Sex dolls sold in the image of children as young as four years old..

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:50 pm

How depraved can people be? I didn't even know items like this were made and sold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4633322/Man-smuggled-paedophile-sex-doll-jailed.html

Sex dolls sold in the image of children as young as four years old.. 41AD41BA00000578-4633322-image-m-27_1498232384547

Sex dolls sold in the image of children as young as four years old.. 41AD41BA00000578-4633322-image-m-27_1498232384547

"A nuclear energy expert was behind bars in disgrace on Friday after he was caught smuggling a child-like 'paedophile' sex doll into the UK in the first case of its kind in Britain.
Father-of-one Andrew Dobson, 49, from Cheshire, used eBay to buy the £150 silicon doll - which resembled a girl as young as four - from a sex toy firm based in Hong Kong.
The sick item came with a negligee, face mask, blindfold, gloves and an even a 'cavity warmer' to give it a more 'life-like feel.'
But the package was intercepted by Border Force officials as it arrived at East Midlands Airport in Leicestershire.
Police later raided Dobson's £300,000 property in the village of Wistaston near Crewe, Cheshire and found 26 pornographic images and videos on his computer of children being abused.
One 12 minute clip showed a girl of six being raped by a man wearing a clown mask. He later admitted buying the child-like doll to use for sex.
At Chester Crown Court, Dobson, who works as a consultant on nuclear propulsion admitted importation of an obscene item and further charges of making and possessing indecent images and was jailed for two years and eight months.
Judge Simon Berkson told him: 'I had the doll shown to me and it is disgusting to think that this type of item exists and can be bought and imported all over the world."

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:04 pm

Omg this is disgusting why has it only got a short sentence for having p u vs of a 6 year old being raped!

My heart goes out to these kids, poor vulnerable kids.

Having dolls like kids, my God when will all this perverted, disgusting, sordid things end.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:15 pm

OP wrote:Judge Simon Berkson told him: 'I had the doll shown to me and it is disgusting to think that this type of item exists and can be bought and imported all over the world."

What is the penalty for being disgusting in Britain?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:17 pm

magica wrote:My heart goes out to these kids, poor vulnerable kids.

Wasn't it a doll?

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:My heart goes out to these kids, poor vulnerable kids.

Wasn't it a doll?

Yes he had dolls but the pictures he had was of raping a six year old child, that's what it said, unless I'm wrong the Quill.

by Miffs2 Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:24 pm

magica wrote:Omg this is disgusting why has it only got a short sentence for having p u vs of a 6 year old being raped!

My heart goes out to these kids, poor vulnerable kids.

Having dolls like kids, my God when will all this perverted, disgusting, sordid things end.

It won't, these paedophiles think what they do is normal. He should have got more than 2 years though.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:33 pm

magica wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Wasn't it a doll?

Yes he had dolls but the pictures he had was of raping a six year old child, that's what it said, unless I'm wrong the Quill.

No you are right Mags.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:34 pm

He didn't actually rape a 6-year old though.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:41 pm

Apparently this isn't a new thing, the dolls are shipped all over the world some have been seized in Australia since 2013.
The designer and artist is interviewed here.

He seems to think this is helping paedophiles leave real life children alone....surely it would have the opposite effect in making them believe its acceptable.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4095363/i-am-an-artist-man-who-makes-child-sex-dolls-for-paedophiles/?cs=7

Customs is cracking down on shipments of life-like child sex dolls that paedophiles are importing into Australia.
Border force officials have seized 18 consignments of child sex dolls sent from overseas since 2013.
The life-size dolls, which resemble children as young as five and are sold wearing lingerie, have movable joints and come with heating instructions.
A child sex doll manufacturer claims they can be used to help paedophiles control their urges.
But experts have said there is no evidence to support claims that using dolls prevents child abuse and warn that products normalising children in sexualised ways could reinforce paedophilic behaviour.
More than 60,000 people signed a petition this year to ban the "sickening aids for paedophiles" being sold in Australia.
A Department of Immigration and Border Protection spokeswoman said the possession of "anatomically correct child dolls" was already an offence because they were considered child exploitation material.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:He didn't actually rape a 6-year old though.

I think that's the point. It's important to maintain a distinction in law between the actual deed, and merely fantasizing the deed. It's ok to personally feel the guy is disgusting, and you would hang around with him, but penalizing for having thoughts is dangerous.

On the other hand, if they are Republican or Tory thoughts, perhaps a little prison time might be appropriate. Lol.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
OP wrote:Judge Simon Berkson told him: 'I had the doll shown to me and it is disgusting to think that this type of item exists and can be bought and imported all over the world."

What is the penalty for being disgusting in Britain?

Depends what a person has done to activate the disgust Quill.

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:46 pm

[quote="Raggamuffin"]He didn't actually rape a 6-year old though.

No he had pictures of a little girl being raped. Makes him as bad as the rapist in my eyes

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:49 pm

Syl wrote:But experts have said there is no evidence to support claims that using dolls prevents child abuse and warn that products normalising children in sexualised ways could reinforce paedophilic behaviour.

This is the important part. Syl, can you provide us with a link to the experts to which this refers? If the discussion turns upon a causal connection to an actual crime, the thesis becomes more meaningful.

Note that this is stated in the negative, however: "no evidence to support claims". To be meaningful, this would require a positive causal connection.

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:49 pm

Syl wrote:Apparently this isn't a new thing, the dolls are shipped all over the world some have been seized in Australia since 2013.
The designer and artist is interviewed here.

He seems to think this is helping paedophiles leave real life children alone....surely it would have the opposite effect in making them believe its acceptable.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4095363/i-am-an-artist-man-who-makes-child-sex-dolls-for-paedophiles/?cs=7

Customs is cracking down on shipments of life-like child sex dolls that paedophiles are importing into Australia.
Border force officials have seized 18 consignments of child sex dolls sent from overseas since 2013.
The life-size dolls, which resemble children as young as five and are sold wearing lingerie, have movable joints and come with heating instructions.
A child sex doll manufacturer claims they can be used to help paedophiles control their urges.
But experts have said there is no evidence to support claims that using dolls prevents child abuse and warn that products normalising children in sexualised ways could reinforce paedophilic behaviour.
More than 60,000 people signed a petition this year to ban the "sickening aids for paedophiles" being sold in Australia.
A Department of Immigration and Border Protection spokeswoman said the possession of "anatomically correct child dolls" was already an offence because they were considered child exploitation material.

It most definitely is not acceptable in my eyes. Wanting to rape a child is disgusting. Seeing pics is horrible then using a doll, will not stop them wanting the real things. It utterly disgusts me.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:50 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What is the penalty for being disgusting in Britain?

Depends what a person has done to activate the disgust Quill.

What does the British criminal code say?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:54 pm

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:He didn't actually rape a 6-year old though.

No he had pictures of a little girl being raped. Makes him as bad as the rapist in my eyes

I like the argument: if I don't like your ideas, I can send you to prison. It was an argument that was used a lot in the Middle Ages, during religious inquisitions. Modernly, Lenin used it.

I like it because of its political implications these days.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm

magica wrote:

No he had pictures of a little girl being raped. Makes him as bad as the rapist in my eyes

Well it isn't as bad, and they should be looking for the person who did rape a kid. It's probably someone in another country.

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:

I like the argument: if I don't like your ideas, I can send you to prison. It was an argument that was used a lot in the Middle Ages, during religious inquisitions. Modernly, Lenin used it.

I like it because of its political implications these days.

So it's ok with you for men to want to have sex with children and look at young girls being raped.

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
magica wrote:

No he had pictures of a little girl being raped. Makes him as bad as the rapist in my eyes

Well it isn't as bad, and they should be looking for the person who did rape a kid. It's probably someone in another country.

Yes they should, but if sickos like this man didn't watch the films or pics, then many kids would be left alone. Also would you watch a film on kids being raped, I don't think so, you would be sick like any normal person.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:03 pm

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it isn't as bad, and they should be looking for the person who did rape a kid. It's probably someone in another country.

Yes they should, but if sickos like this man didn't watch the films or pics, then many kids would be left alone. Also would you watch a film on kids being raped, I don't think so, you would be sick like any normal person.

I doubt that. The video would be just a "bonus".

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Depends what a person has done to activate the disgust Quill.

What does the British criminal code say?

Well having extreme child porn in your possession can award a sentence of 5 years imprisonment I believe Quill.
Peeing or vomiting in the street probably lets you off with a warning...so even though both acts are disgusting, there is not a cut and dried answer to your question.

by Miffs2 Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:14 pm

Anything that is an attempt to normalise paedophiles and paedophilia should be illegal and possession of any materials connected to paedophilia should be an automatic 5 years in prison.
Are those that view paedophilia as bad as those who rape and abuse children? Yup in my opinion they are.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:But experts have said there is no evidence to support claims that using dolls prevents child abuse and warn that products normalising children in sexualised ways could reinforce paedophilic behaviour.

This is the important part. Syl, can you provide us with a link to the experts to which this refers? If the discussion turns upon a causal connection to an actual crime, the thesis becomes more meaningful.

Note that this is stated in the negative, however: "no evidence to support claims". To be meaningful, this would require a positive causal connection.

No its not something I have looked up Quill, to be honest I didn't know these dolls existed till I read about the this case this morning.

Presumably, if experts state that the use of the dolls don't support claims that using them can reduce child abuse...they are privy to facts and figures that convince them of this.

Sickening though many people will find this, I bet that if there were proof that using these dolls reduced the numbers of children being raped by paedophiles, many including me would support providing them on the NHS.

Human nature being what it is though, I personally think that no paedophile with the intention of raping a child if the opportunity arose would be satisfied with a doll.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:20 pm

If you give someone the same prison sentence for looking at child porn as for raping a child, what's the incentive not to rape a child? It's clearly worse to rape a child.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

This is the important part. Syl, can you provide us with a link to the experts to which this refers? If the discussion turns upon a causal connection to an actual crime, the thesis becomes more meaningful.

Note that this is stated in the negative, however: "no evidence to support claims". To be meaningful, this would require a positive causal connection.

No its not something I have looked up Quill, to be honest I didn't know these dolls existed till I read about the this case this morning.

Presumably, if experts state that the use of the dolls don't support claims that using them can reduce child abuse...they are privy to facts and figures that convince them of this.

Sickening though many people will find this, I bet that if there were proof that using these dolls reduced the numbers of children being raped by paedophiles, many including me would support providing them on the NHS.

Human nature being what it is though, I personally think that no paedophile with the intention of raping a child if the opportunity arose would be satisfied with a doll.

You want the NHS to provide blow up dolls?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:21 pm

magica wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I like the argument: if I don't like your ideas, I can send you to prison. It was an argument that was used a lot in the Middle Ages, during religious inquisitions. Modernly, Lenin used it.

I like it because of its political implications these days.

So it's ok with you for men to want to have sex with children and look at young girls being raped.

I don't think he had sex with children. I think he had bad thoughts, perhaps provoked by photographic representations of child sex.

Porn aside, and speaking of bad thoughts, I would like to prosecute House Speaker Paul Ryan for having copies of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. This has resulted in much more misery than simple porn.

Come to think of it, why don't we develop an index of social harm, from which we could anchor such things as crimes and penalties.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:23 pm

Miffs2 wrote:Anything that is an attempt to normalise paedophiles and paedophilia should be illegal and possession of any materials connected to paedophilia should be an automatic 5 years in prison.
Are those that view paedophilia as bad as those who rape and abuse children? Yup in my opinion they are.

The people who view child porn create the market for it. If no one was interested in buying, downloading, sharing obscene child images what would be the point of supplying it?
So in a way they are just as guilty as the men who abuse the children in the first place.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

No its not something I have looked up Quill, to be honest I didn't know these dolls existed till I read about the this case this morning.

Presumably, if experts state that the use of the dolls don't support claims that using them can reduce child abuse...they are privy to facts and figures that convince them of this.

Sickening though many people will find this, I bet that if there were proof that using these dolls reduced the numbers of children being raped by paedophiles, many including me would support providing them on the NHS.

Human nature being what it is though, I personally think that no paedophile with the intention of raping a child if the opportunity arose would be satisfied with a doll.

You want the NHS to provide blow up dolls?

No, I said if there was evidence that using dolls stopped child sexual abuse there would be a point to them being supplied by the NHS.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You want the NHS to provide blow up dolls?

No, I said if there was evidence that using dolls stopped child sexual abuse there would be a point to them being supplied by the NHS.

No there wouldn't. They can buy their own dolls.

by Miffs2 Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:27 pm

Syl wrote:
Miffs2 wrote:Anything that is an attempt to normalise paedophiles and paedophilia should be illegal and possession of any materials connected to paedophilia should be an automatic 5 years in prison.
Are those that view paedophilia as bad as those who rape and abuse children? Yup in my opinion they are.

The people who view child porn create the market for it. If no one was interested in buying, downloading, sharing obscene child images what would be the point of supplying it?
So in a way they are just as guilty as the men who abuse the children in the first place.

They are. Also I can't imagine how these dolls would reduce offending. Paedophiles find children sexually attractive .

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:28 pm

Syl wrote:
Miffs2 wrote:Anything that is an attempt to normalise paedophiles and paedophilia should be illegal and possession of any materials connected to paedophilia should be an automatic 5 years in prison.
Are those that view paedophilia as bad as those who rape and abuse children? Yup in my opinion they are.

The people who view child porn create the market for it. If no one was interested in buying, downloading, sharing obscene child images what would be the point of supplying it?
So in a way they are just as guilty as the men who abuse the children in the first place.

Why stop there? Why not abolish free-market capitalism for having created the conditions for marketing child porn?

Lol. In fact, can't the whole thing be blamed on allowing people to be born with genitalia? We must stop this evil madness!! Twisted Evil

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

No, I said if there was evidence that using dolls stopped child sexual abuse there would be a point to them being supplied by the NHS.

No there wouldn't. They can buy their own dolls.

I agree, why should the taxpayer's money which goes into NHS buy these perverts dolls.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

No, I said if there was evidence that using dolls stopped child sexual abuse there would be a point to them being supplied by the NHS.

No there wouldn't. They can buy their own dolls.

Are you serious?
If any aid was available to stop men raping kids I think it would be well worth supplying it.
I don't for one minute think this is the case with these dolls, they just normalise to these men that having sex with a child is acceptable (in my opinion anyway) BUT if there was proof it worked I think anything that cut down child sexual abuse would be worth society paying for.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

The people who view child porn create the market for it. If no one was interested in buying, downloading, sharing obscene child images what would be the point of supplying it?
So in a way they are just as guilty as the men who abuse the children in the first place.

Why stop there? Why not abolish free-market capitalism for having created the conditions for marketing child porn?

Lol. In fact, can't the whole thing be blamed on allowing people to be born with genitalia? We must stop this evil madness!!

So you think people who watch porn are not guilty of anything criminal Quill?

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:35 pm

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No there wouldn't. They can buy their own dolls.

I agree, why should the taxpayer's money which goes into NHS buy these perverts dolls.

We are talking hypothetically Mags.

IF these dolls were proved to stop men raping children (as the designer of them implies) would you not think it worth supplying them instead of the NHS dealing with the aftermath of the actual abuse?

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:36 pm

Miffs2 wrote:
Syl wrote:

The people who view child porn create the market for it. If no one was interested in buying, downloading, sharing obscene child images what would be the point of supplying it?
So in a way they are just as guilty as the men who abuse the children in the first place.
They are. Also I can't imagine how these dolls would reduce offending. Paedophiles find children sexually attractive .

I agree Miffs.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:39 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Why stop there? Why not abolish free-market capitalism for having created the conditions for marketing child porn?

Lol. In fact, can't the whole thing be blamed on allowing people to be born with genitalia? We must stop this evil madness!!

So you think people who watch porn are not guilty of anything criminal Quill?

I think they are lacking something in their emotional formation. I think they are in need of therapy, for their own well being as well as society's.

Unless they physically carry out things in deed, I think you are playing rather cavalierly with extremely dangerous ideas. Holding that mental images (thoughts) are criminal, and deserving of institutional answers, is a huge step back into the middle ages.

But there is a lot of other evidence that we are retrograding, too. Say, for example, 'alternate facts'.

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:41 pm

Syl wrote:
magica wrote:

I agree, why should the taxpayer's money which goes into NHS buy these perverts dolls.

We are talking hypothetically Mags.

IF these dolls were proved to stop men raping children (as the designer of them implies) would you not think it worth supplying them instead of the NHS dealing with the aftermath of the actual abuse?

I get what you mean Syl, but how long will it be before they got fedup with dolls and wanted the real thing. Just thinking about it makes my skin crawl.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No there wouldn't. They can buy their own dolls.

Are you serious?
If any aid was available to stop men raping kids I think it would be well worth supplying it.
I don't for one minute think this is the case with these dolls, they just normalise to these men that having sex with a child is acceptable (in my opinion anyway) BUT if there was proof it worked I think anything that cut down child sexual abuse would be worth society paying for.

Of course I'm being serious. Blow up dolls on the NHS? Whatever next?

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:24 pm

magica wrote:
Syl wrote:

We are talking hypothetically Mags.

IF these dolls were proved to stop men raping children (as the designer of them implies) would you not think it worth supplying them instead of the NHS dealing with the aftermath of the actual abuse?

I get what you mean Syl, but how long will it be before they got fedup with dolls and wanted the real thing. Just thinking about it makes my skin crawl.

I don't think there is any proof the dolls do work Mags, I also don't see how they could.

I do know that paedophilia cant be cured...so .if anything ever did came close to helping paedophiles contain their compulsion to harm kids, no matter how unpalatable it is to others, it should be tried.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Are you serious?
If any aid was available to stop men raping kids I think it would be well worth supplying it.
I don't for one minute think this is the case with these dolls, they just normalise to these men that having sex with a child is acceptable (in my opinion anyway) BUT if there was proof it worked I think anything that cut down child sexual abuse would be worth society paying for.

Of course I'm being serious. Blow up dolls on the NHS? Whatever next?

Well I wasn't suggesting every man with a sexual urge and no partner to share it with be prescribed one. Razz

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

So you think people who watch porn are not guilty of anything criminal Quill?

I think they are lacking something in their emotional formation. I think they are in need of therapy, for their own well being as well as society's.

Unless they physically carry out things in deed, I think you are playing rather cavalierly with extremely dangerous ideas. Holding that mental images (thoughts) are criminal, and deserving of institutional answers, is a huge step back into the middle ages.

But there is a lot of other evidence that we are retrograding, too. Say, for example, 'alternate facts'.

Presuming men who watch child porn are paedophiles, and paedophilia cant be 'cured'...I don't see how therapy can help really.

Thinking about having sex with children isn't a crime, acting on it definitely is. Owning images of it is also a crime.... I believe it also is the USA as well as here.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:36 pm

Syl wrote:I do know that paedophilia cant be cured...so .if anything ever did came close to helping paedophiles contain their compulsion to harm kids, no matter how unpalatable it is to others, it should be tried.

Right out of 1932. We don't like paedophilia, but they felt the same way about Jews. So, substitute 'Jews' for 'paediphiles' and you get...

I do know that [Jews] cant be cured...so .if anything ever did came close to helping [Jews] contain their compulsion to harm people, no matter how unpalatable it is to others, it should be tried.

Perfect argument for concentration camps and certain experiments circa 1932-45. Good example of how this thinking starts.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I do know that paedophilia cant be cured...so .if anything ever did came close to helping paedophiles contain their compulsion to harm kids, no matter how unpalatable it is to others, it should be tried.

Right out of 1932. We don't like paedophilia, but they felt the same way about Jews. So, substitute 'Jews' for 'paediphiles' and you get...

I do know that [Jews] cant be cured...so .if anything ever did came close to helping [Jews] contain their compulsion to harm people, no matter how unpalatable it is to others, it should be tried.

Perfect argument for concentration camps and certain experiments circa 1932-45. Good example of how this thinking starts.

How can you compare a sexual perversion to a race of people?

by magica Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:43 pm

How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:45 pm

magica wrote:How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

I didn't...the Germans did.

I'm making a meta-argument about how this kind of social reasoning advances.

by Guest Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:48 pm

magica wrote:How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

Because he uses forms of antisemitism

There is no evidence for his claims, just as much as there was none for the Israeli's, but sadly people are gullible

by Guest Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

I didn't...the Germans did.

I'm making a meta-argument about how this kind of social reasoning advances.

Well if the Germans did, you surely condemn this do you not Quill?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:53 pm

Thorin wrote:
magica wrote:How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

Because he uses forms of antisemitism

There is no evidence for his claims, just as much as there was none for the Israeli's, but sadly people are gullible

It's not a claim. It's an analysis of a reasoning process, based on a bygone era that we all agree was loathsome. It's a great analysis of just how the reasoning remains, even though the subject changes. It shows it is the reasoning that is at fault.

by Syl Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
magica wrote:How can you compare Jews to stinking paedophile. What an insult to Jewish people.

I didn't...the Germans did.

I'm making a meta-argument about how this kind of social reasoning advances.

Lets forget about your Jewish/paedophile comparison, that's just too ridiculous to debate, but you seem to be suggesting that wanting to eliminate paedophilia from society is wrong in some way.