Aibu to think this is not a solution to paedophilia

[TheXxed]

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japanese-company-manufactures-lifelike-child-sex-dolls-for-paedophiles-a6811046.html

A company in Japan wants to manufacture life like sex dolls of young girls, I feel sick to my stomach. I am so dumbstruck by this I don't even know how to articulate how upset I am.

Nobody was shutting anybody up. Grays was pointing out that she too had been the victim of abuse.

I don't think the FWR board is the place for an unemotive discussion on this subject - but then I don't think that the OP wanted one. I think this was more of a venting-of-outrage exercise.

I doubt an unemotional discussion on child abuse is possible anywhere other than a clinical setting, and I think that's fine, TBH, don't you?

If it's a "mental illness" why do only men suffer from it? If it's a sexual orientation why do only men have it?

Was just about to say something similar TheWoman.
Plus an "unemotive" discussion on child abuse is what child abusers would much prefer.

It's listed in the DSM as a paraphilia, not mental illness. It's not a mental illness or sexual orientation. (coconuthut).
And is indeed more prevalent in men.

Couple of things.

1. Women can abuse children too (I read at least one post that said something along the line of 'paedophiles are always male').

1. Anything legal that can stop even one instance of child abuse can only be a good thing.

"Women do it too"

Yeah maybe but hardly any women compared to men.

Women do it too
Get another one.

Catguy, if you read the full thread, you will see that posters are worried that this could well increase rather than reduce the incidences of paedophiles acting on their impulses, by being an Inbetween step to abusing a real child.

I hope nobody is suggesting that women are incapable of having rational, unemotive, analytical discussions about difficult subjects.

Men aren't incapable either.

Of course not, grimarse. If you read my short post carefully, I'm clearly referring to any discussion other than a clinical setting, be that on MN, petrolh*ds, the comments section on a newspaper column or blog, whatever.

Not sure where you got the "women are incapable" idea from, perhaps you could point it out?

That's a double negative right there, Ophelia, so let us try again. I believe women to be perfectly capable of having rational, unemotive, analytical discussions about difficult subjects. Do you? And if so, should we?

You know exactly where I got it from - I doubt an unemotional discussion on child abuse is possible anywhere other than a clinical setting, and I think that's fine

Mind, as you've only posted on FWR so far in your MN history, you perhaps on the sheer depth and breadth of emotional and unemotional discussions happening all the time on many topics on MN.

Yup - and it's clear that I made no specific reference to men or women, and indeed I was including both in that.

I could draw an inference from your specific reference to FWR, but I won't just yet,

Well, I believe the opposite - that both men and women are capable of such discussions. But it wont happen here, so I think I am done.

Excellent. I look forward to your apology for how you chose to interpret my extremely clear post.

As you are new, keen and active on FWR, no doubt I will see you around.

It might have been an extremely clear post in your head. But you only have to re-read your post at 23:20 to see how meaning can sometimes get lost on internet forums, even when we think we are being as clear as day. I look forward to further snippets of wisdom from you in the future. Good night.

Ah yes, i left out "are uninformed" between "perhaps" and "on" at 23.20. Well done you and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

Still curious as to how you drew an inference that I was saying something specifically about women in my 22.52 post.

Oh, and I'd hate to think you were implying something with your "in your head" snippet - but I'm sure you didn't mean anything by that, did you?

Nighty night.

I understood exactly what TheWomanInTheWall was saying, Grimarse. She was quite clear.

I would also say on a thread devoted to talking about men's emotions around raping children, the fact that women's emotions are dismissed as detracting from the discussion is more than ironic. Especially in FWR.

The subject is emotive. Emotions should be involved. Especially the emotions of the victims. Because they are the ones that matter.

Cheers, scallops

Despite their reputation for bizarre porn, Japan has a very low violent crime rate (plenty of sources on Google). I think we should at least hear them out

"The subject is emotive. Emotions should be involved. Especially the emotions of the victims."

yeah yeah. emotions, emotions, throwing up at the thought of things we don't like and even more emotions.

But could we put emotions to the side for just a moment and think about actual facts? Could this product potentially prevent abuse?

No I don't think it will prevent abuse at all.