Experts debating whether to make robot sex children to help Paedophiles rehabilitate!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-28353238

Is it just me but surely giving a Paedo a child sex robot will fuel their desire for the real thing? Pure madness methinks!

I'm sure someone will bring that point up in this debate that's taking place in an unspecified place organised by an unnamed body.

I'm no expert on kiddy fiddlers but my dad was a probation officer for nearly 30 years and dealt with nonces on a daily basis. His theory (which I've yet to see disproven) is that paedophiles can't be 'cured' of their impulses, they are completely and utterly compelled to do what they do and can't stop themselves, for whatever reason.

It's hard to say they are utterly evil as chances are they were abused as a kid, which will have fucked with their brain.

They can't function in a normal society as they will seek out kids, so you have to take them out of it. Therefore the only solution which makes sense to me is to set them up in their own isolated communities where they can work and contribute to the economy, but are far enough away from kids to pose a threat.

Might I suggest they try robot sex alligators and put them in a large tank of water together.

Surely a machine gun would be a cheaper and more effective idea....

Interesting piece in the Grauniad today about paedophiles. Some American kid realised he was one when he was 18 and sought psychiatric help. He is helping campaigning groups get a better grasp of the issue and three statements from a leading psychiatrist in the field came out, namely:

1. Are those that look but don't touch a threat?

2. Is it correct to convict people for looking at 'selfies' posted by young 'uns as there has been no abuse?

3. The more these people in the groups above are vilified, the more they'll go underground, making it difficult to get to the root and therefore the generic term 'paedophile' should be seperated from 'child abuser.'

The figure that came out recently was that there was 50,000 people regularly sourcing underage images on the net in the UK. No one knows where this figure originated.

IMO The trouble in our country is to many people listen to do gooders who go to university for a few year and that gives them the right to judge what is unacceptable one day is acceptable the next...

ANYONE, who rapes, abuses, murders, should be put on a desert island (there's a registered 220,000 in the world) with his/her kin, a wall built around them and let decent people live without fear, and allow the lot of them to rape, abuse and murder each other....

If only it were that simple Mr Tangoed. So does a 50 year old man who had sex with a little boy, deserve the same punishment as a 16 year old boy who had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend? Both acts against the law.

Different leagues, if the laws were how they should be, (which is a rarity in this country) throwing the 50 yr old in a room with the boys family would be lawful..

This ties in with a line of thinking I recently allowed my mind to wander into.

Is sex between two consenting 14 year-olds in private the sexual exploitation of children?
What about if they film themselves doing it?
What about if they film themselves doing it then post it on the Web?
What about if they film themselves doing it then find out the film is worth a good bit of money so sell it to some random bloke?
What about if someone pays them to film themselves doing it (even when they are doing it all the time anyway) then sells the film to a paedo site?
What about two 14 year-olds who wouldn't have done it at all until the spiv with a camera came along with his bundle of fivers?
(Next step censored.)

I chose an age which is scandalously young but old enough that doing it of their own accord is a believable proposition.

The point I was exploring is whether there is a distinct line between what's OK and what's not. I could probably have found better examples if I'd wanted to push the reasoning further. Where on the scale do you draw the line and how does that compare with where the law draws it?

Some excellent points there Monty, but the law seems pretty clear to me in a few areas, namely the age of consent, and also what constitues offensive material, and what can and can't be published on the net. I think the laws that exist currently are doing the job, its the enforcement of them which is pretty difficult.

Apologies, the article was in the Independant, not the Guardian, but some observations from Mr Montys post:

1. Age of consent is different in a lot of countries.

2. In a lot of other countries where poverty is rife, your own children are currency. I read a thing about mothers selling their daughters virginity, often to senior policemen in Cambodia. It was harrowing. They make the deal when the daughter is about 12 because they think that when she's 18 she'll be beautiful. The daughter sacrifices herself for the family. The age of consent in Cambodia is 14 same as it is here in China.

3. Maybe we don't know that much about other cultures and what appears on the internet is repugnant to us, but acceptable where it comes from.

4. Western kids aren't that innocent and haven't been since the digital age
became the norm. To be right, they haven't been innocent for the last 30 years. Just because they make that lack of innocence public on the net doesn't make the people looking at what they post perverts. If their mates look, it's just a giggle.

It needs some work. I mean what was happy slapping about? It's documented assault, surely.