I found this commentary by Prof. Jonni Brem who is the head of a therapy program for pedophiles in austria and lawmakers said “if he says so he must know it since he works with them”
I cannot understand the reasoning for the acquisition of child sex dolls, especially since ‘venting’ using sex dolls leads to an amplification of fantasies and fixations rather than finding a way out of fixation on children. That is why we vehemently oppose the purchase of child sex dolls and would recommend banning them. Just as we have fought the consumption of child abuse photos and videos, which are still falsely labelled as child pornography, because injustice suffered must not be used to dispel urges.
I honestly don’t understand how he compares CSAM (real victims) to a piece of plastic.
Sounds like his program is centered around conversion therapy, so I’m not all that surprised that he has zero interest in actually preventing abuse or supporting MAPs. It’s also known that repressing sexual thoughts only makes them stronger.
He also fails to recognize that most MAPs don’t have urges, so clearly he hasn’t done much of the background research that would be necessary for such a program to have any chance of being effective.
My main problem is not the fact that he is wrong, but the fact that he can’t admit that he doesn’t know shit. How can you say stuff like this when there are currently two possible theories and neither of them have been proven as of now. How is there no massive abuse happening in Japan, or Finland for example? Both countries that use and recommend such dolls. Most CSA offenders are not even pedophiles, but suffer from personality disorders, so a doll wouldn’t even interest them. Discussions on this dumb down and die quickly, because nobody is willing to risk it. They can dumb their arguments down so easily - there is almost 0 backfire to be expected.
I don’t understand why have a sex dolls would expand the fantasy, i understand that it creates a situation of comfort with the fantasy of the maps , but why he doesn’t think that this can be a weapon to fight the real CSAM, i wonder if this guy thinks that the people that use fictional material should be in jail.
Something tells me that it won’t get very far. Equating fiction and fantasy with acts of abuse is not something I’d expect the Austrian government to do.
There is zero evidence that supports this contention, and I’d even argue that the fear of risk itself might be what grounds the risk of many offenders.
I’m not one to debate these matters, but there are enough clinical psychologists who vehemently disagree with banning sex dolls and other outlets. Pedophilic disorder can regress with proper treatment, but pedophilia itself is something we will have to accept.
I don’t want society to have to learn this lesson the hard way.
Sorry, but you’re wrong lol. Fictional porn such as manga is already illegal. It’s probably confusing for outsiders to grasp this, because of austrias stance on the 2019 UN attempt to ban fiction. Austria simply said that they will NOT treat it the same as actual abuse. This does not mean that it’s legal, but that the sentencing is lower and other negative effects regarding social, family and work place limitations do not apply.
There has also already been plenty cases, so the doll ban is gonna happen. No fighting that.
Thanks for the link, they are just a bunch of morons, how disgraceful and disgusting that we risk the jail for fake things, because of their moral viewpoint, if you have so much fear of us
I accept that you control my Ethernet, and what im shopping, i accept you that you want control something of me, but don’t punish me so hard for a minimal risk that is present in every angle of our life!.
Found the other study.
Shows that Dunkelfeld patients had lower self-esteem after therapy, which is associated with a number of mental health issues, some of which are risk factors for offending https://doi.org/10.7298/X4P55KFZ
Thanks for the link, honestly i feel so strange,just 4 months ago i was living in a total free way my kink without worries, why should i have fear of something that google images show i said to myself, and [spoiler]nhent is so easy to find, i was feeling normal i was just continuing to try with girls of my age and more highter, when i found this “law” for the first time i was feeling so angry🤬, sorry for my 2nd emotional breakdown🤣
I am growing more and more critical of the PPD as well. I feel like they are developing in a very bad direction. Since a couple of years ago they are now state-funded. What at first sounded like a great thing, basically means that it has become a project of the ministries of justice, making it even more of a crime prevention project rather than a project that is concerned with the well-being of MAPs.
These days, the well-being of its clients is not even mentioned as a noteworthy goal of the project. Its success is only measured in the supposed number of crimes it prevents.
It is also frustrating that since their inception they have repeatetly turned down every offer of long-term cooperations with MAP organizations. Meaning there are no MAPs really involved in the process of supervision and review of their therapeutic processes, nor in their public information and media campaigns. The interests of MAPs, which are supposedly their prime target group, are thus at best considered indirectly.
I watched the entire parliament’s discussion on that topic. There was exactly one cautiously critical voice questioning whether it is fair to equate the buying of dolls with the intent to commit crimes. Every other party seemed to be in favor of a ban.
The ban did not fail because the politicians were opposed to it, but because they want to use the opportunity to check what else they might also ban while they’re at it. As lurker said, this is not the end, but the beginning. So far the discussion in Austria precisely parallels how the debate evolved in Germany before the ban.
A relevant sidenote: right now there is a discussion in Germany to partially revert the increased punishments for CSAM, because they realized that they mostly hit teenagers or parents finding CSAM material on their child’s phone. Right now even these cases have to be punished with at least one year in prison, with no possibility to drop the charges due to pettiness.
I could not help but laugh bitterly when I saw the very same politicians who were feverishly arguing for increasing the punishments two years ago now suddenly claimed that it was all the opposite party’s fault and responsibility, and that they would come along now to fix what they had broken.
I know they recently reached out to VirPed and MSC for user feedback on their program, which is where most of my criticisms originate (I had limited knowledge of their approach before those conversations). However, they seemed unwilling to engage with the idea that in order to be effective they needed to shift their fundamental goals, making those conversations effectively useless.
Odd, as far as I know they have not reached out to any German speaking group for feedback, which seems weird considering that this is their prime target. They certainly did not ask us.
I agree that in order to achieve progress a shift in their doctrine would be necessary. However, even if they wanted to I doubt that they could really do that. They are pretty much in a deadlock and would risk their funding if they started to engage too heavily with destigmatization and MAP well-being.
What would it take for society to learn these lessons the hard way? What would it mean? Maybe society really needs to learn the lesson the hard way that banning fictional outlets is a bad idea.
It’s a lesson we’ve already learned, time and time again throughout the years and have only been privy towards the concept itself for the last 300-400 years on a massive scale.
Whether people know it or not, the argument that these types of materials should be excluded from the freedom of expression, or that no distinction should be made from real abuse imagery, is fundamentally incompatible with even the most basic concepts of freedom of speech itself, as no harm is caused by their production, consumption, or existence.
It does not promote real abuse or attitudes supportive of real abuse, it does not drive people to perpetrate real abuse (including those who are considered ‘high risk’). No research evidence has been produced to conclusively show or demonstrate a level of increased risk, even among those predisposed, and studies that claim the opposite are plagued by selection bias.
Society needs to understand where their freedoms lie. Nothing good comes from censorship/prohibition of this type, only unnecessary suffering and the promotion of a theory based on fear and irrational thought, not rational thought and understanding.
Freedom requires, and promotes discipline. The act of suppressing/prohibiting these types of materials (fictional outlets or sex dolls) is an undisciplined move by policymakers and their constituents, emboldened by the deafening silence or the forced suppression of voices which urge them to stay their hand.
Parents have a right to protect their children and act/vote in accordance with what they believe to be their best interests. No question. But that instinct must be moderated by reason, otherwise anything and everything that could plausibly be presented as a threat would not exist, not even the parents themselves.