I don’t understand this. They’re dolls, they aren’t alive. Why people would care? This may be controversial, but I’d rather have a pedophile fucking a doll than raping a child
It’s a moral panic - pure and simple. The same reason some countries want to ban cartoon/animated pictures where the fictional character looks too young. I guess the underlying assumption there is that it’ll increase the number of people offending towards real children but I don’t think there’s any evidence to back that up.
If it was up to me, the criteria would be whether an actual person is being hurt directly or as a consequence of. That would include real violence, real pictures and possibly also GenAI stuff if it’s trained on real content.
This is a horrible take. What if providing access to these dolls actually decreases the likelihood that a buyer will offend against a real child? Would you be against the sale of said dolls then?
Reduction in real pictures being distributed is not a real indicator of reduction in CSA and CSE either.
A simple anecdote to show it:
How many pictures of Epstein with children are in distribution? How many for his clients?
vs the actual lives he and his gang destroyed.
The small timers are easier to catch and cull with traditional policing and internet restrictions/surveillance is going to do nothing to them in the face of what it will do to absolutely everyone else.
As far as the company in the post goes, better of letting them sell in your country, so you can easily put their customers on a watchlist, rather than be unknown until they start harming real people.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and personally I’m happy with childlike sex dolls being on the other side of that line same with AI generated CSAM, there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.
Are you seriously going to dodge every single hole people have poked in your flawed reasoning by redirecting attention to the person themselves - questioning their moral purity or hidden motives? Because that’s literally all you’ve done here so far.
I believe the last time something like this came up, the argument was raised that it normalizes the behavior and leads to escalation, i.e. “they’re just illustrations” “it’s just a doll” to “I’m just taking photos” or “it’s just touching”, this time against actual victims
Slippery slope fallacy. We know that consumption of real CSAM might increase frustration and lead to pursuit of real crimes. However, we don’t have the same level of evidence for illustrations or sex dolls. It’s a massive blind side in the scientific literature. It’s very hard to study.
Despite this, the number one risk factor still remains unsupervised access to minors. Regardless of whether the abuser consumes abuse media or not.
To my knowledge, there is very little research at all - the programs that would look into whether this might protect or endanger children struggle to get funded, because it’s icky.
In theory this is non-harmful. In practice this is part of a fantasy escalation ladder that leads bad places. Your actions are led by your thoughts, and you are the thoughts you feed. In reality it’s a good thing to not feed thoughts of abusing children.
I’d note that I’d be similarly uncomfortable with people buying hyper-realistic dolls to practice amateur torture on, but I’m ok with people buying silicone dolls to practice tattoo art and wound stitching on. The difference being intent, which is a line I’m equally unhappy with the government drawing. Someone slicing up a slab of silicone shaped like a baby because they have a desperate desire to hurt babies that they are actively feeding into is bad. Someone practicing stitching up silicone babies after injuries because they always wanted to be a doctor and never got the chance is healthier and fine. It’s the “what are you feeding with this action?” Problem of governance.
Calm down dude, not everyone expressing an opinion is automatically a pedo. I also get enraged to a thought of a child getting hurt, but don’t lose your brain. Like you could have argued that the doll is not where a pedo would stop, it would encourage him to move on, or that a doll like that existing is normalizing pedophilia, but instead you raged out. Censoring exchange of opinion does the opposite of preventing pedophilia. Instead, I’d be interested in a study that would explore whether having dolls/cartoons etc would do anything to decrease the number of child molestation in any meaningful way. If not - I’m on board for banning stuff like this. This argument against banning dolls, though not being particularly strong, does express some logic. Your comment actually does more harm than good by jumping the gun so hard, IMO.
Slippery Slope Fallacy. It’s the same thing as saying Doom and Grand Theft Auto train school shooters, or marijuana is a gateway drug to hard substances.
This is not me defending paedophiles, I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic here. Nothing says that having access to these dolls increases the likelihood of them carrying out their desires on a real child, or that by not having access they would never take that step regardless.
I don’t understand this. They’re dolls, they aren’t alive. Why people would care? This may be controversial, but I’d rather have a pedophile fucking a doll than raping a child
It’s a moral panic - pure and simple. The same reason some countries want to ban cartoon/animated pictures where the fictional character looks too young. I guess the underlying assumption there is that it’ll increase the number of people offending towards real children but I don’t think there’s any evidence to back that up.
If it was up to me, the criteria would be whether an actual person is being hurt directly or as a consequence of. That would include real violence, real pictures and possibly also GenAI stuff if it’s trained on real content.
You’re putting a disturbing amount of effort into advocating for childlike sex dolls, or cartoon CP.
This is a horrible take. What if providing access to these dolls actually decreases the likelihood that a buyer will offend against a real child? Would you be against the sale of said dolls then?
Reduction in real pictures being distributed is not a real indicator of reduction in CSA and CSE either.
A simple anecdote to show it:
How many pictures of Epstein with children are in distribution? How many for his clients?
vs the actual lives he and his gang destroyed.
The small timers are easier to catch and cull with traditional policing and internet restrictions/surveillance is going to do nothing to them in the face of what it will do to absolutely everyone else.
As far as the company in the post goes, better of letting them sell in your country, so you can easily put their customers on a watchlist, rather than be unknown until they start harming real people.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and personally I’m happy with childlike sex dolls being on the other side of that line same with AI generated CSAM, there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.
Disgusting for sure but thats a really bad argument to make something illegal. It’s the same rhetoric used to ban queer sexualities.
The generative ai is often based on real stuff and regularly ends up being deepfakes of real people who are affected, thats not victimless.
That’s the main justification for banning homosexuality as well.
Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with homosexuality?
You seriously need to take a good look at your life dude.
Are you seriously going to dodge every single hole people have poked in your flawed reasoning by redirecting attention to the person themselves - questioning their moral purity or hidden motives? Because that’s literally all you’ve done here so far.
While true, adults can consent, children cannot.
Not a single person here is advocating for having sex with kids.
Some disgusting things are quite legal. And have real victims.
I’m not sure why you would focus on illegalizing something disgusting that’s victimless.
“there are worse things that are legal” is a pretty terrible argument.
I believe the last time something like this came up, the argument was raised that it normalizes the behavior and leads to escalation, i.e. “they’re just illustrations” “it’s just a doll” to “I’m just taking photos” or “it’s just touching”, this time against actual victims
Slippery slope fallacy. We know that consumption of real CSAM might increase frustration and lead to pursuit of real crimes. However, we don’t have the same level of evidence for illustrations or sex dolls. It’s a massive blind side in the scientific literature. It’s very hard to study.
Despite this, the number one risk factor still remains unsupervised access to minors. Regardless of whether the abuser consumes abuse media or not.
They said same sex marriage would lead to bestiality
Fake kids to real kids is very different than some crazy fucko thinking same-sex marriage would lead to fucking animals. Are you for real?
Does the research support this argument though? (Spoiler: it doesn’t)
To my knowledge, there is very little research at all - the programs that would look into whether this might protect or endanger children struggle to get funded, because it’s icky.
And anyone looking into it immediately gets labeled as defending abusers.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
They are making these legislations to steer people’s focus away from the real CSA.
Remember. CSAM is just the symptom. CSA being the actual cause.
Hey if nothing else it gives you a decent idea of who to watch
In theory this is non-harmful. In practice this is part of a fantasy escalation ladder that leads bad places. Your actions are led by your thoughts, and you are the thoughts you feed. In reality it’s a good thing to not feed thoughts of abusing children.
I’d note that I’d be similarly uncomfortable with people buying hyper-realistic dolls to practice amateur torture on, but I’m ok with people buying silicone dolls to practice tattoo art and wound stitching on. The difference being intent, which is a line I’m equally unhappy with the government drawing. Someone slicing up a slab of silicone shaped like a baby because they have a desperate desire to hurt babies that they are actively feeding into is bad. Someone practicing stitching up silicone babies after injuries because they always wanted to be a doctor and never got the chance is healthier and fine. It’s the “what are you feeding with this action?” Problem of governance.
This is ‘videogsmes cause school shootings’ logic. There are better arguments than this.
Removed by mod
Calm down dude, not everyone expressing an opinion is automatically a pedo. I also get enraged to a thought of a child getting hurt, but don’t lose your brain. Like you could have argued that the doll is not where a pedo would stop, it would encourage him to move on, or that a doll like that existing is normalizing pedophilia, but instead you raged out. Censoring exchange of opinion does the opposite of preventing pedophilia. Instead, I’d be interested in a study that would explore whether having dolls/cartoons etc would do anything to decrease the number of child molestation in any meaningful way. If not - I’m on board for banning stuff like this. This argument against banning dolls, though not being particularly strong, does express some logic. Your comment actually does more harm than good by jumping the gun so hard, IMO.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
https://people.com/man-jailed-risk-children-discovery-secret-sound-attic-11904272
The people interested in these dolls are serious risks to society.
I would rather see every single one of them locked up than let a single child be harmed.
I feel like this is the exact argument made against playing violent video games, especially having lived through the 90s.
I’d rather see if there’s any actual data supporting the assessment.
Sex dolls are pedophile training tools, they only increase their desires to rape kids. But, blowup sex dolls have been a thing forever and legal.
Slippery Slope Fallacy. It’s the same thing as saying Doom and Grand Theft Auto train school shooters, or marijuana is a gateway drug to hard substances.
This is not me defending paedophiles, I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic here. Nothing says that having access to these dolls increases the likelihood of them carrying out their desires on a real child, or that by not having access they would never take that step regardless.
So I can see you’ve done zero research into psychosis and it’s trajectory.
If it’s lifelike, I can understand it, because that’s where I also draw the line when it comes to drawings and the likes.