Can Child Dolls Keep Pedophiles from Offending?

I’m tired of hearing people say that these dolls hurt children. They are just a lot of people who know nothing about pedophilia wanting to assume things about pedophilia. In the end, these dolls are just another toy used to satisfy some desire, just like all other sex toys, they are all harmless. But even though they are as harmless as any other toy, these guys don’t want pedophiles to have this simply because they think they are more human, controlled etc. than pedophiles (which they don’t even know how they are).
Maybe some guy who bought these dolls abused a child? Maybe yes maybe no. But I don’t think it has anything to do with the doll itself (if so, at least prove it before using it as an argument). And also these dolls can give a better quality of life, and I can’t associate something that improves quality of life with encouragement of some antisocial behavior


I have serious doubt about all the claims they try to extrapolate onto the dolls regardless. Isn’t it utterly fascinating how America appears to have completely differently behaved pedophiles, than other countries? And how they seem to behave completely different inside the criminal justice system, where there are claims of coercion or when they have effectively already written the results by selecting the ones likely to fit them? In fact, it is almost as if the likelihood of someone finding negative research results, has a correlation with how much a country dislikes pedophiles, and the probability of researchers getting cancelled by a pack of angry conservatives.

Correlatively, stigmatization seems strongest in Australia, the second strongest is the United Kingdom, and after that is the United States. I don’t have much data on Canada, although their laws are certainly terrible and need to be repealed. Australia likewise produces the most negative “research”, if you can even call it research, rather than just an “expert opinion”. It is interesting how even this leftist “newspaper of prestige” used to publish this nonsense? Are they that scared of the Daily Mail / News of the World? It is the researchers fault for trying to push facts (as far as they know), how dare them try to do so! Let’s punish them like we did with that viile pediatrician who dared work in a profession with a similar name to the dreaded boogeyman!

No, it absolutely will not. What happens when they get tired of the doll? These dolls will never replace actual professional help. Maybe I could get behind letting them have a doll, but on the condition they are aggressively supervised by medical professionals.

This is essentially what you’re saying (bolded for edits):

No, it absolutely will not. What happens when they get tired of the violent video game? These violent video games will never replace actual professional help. Maybe I could get behind letting them have a violent video game, but on the condition they are aggressively supervised by medical professionals.

1 Like

Violent video games are a staple of modern culture. It’s ruled such an essential element of human expression that a parole condition to a convicted murderer prohibiting possession of violent video games as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So the two is not a good comparison.

Child sex dolls are far from a staple of modern culture. They should be regarded as heroin or equivalent. You need a medical prescription to use. Only a very small proportion of the human race has any need for them.

You’ve proven my point for me.

One is more socially accepted as normal than the other, that is the only difference between the two.

1 Like

Well, one is used exclusively for sexual gratification, the other is a more general purpose entertainment.

Some people use such dolls for companionship too, while video games are filled with fanservice of incredibly attractive characters.

Thinking about it, I have a better example for the sex doll thing than violent video games. Bolded for edits.

Both are inanimate objects, neither have feelings and people may use them to vent out their urges onto inanimate objects rather than real people.

The only difference between them is that one is more culturally accepted and the other isn’t, that’s it.

1 Like

You don’t know what professional help entails, can achieve, or aims to achieve do you?

Actually violent video games also serve for sexual entertainment, art as a whole, driving and speeding around, simulating real or theoretical events like fictional wars. It’s not just pointless gore. Child sex dolls, however have no such artistic value and if there are any use for them, they ought to be regarded as a niche professional tool to control pedos

There’s your true motive, controlling the people you don’t like.


Are you going to acknowledge the issue that punching bags/shooting targets essentially exist for people to learn how to inflict harm upon real, living beings, much like how you’re arguing that child sex dolls exist to whet the appetite of potential predators?

I’ve explained their similarities, can you tell me their differences beyond being culturally accepted as normal?

This is highly subjective. Art is highly subjective. One music composer literally made a song where the person sits at a chair and does nothing… It’s impossible to say what does and doesn’t have artistic value.


(laughs in guro). Also, being a “staple” of something is the fallacy of appealing to the masses. I feel no such sympathy for the common rabble.

1 Like