Child Sex Dolls will never be tolerated here in Australia

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

And no proof that it causes criminal offending, either.


Held accountable for what? Grossing you out?


Hurting the poor innocent piece of plastic


Sex doll owners have been shown to have lower levels of sexual aggression than the average person

Additionally, if you consider current research lacking, you can donate to Prostasia’s research fund, which is currently supporting a project that will produce more detailed research on the effects of fictional and fantasy outlets.


Honestly, it doesn’t even matter if they DO reduce sex offenses; the question is, do they INCREASE sex offenses? If not, then there’s no rational argument to be made for their criminalization. If they also reduce sex offenses, great! But even if they don’t, as long as they neither increase sex offenses, what’s even the point of banning them?


There are also a ton of risk factors for abuse (alcohol and drugs, for example) that aren’t banned. The fact that people focus on child sex dolls is evidence that they care about preventing certain groups from having an outlet, not actually protecting kids


Go troll somewhere else.


Does your so called “child protection league” protect children who happen to also be pedophiles?


No they have an exception in their bylines for that.
Children who have attractions that are not listed in Appendix C: 'Permissible Sexualities for Children we Protect' are not eligible to be protected


Austrailia isn’t exactly the gold standard when it comes to reason and sound judgement. Short women with small breasts can be classified as children over there.

Controversy arose over the perceived ban on small-breasted women in pornography after a South Australian court established that if a consenting adult in pornography were “reasonably” deemed to look under the age of consent, then they could be considered depictions of child pornography.[citation needed] Criteria described stated “small breasts” as one of few examples, leading to the outrage. Again, the classification law is not federal or nationwide and only applies to South Australia.[6]

Also the laws of mathematics don’t apply in Australia, so says PM Malcolm Turnbull:

“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.


okay that last quote is my favorite thing any politician has said ever


Ironic that your name is that, yet your post has literally nothing to do with defending children, but rather condones a lazy act of profiling somebody based on their thoughts and tastes, rather than their actions.

There actually is evidence for this, along with evidence for pornographic material in general, that it can and does reduce risk of offending behavior.

Also, there lacks any compelling or conclusive evidence that such outlets may incite or induce sexual offending behavior, even among CSAM consumers.
This fact, though, does not justify the use of actual child pornography because children were abused in order for such content to exist, which is why simulated/virtual materials where no real child was involved, are suitable substitutes.

He is a victim of an unjustified intrusion into his personal life and deserves to be left alone. He was afflicted suffering by a paternalistic, overbearing, and tyrannical government that would waste precious law enforcement and legal resources on someone whom they have no proof has done anything to harm a real person or engage in the consumption of materials which perpetuate such harm.

Sex dolls, cartoon images, and other forms of artistic expression, by their very definition, do not involve the use of a real child to exist, unlike photographic and video recordings of real acts of children being sexually exploited and abused.
They are not and cannot be considered CSAM because no real child was exploited for it to exist.

To equate the two with one another and willingly overlook that victim aspect is not an act of concern for the safety and well-being of others, but an act of selfishness, whereby one’s own discomfort or disgust with the subject matter is conflated with empathy and concern for children.

It’s a uniquely repugnant and selfish mindset which robs people of their rights and their innocence without even having conspired to commit a crime because the very crime itself is based on thoughts. It’s quite literally thoughtcrime.

As for concerns regarding whether such materials will “incite abuse” or cause real harm indirectly, well, the scientific consensus on the matter has consistently failed to support such a catalytic relationship.


George Orwell is screaming from his grave; “I TOLD YOU SO”. And that was in 1948. People never seem to learn. Well put @Chie .


He said Dunnett showed remorse by co-operating with authorities.

“You now understand that possession of these dolls and other items was wrong,” he added.

“You hopefully will get the necessary treatment to ensure you are not involving yourself in this type of offending in the future.”

It seems the court forgot to add the part where he admits to practicing witchcraft.


Reminds me of that time that North Korea forces an American student to “apologize” before torturing him to death.


Damn this shit makes my stomach turn. I’m honestly impressed. Out of all of things they could have said after victimizing this man (including nothing at all), they managed to arrive at by far the grossest thing possible. Fucking ghouls

These are the snakes that love saying “get help” to end a debate + institutional power.


It disgusts me to read this, because there was no “wrong” committed here.
These dolls are harmless, the statistics behind their owners show no causal connection, let alone correlation, between their ownership and the commission of sex crimes involving real children, such as CSEM consumption or CSA offenses.

The only offense there is to be had here is that if personal offense to a single man’s sexual preferences and the victimless outlet by which he expeesses that. That lack of personal freedom, that refusal to respect one’s privacy, and the desire to impose a majoritarian viewpoint for its own sake represents the darkest form of tyranny.


In Japan we are studying child sex doll in treatment, as I comment here in the past:

Unfortunately, COVID-19 stop our program for 2 years, but from 2022/06 it has resume. But also the program page was remove from MHLW web site, even though program continue quietly, because of rising and falling tide in Western media.


Kitchenware, electrical appliances, guns, cars, computers, and the internet will never be tolerated in some places as well. There are just too many crimes involved around these things that they will rather ban all of them to dust their hands clean of it all. (albeit, sex dolls have a long way to catch up to reach that level of criminal activity).

Thankfully, majority do not believe in going through that level of extreme measure. There are more thoughtful, organized, and methodical people out there in their approach to eradicating problems that gravitate around certain idealisms, technologies, and goods. I am grateful of these such people.

We truly can make this world a better place when we use our brain, instead of our gut.