Child sex dolls

[iris lilies]

Do not read this thread if you are easily made queasy. There, you have been warned.

.........

.........

.........

I think the phenomenon of companion dolls and sex dolls is interesting. There are a few good documentaries on YouTube about this topic. After listening to the podcast hunting for warhead, it put child sexual predators in the front of my mind. They are an awful awful bunch. I also watched a film called Rewind about family generational abuse. Ugh.

So I was wondering about pedophiles who buy sex dolls that look like children. Are there such things? Who makes them? Would anyone admit to buying one? And etc.
So, imagine my surprise to find out that these objects are outlawed in many states in many countries as Outlawed child pornographic material.

I am surprised! That seems like extreme government overreach to me. Some guy in
Australia was convicted for buying a doll formed like a child. But Australia isn’t the only place that has banned this plastic product.

The doll is an inanimate object. No children were harmed in the making of it.


I recognize that this is a slippery slope with all kinds of ramifications. But I keep coming back to this seeming like the 21st century version of Blue laws. The outlawing of a hunk of plastic seems very invasive.

I think I’m going to be on the wrong end of this topic on this Board.

opinions?

[happystuff]

Having not defined "child" or "sex" - my initial reaction is that there simply shouldn't be "child sex" anything. Want to call it a "sex doll" - fine... keep the "child" out of it.

[iris lilies]

Having not defined "child" or "sex" - my initial reaction is that there simply shouldn't be "child sex" anything. Want to call it a "sex doll" - fine... keep the "child" out of it.
The manufacturers call them “companion dolls.”

Ok with you then?

[Yppej]

They reinforce deviant behavior that is harmful to children and can legitimize it in the twisted mind of a pervert.

[bae]

Well, plastic isn't all that good for the environment, so I might have some issues with that.

As to what people do by themselves behind closed doors, or in the privacy of their own mind, I don't care as long as they don't nonconsensually involve others.

[happystuff]

The manufacturers call them “companion dolls.”

Ok with you then?

The fact that you state: "So I was wondering about pedophiles who buy sex dolls that look like children." Then, yes, I think that might raise some flags and could definitely be an issue. Pedophiles and children - not a mix I, personally, approve of and I think there are some laws...

However, "companion dolls" and consenting adult(s), no one else is hurt (in ANY way), not imposing/infringing on another person, and children are kept out of it - what someone does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. Whether *I* personally "approve" or not - that's a different story and is for me to deal with.

There is a very fine line that I'm sure people will draw differently.

[happystuff]

Well, plastic isn't all that good for the environment, so I might have some issues with that.

Yes, this, too. LOL.

[Teacher Terry]

The issue might be does the doll encourage creeps to then seek out bigger thrills with kids. I don’t know. Child sexual abuse in particular is one of the reasons I couldn’t work with kids after 4 years. Social workers have killed themselves after everything they see.

[razz]

OK, I confess to being queasy about the whole idea of plastic sex objects both for environmental reasons as well as confirming the validity or acceptability of deviant, meaning illegal, behaviour involving children.

If someone wishes to have a robot or other item for companionship, go for it.

How did society get so scr*wed up that people cannot simply be social with others?

[jp1]

My thinking is along the same line as Teacher Terry. Is there research that shows that when pedophiles get to act out their desires artificially it encourages them to want actual children? If so then these dolls should be outlawed. On the other hand if the research showed the opposite then they should be allowed.

My guess is that there’s no research at all. Pedophiles who have not acted on their desires can’t even seek mental healthcare without getting tangled up with the law so I would be seriously surprised if anyone has been able to do any meaningful research on prevention.

[razz]

My thinking is along the same line as Teacher Terry. Is there research that shows that when pedophiles get to act out their desires artificially it encourages them to want actual children? If so then these dolls should be outlawed. On the other hand if the research showed the opposite then they should be allowed.

My guess is that there’s no research at all. Pedophiles who have not acted on their desires can’t even seek mental healthcare without getting tangled up with the law so I would be seriously surprised if anyone has been able to do any meaningful research on prevention.

I would think the opposite. Confirmed pedophiles have acted, been arrested, charged and incarcerated for years. My understanding is that extensive therapy has been tried/used/explored to help these troubled people find ways to manage their thinking and behaviour. This type of research information about the use of plastic alternatives would help those who wished to manage their behaviour/thinking before committing the acts.

[iris lilies]

I have less faith in social science research and resulting government action than many here.

This is a clear instance of nonya business, Nanny G. Especially since Nanny gets it wrong too often.

[razz]

I have less faith in social science research and resulting government action than many here.

This is a clear instance of nonya business, Nanny G. Especially since Nanny gets it wrong too often.

So who gets it right? Who decides? The pedo or sexual abuse perpetrators? Come on, IL , you cannot move anywhere or do anything without a sense of direction and consequences so simply naysaying is blindness, naivety and foolishness, . Do you prefer thoughtfully defined roadways or just let everyone just do whatever they feel inclined to do and be 'dam*ed' the consequences.

FWIW, I don't think that social sciences have been the perfect answer but thoughtful discussion and consideration of the both the costs and opportunity costs of each choice is desirable.

[iris lilies]

So who gets it right? Who decides? The pedo or sexual abuse perpetrators? Come on, IL , you cannot move anywhere or do anything without a sense of direction and consequences so simply naysaying is blindness, naivety and foolishness, . Do you prefer thoughtfully defined roadways or just let everyone just do whatever they feel inclined to do and be 'dam*ed' the consequences.

FWIW, I don't think that social sciences have been the perfect answer but thoughtful discussion and consideration of the both the costs and opportunity costs of each choice is desirable.

No where do I say, as you are saying, that everyone “ Just [gets to do] whatever they feel.” You have ascribed a generalization to my specific concern about plastic dolls.

This is a small thing, this plastic doll. That’s why I’m shocked Nanny G gets involved. The government is doing a whole lot more than “discussion and consideration.” Any discussion and consideration shousld have died in legislative committee. There are state laws on the books outlawing dolls as contraband. I don’t know what federal restrictions here are in place.Other Countries have charged and jailed people for possessing them.

That is extreme.

I think that the Gubmnt need not have or exercise a “sense of direction” for everything in our lives. I want a government that is neutral about many things that citizens seem to think is the Business of gubmnt.

The reason you don’t hear libertarian talk shows is because there’s nothing to talk about!!!. Libertarians can’t get out raged about whatever issue is in front of us today because much of the time, it is not a libertarian concern. I fantasize about a libertarian talk show where the host says “today we will not be talking about (for example) child sex dolls and weed use by citizens because it is none of our Business.

At the federal level, we wont be talking about The sad state of affairs,in rioting St. Louis because that is not the business of the feds, the federal government needs to be neutral, this is state and local issue.

This dream talkshow of mine would of course be impossible because it has too much dead air space.Haha. Who would they sell advertising to?

[JaneV2.0]

For the most part, I agree with IrisLily. The recent vaping hysteria, for example, was an example of much ado about nothing. Ed Meese and his war on pornography had me rolling my eyes so hard it hurt. We have more pressing problems in this country that should be addressed.

[ToomuchStuff]

So I was wondering about pedophiles who buy sex dolls that look like children. Are there such things? Who makes them? Would anyone admit to buying one? And etc.
So, imagine my surprise to find out that these objects are outlawed in many states in many countries as Outlawed child pornographic material.

I am surprised! That seems like extreme government overreach to me. Some guy in
Australia was convicted for buying a doll formed like a child. But Australia isn’t the only place that has banned this plastic product.



Don't you have to be convicted to get the term pedophile?
If not convicted, then when it crosses from some fantasy, to actual deviant behavior?
What about a doll, that is in children's clothing? (life size, little person sized, etc)
I remember a adult video series, years back, about a porn trial, in which one of the scenes, the actress dressed as a child. (Pauly Shore's girlfriend, at the time, before she killed herself)

Then you have those that have been convicted (know one), that go on sex tours to third world countries. Also know one in prison for child porn on their computer. (semi relative)
In the other country talk, well you will need to get into specifics, with their laws and constitutional rights, issues.

[JaneV2.0]

I'd be interested to know what happens to people who buy lifelike dolls and dismember them. Are they tried for a crime?

Could brothers of Barbie owners could be tried as adults for this?.

[ToomuchStuff]

I'd be interested to know what happens to people who buy lifelike dolls and dismember them. Are they tried for a crime?

Could brothers of Barbie owners could be tried as adults for this?.
Civilly, for destruction of private property, if the sibling pressed charges and the statue of limitations isn't up.

[iris lilies]

I'd be interested to know what happens to people who buy lifelike dolls and dismember them. Are they tried for a crime?

Could brothers of Barbie owners could be tried as adults for this?.

hahahah, this is hilarious! Good analogy, and funny to boot.

[jp1]

I never hurt my sister's barbie. I loved playing with it more than she did. She went camping with my GI Joe doll in his tonka motorhome.

[Alan]

I'm not sure what to think of sex dolls. On the one hand I wouldn't consider them any different than a more mainstream sex toy women might possess such as a vibrator. But on the other hand if the doll is designed to replicate a child's body I'd find that to go against a norm I'd rather not see broached. I guess I'd rather not see government try to regulate it but wouldn't mind a little social shaming.

On reflection I think I'd say that any sex play with products representing consenting adult activities is fine but any that promote non-consensual activity shouldn't be taken lightly.

[razz]

Bash my Barbie, I will smash your Hot Wheel kind of deal?

Pornography and pedophilia/child sex abuse is a national issue and definitely under the jurisdiction of the federal government as states (and provinces in my case) could never begin to control what happens especially with the internet enabling the problems. Youth trafficking for sex across NA is a huge problem as well. Shaking my head as I just don't understand how anyone could see this otherwise. Help me understand.

A child-for-sex toy is not a harmless and innocent object. Companion robots and dolls are very different in intent and use or abuse.

[iris lilies]

Bash my Barbie, I will smash your Hot Wheel kind of deal?

Pornography and pedophilia/child sex abuse is a national issue and definitely under the jurisdiction of the federal government as states (and provinces in my case) could never begin to control what happens especially with the internet enabling the problems. Youth trafficking for sex across NA is a huge problem as well. Shaking my head as I just don't understand how anyone could see this otherwise. Help me understand.

A child-for-sex toy is not a harmless and innocent object. Companion robots and dolls are very different in intent and use or abuse.

Of course it is harmless object. It is just a thing that doesn’t move, emit noxious fumes, or cause harm in other ways. It has no inherent harmful qualities, it is a hunk of plastic.

What you seem to object to is what a human may potentially do with it. Well, that’s a pretty big leap assuming that a human is doing something with it. An even further leap of belief that the action is unsavory. And then, the assumption that a human doing something with the hunk of plastic somehow harms a real life person.

All those are assumptionS, and your ( the generic you) assumption results in someone losing their liberty by going to jail. That’s not acceptable to me.

10 years in prison:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7148403/Australian-man-faces-10-years-prison-tried-import-lifelike-child-sex-doll.html

[rosarugosa]

I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. If the dolls diverted someone from pursuing a real child, then that would be a good thing. If the dolls fanned the flames of pedophilia, then that would be a bad thing.

[razz]

I'm done with this thread. When one has seen children harmed, the bias to protect them from predators supports federal laws to govern the harmful triggers. You feel differently, IL. Let's agree to disagree.

[jp1]

I'm done with this thread. When one has seen children harmed, the bias to protect them from predators supports federal laws to govern the harmful triggers. You feel differently, IL. Let's agree to disagree.

Way upthread you stated that there was likely plenty of research after I had said there likely wasn’t. If there is research showing that these dolls don’t divert people but instead intensify their desires I doubt many people would disagree with outlawing them.

But I would want to see the research before I agreed to do that. Let me reiterate. WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH ACTUALLY SAY? I would not want to outlaw them just based on the fear that they cause harm. Just as we are stupid to teach abstinence only sex education or no sex education on the incorrect assumption that if teens don’t know about sex they won’t have any.

[iris lilies]

I'm done with this thread. When one has seen children harmed, the bias to protect them from predators supports federal laws to govern the harmful triggers. You feel differently, IL. Let's agree to disagree.

ok, yep.

Child sexual abuse is terrible and perpetrators are skilled at insidious practice. Thats why it is the so hard to combat, the sneaky slyness of it all with victims who don't have full agency.

[iris lilies]

Way upthread you stated that there was likely plenty of research after I had said there likely wasn’t. If there is research showing that these dolls don’t divert people but instead intensify their desires I doubt many people would disagree with outlawing them.

But I would want to see the research before I agreed to do that. Let me reiterate. WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH ACTUALLY SAY? I would not want to outlaw them just based on the fear that they cause harm. Just as we are stupid to teach abstinence only sex education or no sex education on the incorrect assumption that if teens don’t know about sex they won’t have any.
I have a frenemy who is a sex therapist working with deviant behaviors at the order of the courts. She probably has insight into the research in this area, but I dont talk to her any more so cant pick her brain.

[happystuff]

Of course it is harmless object. It is just a thing that doesn’t move, emit noxious fumes, or cause harm in other ways. It has no inherent harmful qualities, it is a hunk of plastic. (or whatever).

What you seem to object to is what a human may potentially do with it. Well, that’s a pretty big leap assuming that a human is doing something with it. An even further leap of belief that the action is unsavory. And then, the assumption that a human doing something with the hunk of plastic somehow harms a real life person.

So are all the individual parts/components of a bomb, but regardless of what can potentially be done with these parts, it's okay for a human to have them until there is an assurance that human will somehow harm a real life person?

Again, I'm sure others will draw the line differently depending on specifics. I'm not sure I agree with the generic "it's a harmless object" argument in this case.

[Simone]

Child sexual abuse in particular is one of the reasons I couldn’t work with kids after 4 years. Social workers have killed themselves after everything they see.

Agree.

Listen on an empty stomach:

https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/