Child sex dolls should remain legal. Accept the facts

I saw this topic, called “FB says you guys want to legalize child sex dolls wtf”: FB group says you guys want to LEGALIZE "Child sex dolls" WTF - #4 by Chie

The creator of the topic said “FB group said”, as if it matter what FB groups are saying… When i said the title of his topic, i thought FB means FBI, not facebook. So i was about to talk about the human experiments FBI did in the past.

Why some people think that it matters what random people on facebook are saying? Are these people sociologists / psychologists? No? Then they DON’T know if child sex dolls are a good thing or not.

Before i say why child sex dolls should be legalized, i will debunk some of his claims.

CLAIM: "Lots of people on facebook posting about how fucked up prostasia is including sharing screenshots of your posts."

FACT: Random people on facebook, are not sociologists nor psychologists, so their opinion on such topis should not be taken seriously.

CLAIM: "How can you support legalizing something so heinous???"

FACT: I don’t know if prostasia want to legalize that. What i do know, is that legalizing child sex dolls is the best and most moral think to do, if YOU hate pedophiles and don’t want them to have sex with children. Why is it moral? I will explain it later.

CLAIM: When LITERALLY 85% of the general public wants it to be a criminal offense, you damn well know it’s fucked up. There has never been a time in history where over 66.66% of the general public supports jim crow laws or anti gay laws. When such a huge percentage such as 85% want it to be a criminal offense, IT MUST be made a criminal offense.

FACT: Don’t ask the general public. Ask sociologists and psychologists. The general public is ruled by stereotypes and emotions - scientists are ruled by facts and actual data.

There are more claims, but im not going to debunk them all.

Why is it moral to legalize child sex dolls? Imagine for a moment that children can’t consent. If biological children can’t, and sex with biological children cause harm, and there are people who want to have sex with biological children, would’t it be better for people who want to have sex with children to be allowed to have sex with non-real children that are not able to experience “harm”?

Morality doesn’t mean to limit people and restrict anything you don’t like. Religious morality is not valid form of morality.

QUOTE FROM MY PETITION: "Religious morality, for example, accepts slavery, but rejects same-sex relationships. Morality should makes people happy and minimize suffering. Slavery is suffering, but it’s accepted by religion, same-sex relationships are not suffering, but aren’t accepted by religion, therefore religious moral is not valid. If we want to be moral, we have to be tolerant and to minimize suffering."

Here is the logic:

Sex with real children causes harm, according to people.
Banning sex with children causes harm/sadness to childlovers.
============
Sex with child dolls doesn’t cause harm, dolls can’t experience harm.
Allowing sex with child dolls causes fullfillment for childlovers, while lowers the “harm” to real children.

This is how to minimize harm, and keep everyone happy. We have to listen to natural morality, not to dogmatic morality. Natural Morality describes a form of morality that is based on how humans evolved, rather than a morality acquired from religious teachings.

If child sex dolls are legalized, more childlovers will do it with dolls, instead of wanting to do it with real children. This is continue for another 50 years, until the acceptance of MAPS reaches the point when being a MAP will be viewed as being gay in 2020. Right now, being a MAP is viewed as being a gay in the Dark Ages.

If legalization of child sex dolls can minimize harm then dolls have to be legalized. The person who created the topic about theFB group, is one of these people who think the girls in hentai videos are being raped against their will. Hentai is NOT rape!!! Very a few people can understand it.

We have to make laws that will make everyone happy. Acceptance and tolerance are the keys to good utopia.

2 Likes

This entire post looks like bait, but I’ll bite.

“Childlovers”? What kind of disgusting, child-r-pist sympathizing term is that? That’s like calling murderers “cessation-of-breathing lovers”.

Being gay isn’t remotely comparable to wanting to r-pe children.

That’s an if. There is also the chance they can further desensitize pedophiles to child abuse. Regardless, predators have no place in society.

Some of it is, some of it isn’t.

I’m getting “To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty” vibes from this.

Is this satire? Legalizing child r-pe dolls (seriously, stop calling them “sex” dolls) would make a lot of people unhappy. And it sure as heck wouldn’t lead to a utopia.

Your conflation of attraction with desire to rape is, concerning. I presume you are attracted to people, and I also assume you have no desire to rape them.

Attraction ≠ predation

You seem to be forgetting that whatever goes on with a piece of plastic is nothing more than a fantasy, it need not reflect reality, nor does it impact reality.

You need to work on differentiating between attraction and action, fantasy and reality, and overcome your personal disgust about the subject at hand, otherwise it won’t be possible to have meaningful discussions on this.

6 Likes

Yes, adults. And fictional characters that have adult features (no lolis or shotas).

I have no desire to cause any such harm to anyone.

I enjoy doing Dark Brotherhood quests in the Elder Scrolls series, and not just for the challenge. I enjoy the kill. One of the targets is, according to dialogue, “no older than 15”: https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Dovesi_Dran Does that make me a child murderer? No? If not, then why does changing murder to rape make me a child rapist?

4 Likes

Hello. I know you from Quora.

How is it possible to be rape if the characters don’t exist in the real life? Are you serious?

We use words that cause less stigma. This is why i use “sex worker” instead of “whore” or “prostitute”. We have to use political correctness.

1 Like

I don’t support rape. The only kind of sex i support is the consensual sex.

Also, dolls can’t be raped, because they don’t have personalitites and consciousness. They are not alive.

1 Like

Awful mischaracterization. Having sexual thoughts about minors is unfortunate, but they have a right to explore and express themselves sexually in ways that aren’t harmful. Crimes such as this should be based on harm, and child sex dolls are harmless.

Pedophilia (as opposed to pedophilic disorder) is defined as a “sexual orientation” by the DSM-5. It is a valid distinction for individuals who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder.
The differences between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder are defined by the delineating term “disorder”. Having a mere sexual preference and indulging in it in a way that does not invoke feelings of shame or guilt while also not being functionally limited by their sexual preference or feelings (ex. lolicon/shotacon, sex dolls, ageplay with adults, young-looking-but-adult pornography).

Pedophilia =/= child sexual abuse.

No. It literally isn’t. Rape is defined as non-consensual sexual conduct against a person. It’s an actual criminal act of sexual assault.
There is no plausible manner by which a fictionalized portayal of something could, by definition, be considered equal to the “real” thing.
If that were the case, then “slasher flicks” would be no different than snuff films and lolicon hentai would be considered CSAM, which neither of them are.
It’s fictional. You can argue a graphic hentai anime depicting an underage character being sexual is “pedophilic”, but you can’t call it the equivalent of actual, real-world sexual assault.

I don’t English is their first language…
But still.
Locking people up for owning sex toys is not worth the momentary “happiness” of those who would rather they not exist.
They exist. The people who consume them exist and they have a right to explore, express, and indulge if it’s not harming anybody. Any potential “secondary effects” or “indirect harm” claims made as a result of these dolls or fictional materials existing are unfounded both scientifically and empirically, with virtually zero conclusive evidence of their secondary effects, and socially as it’s unlikely that they will reach “normalization” status.

2 Likes

I have 2 child sex dolls. They are fun.

1 Like

I have a plush doll, that isn’t sexual nor anatomically correct, but I still use it.

1 Like

Nice. Are you a girl?

No. I am a guy. I also have lots of stuffed animals.

I just like saying this.

It cannot be found morally relevant for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom. No one has a reasonable reason to care about what someone does to a broom.

Comparing fictional conduct with reality is akin to comparing undressing to shower with undressing to ride a bus.

Sympathetic magic protects no one.

3 Likes