"Prescribing" Sexbots

No one’s going to out themselves to a doctor just so they can get access to a sexbot. And this presumes a sexbot “might” increase the chances of someone attacking someone. A dubious claim. And it presumes people only ever use sexbots for the purposes of “sex”, another dubious claim. It is likely someone would want one largely for companionship.

Frankly, if I or any rational person was to use a sexbot and I thought it was making it “increasingly likely” to go out and “attack” someone, I would stop using it. It is irrational to assume someone would go all the way and do that. It is an assumption which assumes a complete lack of sapience.

Of course, this is a dubious claim to begin with, research in Japan, Denmark and the Czech Republic suggests even child pornography can significantly reduce the chances of “attacks”, along with other forms of pornography in less controversial circumstances.

“For someone who has an exclusive attraction to children, there is no legal way for them to satisfy their desires apart from masturbating to an image in their own head as they’re not allowed to look at pictures or even draw a drawing,” she said.

I doubt there is anyone actually braindead enough to follow these fascist laws. It would be a disaster if they did. It might not even be illegal across the entire United Kingdom.

Studies show that 2 per cent of the UK population has strong paedophilic tendencies and that one in five men was found to be equally or more attracted to children when shown adult and child pornography.

Child pornography is illegal, even for researchers to use in a study, therefore I am assuming it wasn’t actually child pornography.

Ms Grayson said 38 per cent of StopSO clients have not come to the attention of police or authorities.

I would assume this therapy clinic was honeypot if they did. I might still think it is one considering the U.K. has a fascist mandatory reporting laws which cover fictional depictions.

Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement: “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offences against real children.

Is this the same NSPCC which tosses nonsense numbers at the media and stokes hysteria? And later complains when people are too scared of being called paedophiles?

She pointed to five factors that lead to people being attracted to minors, including “being born with it”, suffering trauma as a child, “brain injury” and older men who are used to looking at normal pornography but "find their erection isn’t as strong as it was” and who move onto child images - she added these men may already have a predisposition towards minors.

Even quoting the cycle of abuse? This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Child abuse victims absolutely hate this nonsense.

Maybe there are, that is very troubling.

If there is anything the United Kingdom normalises, it is the idea of breaking the law, which isn’t really a good thing. If you’re used to breaking the law all the time, any law might look breakable. It may create an adversarial relationship with the government where someone stops caring what the government thinks. It isn’t helped that every approach to tackle the issue and provide “help” is worded along the lines of “we are coming to get you”.

1 Like