Austria: Sex doll ban failed

To find out how well that would work, see China: Pornography laws by region - Wikipedia

It is illegal to sell, distribute pornography or arrange for pornographic performances in mainland China, but it is not illegal to own or to watch it.

The following is from: Pornography in China - Wikipedia

Although pornography is illegal, it is available via the Internet. Nationwide surveys between the years 2000 and 2015 revealed “more than 70 percent of men aged 18 to 29 said they had watched porn in the past year.”

As you can see, banning porn would work. Totally.

I should probably post this too:

In mainland China, there are no laws that specifically distinguishing and punishing child pornography, the existing laws adopt a uniform standard of punishment for all pornography.

Because when you ban all porn, doesn’t it seem a bit redundant to punish CSAM offenders more than those that produce, distribute or sell adult porn? Regardless, that’s what China thinks!

The Chinese government’s reasoning for banning porn:

Chinese government consistently holds the idea that pornography information is harmful, arguing that “disseminating pornographic information online severely harms the physical and mental health of minors, and seriously corrupts social ethos”, pornography information is close to “spiritual pollution”. Xinhuanet states that “Chinese cultural traditions and moral values do not allow obscene and pornographic information to spread unchecked on the Internet”.

Among the issues raised, there’s this:

Sex education is extremely limited in China. Consequently, pornography has become the “only source of information for millions of young people” looking to learn about sex.

Why does that sound so familiar?


Much like addictions. Willpower alone doesn’t work. People need a support network.

I have one with other doll owners and the data from our community shows the opposite. We lose interest in real children sexually, stop watching porn. Even if many of us are MAPs, children remind us of our innocence, and we would protect them with our lives rather than harm them. Our dolls become real people to us with real personalities. Understand it’s all in our imagination. It’s a fantasy world where we love them more than just wanting to masturbate with them. You can’t “have sex” solo!

If these lawmakers would look at the genuine research and bring these psychologists and psychiatrists in to discuss the few studies. If doll owners could speak out without being known, outted, and instantly branded with a negative label, destroying their lives; maybe these moral crusaders could understand? Doll owners are using them to solve impossible real-life problems that most people can’t understand because they don’t have them. There is no “get over it”, “try this, try that”. Don’t you think every avenue has been exhausted? They’re happier and fulfilled. Definitely no threat to anyone.

I’m exhausted with the endless rhetoric and false assumptions about them from people who will never understand. It’s really none of anyone’s business when it comes down to it!! There are no victims!


While this is probably true, they still want to have sex with a child in the belief that it is good for the child. Or at least, not harmful. Which is the problem. Good intentions are never an excuse for causing harm.

“…they still want to have sex with a child in the belief that it is good for the child. Or at least, not harmful.”

That’s a pro-contact stance. Anti-contacts like many of us know it’s wrong and harmful. Another assumption of “all” of something. Like “all” people that buy “sex” dolls want to or have, sex with them. So why would I special order them without “holes”, as they were originally made, as mannequins, if that were the case?


who is “they” in this?

1 Like

I believe he’s referring to MAPs. That’s why my reply.

1 Like

I am. filler filler filler

Speaking as someone who has spent a significant amount of time on MAP spaces and read a lot of research on MAPs, I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting that a majority of MAPs believe that abuse isn’t harmful


All of the professional research literature concurs that adult sexual orientation is extremely resistant to change, even with highly motivated and engaged patients.

But perhaps Prof. Jonni Brem prefers to pretend that he can cure pedophiles of their attraction to minors since that’s probably an important justification for the existence of his job.


This is an issue.


Ah, good ol’ Upton Sinclair.

Didya ever hafta read “The Jungle” in school? I didn’t, but we did learn about it.

I was taught that it was about how filthy and dirty the meat industry was.

While that IS a major theme of the book, it’s not the main theme.

Anybody who’s actually read the book will know that it primarily focuses on the horrific conditions suffered by the workers.

But the public didn’t care about workers’ rights, just about sanitation.

Sinclair was a true socialist (not some authoritarian “tankie” like Stalin or a complete moron like Mao) and honestly wanted what was best for workers. In Sinclair’s own words:

1 Like

I once had a short mail exchange with him regarding his stance towards dolls. I rarely encountered more dangerous and misinformed attitudes by a supposed expert.

According to him, pedophilia is like an obsessive-compulsive disorder, and the only way to treat it is basically conversion therapy. Any kind of sexual gratification using dolls, is therefore dangerous and counterproductive in his opinion, as it worsens the disease. Fantasies, likewise, should be suppressed – instead pedophiles should learn to “live in the real world” and “overcome their fear of adults”. He also thinks that fantasies and dolls lead to real crimes, and bases this on a few cases of child murderes he worked with who supposedly practiced their murders by destroying child dolls before murdering children in real life.

He is not alone with this though. In Germany, Prof. Klaus Beier, head of Don’t offend made similar statements, which were cited many times to justify the ban of dolls in 2021. And just recently the spokesperson of Don’t offend said similar things about AI-generated images in an article by Der Spiegel.


Do you have links to said articles? It’s completely inappropriate for individuals affiliated with organizations that claim to support MAPs to be spreading misinformation that increases stigma.


The Spiegel-article about AI-generated images: Generative KI und Kindesmissbrauch: »Das kann sich fast wie eine erneute Vergewaltigung anfühlen« - DER SPIEGEL (Generative AI and child sexual abuse: “It can almost feel like being raped again”).

It’s in German and behind a paywall, so not very accessible unfortunately. It should be okay to cite the relevant parts by von Heyden though (DeepL translation):

For Maximilian von Heyden of the prevention network “Kein Täter Werden” (Don’t Offend), on the other hand, clinical findings tend to suggest “that the use of this material can lead to an increase in risk in individual cases”. Von Heyden emphasizes that it is not possible to conduct conclusive research on this question for ethical reasons, but he considers it “rather unlikely” that AI-generated material represents a compensation option for offenders with corresponding tendencies.

[…] Von Heyden warns, for example, that the rise of technology could have a negative impact on the empathy of potential abusers: “Should AI-generated abuse be discussed and created in forums where the suffering of victims is not considered, downplayed, or even denied, this could also increase the risk.”

Basically, the closer to reality the events depicted in abuse depictions are and the more intensively people can put themselves in a scenario of a supposedly real act, the greater the risk that a real act will follow, he said. “For example, if video footage of a child in close proximity exists and an AI is trained to create abuse images based on it, this could increase the risk of an assault.”

German original

Für Maximilian von Heyden vom Präventionsnetzwerk »Kein Täter Werden« dagegen legen klinische Erkenntnisse eher nahe, »dass die Nutzung dieses Materials in Einzelfällen zu einer Risikosteigerung führen kann«. Eine abschließende Erforschung dieser Frage sei schon aus ethischen Gründen nicht möglich, betont von Heyden, aber er halte es für »eher unwahrscheinlich«, dass KI-generiertes Material eine Kompensationsmöglichkeit für Täter mit entsprechenden Neigungen darstelle.

[…] Von Heyden warnt etwa davor, dass der Aufschwung der Technik sich negativ auf die Empathie potenzieller Täterinnen und Täter auswirken könnte: »Sollte KI-generierter Missbrauch in Foren diskutiert und erstellt werden, in denen das Leiden der Opfer nicht berücksichtigt, heruntergespielt oder sogar in Abrede gestellt wird, könnte dies ebenfalls das Risiko erhöhen.«

Grundsätzlich gelte: Je realitätsnäher das dargestellte Geschehen in Missbrauchsdarstellungen sei und je intensiver sich Personen in ein Szenario einer vermeintlich realen Tat hineinversetzen können, desto größer sei die Gefahr, dass eine reale Tat folgt. »Sollte beispielsweise Videomaterial eines Kindes im nahen Umfeld existieren und eine KI darauf trainiert werden, darauf basierend Missbrauchsabbildungen zu erstellen, könnte dies das Risiko eines Übergriffs steigern.«

Btw, they also claimed that the effects of child sex dolls would be impossible to research ethically, which Prostasia has already disproven. Does not seem to impress them much though.

During the time when the child sex doll ban was campaigned for in Germany, this old interview with Prof. Klaus Beier by the media company RTL was often cited, especially the emphasized quote: Dreijährige Kindersexpuppen: Wer zur Hölle braucht das? (Three-year-old child sex dolls: Who the hell needs that?)

Translation of the relevant parts:

If you try to find at least one argument that could speak in favor of the production of child sex dolls, this one might come to mind: Under certain circumstances, they help to prevent sexual abuse of children, since pedophiles can then practice their preferences on dolls and not on ‘real children’. Prof. Klaus M. Beier, spokesman for the ‘Don’t offend’ network, however, sees things quite differently:

“There is a justified concern that the use of dolls could just loosen the behavioral control, because what happens is a moving closer to the desired reality: you see a child with whom you can live out the desired sexual contacts and who is ready for anything,” says the expert. And it comes even worse: “Incidentally, the behavioral sequences related to the child would be trained downright - in a real temptation situation, a possible implementation would then be easier.” Child sex dolls are therefore intended to encourage affected people to commit acts against helpless children even more instead of preventing them from doing so. They literally serve as a stepping stone into a sea of violence, pornography or abuse against children in reality.

Of course he cites no empirical evidence for his believes, as there is none. And yes, he literally does refer to a doll as “a child”, this is not a misinterpretation.


Ugh, thanks, I’ll have to look and see if there are any alternatives in the region that might be better to recommend. It’s a damn shame that some of the most promising treatment options are degraded by leaders who would rather cater to public opinion than promote accurate information and research


There are none that I know of. All other treatment options are even worse then Don’t offend.


non that are on a national level or free of charge.

Essentially it´s back to try and error private Psychologists and hoping you find one that works.