https://x.com/yoursexmedjour/status/1841654038955221334?t=TH_BZfGsKGiQRrOeOJRwMg&s=19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-024-00979-3
The article explains some existing arguments. I recommend reading it and discussing it.
I argue that one’s freedom should not depend on pretending that a doll has human rights. No matter what it’s called or how it’s framed, punishing someone for doll ownership is extending human rights to a lifeless object.
That’s an excellent article! I appreciate this part overall:
“…as a functional tool to enhance users’ life satisfaction by substituting for human interaction in various contexts [10]. They can act as partners for individuals who struggle to find a partner due to unrealistic expectations or limited social contacts. Additionally, dolls provide a masturbation aid for those who cannot act out their fantasies with others. These functional uses of dolls address specific needs and can improve mental well-being, demonstrating their potential to fulfill important emotional and psychological roles.”
They labelled it: “schizotypal traits associated with social withdrawal and creativity [29, 40], and antisocial traits associated with disinhibition and distance in interpersonal relationships.”
They can call it whatever they like. When a person’s relationships have always turned out to be a negative experience; there comes a point where they are trapped. Feeling they’ll wind up alone for the rest of their life. Denied any intimate or sexual contact unless acquired by “illegal” means. What choices are they left with? Suffer the unbearable loneliness? Masturbation. Turn into a hateful serial killer? Suicide?
These people are ignored, laughed at, ridiculed, labelled as “losers”, and shrugged off by society. Then society wonders what went wrong when that person acts out in some heinous fashion! Or becomes a drug addict. Having an outlet for the lost and lonely in the form of dolls (or someday, fully functional robot companions), whether they be used for sex or not, is about the only alternative that I can see.
Pushing religious moral values in the form of legal moralism is fascism at it’s finest! Surmising criminal activity from interaction with a harmless object is negative think. Attempting to thwart “future crime” and put a stop to “thought crimes” is fascist as well. People are unpredictable for the most part. Trying to legislate those things is a fool’s errand and inherently evil.
Referencing my paragraph above, my options and experience had pushed me into a deep depression, on the brink of suicide when I discovered dolls. They filled that void in my life. I realize they’re not real, living beings. They fulfill that visual and tactile need to feel that I’m not alone. The feeling of holding someone. Looking into their eyes. Sex was never my motivation for getting them.
Their personalities are splinters of my own. they have allowed me the freedom to explore my own psyche. I can have them be anyone I want. Dress them the way I like. Maintaining them is a labor of love. I found brushing their hair to be quite therapeutic for me. Gluing nails and eyelashes back on every now and then is a chore. But one I do out of caring about them. They give me the opportunity to express love without judgement or expectations.
Have I withdrawn somewhat from interpersonal relationships? You bet! All they ever brought me was pain. Pain that always outweighed loneliness. Having a pet is nice but it’s not the same. Dolls have filled the emotional void in my life. They’ve allowed me to like myself again while the rest of the world turned it’s back on me.
“In this study, the term “sexual interest in children” is abbreviated by “SIC” and includes pedophilic (regarding prepubescent children aged 10/11 years or younger; [1]) and hebephilic sexual interest (regarding pubescent children aged 11–13/14; ref. [2]). The term does not necessarily imply that diagnostic criteria are met. Paraphilic interests in females, such as pedophilic interest, have been neglected in research for a long time compared to paraphilic interests in males.”
The double standard between men and women. For males, they have a pedophilic paraphilia, for women it’s “SIC”:sexual interest in children. Herein immediately lies the problem! Fewer women “get caught”. When it comes to women offenders, mostly we see teachers having illicit affairs with students. The bias is there. Men=monsters, women=poor victims.
I apologize for not formating this well.
Another generated output by Perplexity shows this.
Attributing human rights to inanimate objects raises several ethical implications:
Legal and Philosophical Challenges: Granting rights to non-sentient entities like dolls or objects blurs the distinction between humans and nonhumans, potentially leading to legal decisions that defy established jurisprudence and common sense 1.
Moral and Cultural Concerns: Such actions may undermine respect for genuine human rights by equating inanimate objects with living beings, which could trivialize the concept of rights and create cultural harm 2 5.
Anthropomorphism: The tendency to attribute human traits to non-human entities can lead to ethical dilemmas, as it challenges traditional notions of rights and responsibilities 6.
These implications highlight the complexity of extending human-like rights beyond their traditional boundaries.
IMHO: Even if dolls were harmful (which they aren’t) they shouldn’t be baned. They are objects who have no rights and are the owners personal ownership. Banning anything which is personal ownership will never be the best approach to anything. The government should never stick it’s nose on personal property and I think there are better approaches to prevent child abuse that to ban them.
Yeah, if we give them rights we will have to ban everything else which personal ownership. We will have to ban adult dolls too.
Dolls are no different than reproduction artwork sculptures because they are simply that…molded sculptures.
There are no rules concerning what materials a sculpture can be made from, as it can be any substance from diamond to raw garbage. Neither is there a requirement that sculptures be entirely static and unpliable.
Child-like dolls have been the canary in the coal mine for the entire doll industry, and in a larger sense, all fantasy material. Once the president is set that one kind of fantasy art can be banned to possess, all free speech is up for grabs.
What makes you think it isn’t already?