Dolls now, virtual reality tomorrow, laws?

And wow the **** people buy...
 
Cannuck
+1
#14
The basic question is whether being a pedophile should be a crime. The simple answer is no. Just like thinking about killing somebody is not a crime.
 
Remington1
#15
Being a pedophile might not be a crime, but I wish all of these sick fu#k would wear a sign on their forehead, it would be nice a cool way to release stress instead of the boxing rink once in a while. The manufacturer of these children sex dolls aimed for these unfortunate sh#theads should be shut down.
 
Cannuck
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1View Post

The manufacturer of these children sex dolls aimed for these unfortunate sh#theads should be shut down.

That makes sense. Remove an avenue for pedophiles to fulfill a fantasy without hurting a child. What harm could come from that.
 
gerryh
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Good God what a good topic. It raises the questions what if and under what circumstance?
The first part of this is trying to imagine why someone would buy such an item as a child sex
doll? It is extremely hard to prove purchase and ownership would result in real harm, by that
I mean harm to a real live child.
The problem is how does society regulate through a law and a criminal law at that the definition
of any fantasy? Does the fantasy of committing rape equate to the actual crime of committing a
rape? Once a law is enacted it might. In society would we see people or institutions going on a
witch hunt to ferret depraved fantasies? Laughable you say? Once upon a time there was a witch
hunt that existed in Europe and later in America. During the time of the Taliban in Afghanistan
there were those convicted and executed for impure thoughts.
Personally the prospect of someone actually buying one stands my hair on end. Then again sex
toys of any kind were prohibited by law especially being transported by mail and that included books
films and so on.. Some of that material is shown in public theaters today
I confess it is disturbing to me that anyone would want to purchase such an item





The law differentiates between pornography and "art".
 
Remington1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That makes sense. Remove an avenue for pedophiles to fulfill a fantasy without hurting a child. What harm could come from that.

Or your saying make their life easier by facilitating their fantasies.
 
Hoof Hearted
#19
How can they even tell if the sex doll is a minor? Don't most women nowadays shave it all off 'down there' anyways?

I prefer lots of curves and fluffy wheat fields on my women.

I dated a girl once who would shave her nether region into different shapes depending upon the day...a heart for St Val's...a flag for Canada day...a tree for X-Mas...

I called it 'Bush Art'.
 
gerryh
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof HeartedView Post

How can they even tell if the sex doll is a minor? Don't most women nowadays shave it all off 'down there' anyways?

I prefer lots of curves and fluffy wheat fields on my women.

I dated a girl once who would shave her nether region into different shapes depending upon the day...a heart for St Val's...a flag for Canada day...a tree for X-Mas...

I called it 'Bush Art'.


Read the law.
 
Hoof Hearted
#21
If I were the accused, I'd ask that my trial be held in D!ldo, NFLD...just to make even more of a farce out of it than it already is.

If I win a large, stuffed dog at the Fair and get caught pulling a sex act on it, should I be charged with bestiality or cruelty to animals??

Uh Huh...
 
gerryh
#22
read the law.
 
Hoof Hearted
#23
I don't have to read the Law...I'm the Court of Common Sense.

Read me the part of the Law where this guy has gone afoul.
 
gerryh
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof HeartedView Post

I don't have to read the Law...I'm the Court of Common Sense.

Read me the part of the Law where this guy has gone afoul.


Little hard to discuss a law when you have never read it. In other words, how can you expect to discuss the pro's and con's of a law that you have never read and therefore know nothing about?
 
Hoof Hearted
#25
Just read me the part of the Law where this guy has gone afoul, then we can discuss it further.
 
gerryh
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof HeartedView Post

Just read me the part of the Law where this guy has gone afoul, then we can discuss it further.



right..... read to you,...... I'll get right on that.
 
Hoof Hearted
#27
Dr. James Cantor, a pedophilia expert and University of Toronto-based researcher who specializes in the neuroscience of sex.


"People are uncomfortable with [the idea of a child sex doll] because they think it might cause a person to become pedophilic, but there's no evidence [to suggest that]," Cantor added, likening the government's case against Harrisson to "witch-hunting" and something of a thought crime.
 
Cannuck
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1View Post

Or your saying make their life easier by facilitating their fantasies.

If it protects children, absolutely. Why wouldn't you?
 
Danbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

right..... read to you,...... I'll get right on that.

no back up...
that would be admitting a fail no?
 
Cannuck
#30
No, but again, thanks for your idiotic input
 
Remington1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

If it protects children, absolutely. Why wouldn't you?

No it doesn't protect children, it's the precursor to them going hunting, similar as them being able to go on the internet to satisfy their sick fantasies. It resulted in them not being satisfied with just looking at pictures, they are hunting for live children all the time, whether in chats or cams, but the agenda is to meet them or buy them. Societies should not build replica's of children for pedophile!! Not being able to reconcile this absolute is simply astonishing.
 
no new posts