I hope you realize this. That many are very angry at your organization. And with. Appropriately. Very. Good. Reason.
Your comparison between the prohibition on child sex dolls with the war on drugs is abominable. There is no comparison. The war on drugs criminalizes users who choose to experiment with their state of mind. Something humanity must have done for hundreds of thousands of years. Child sex dolls only seek to normalize these demented thoughts.
There. Is. No. Comparison.
You are NOT a “Child protection charity”. I haven’t made up my mind as to whether child sex dolls should be illegal or not. Though I’m leaning towards just seizing them with no criminal penalty to the perverts purchasing them. But it’s clear you are not a child protection charity. I don’t know what you are, it seems you post all kinds of things, ranging from trying to defend pedophiles in court arrested for fictional child sexual abuse as well as various articles calling for action to protect children. All over the place. You are more of a miscellaneous charity if that means anything. If that makes any sense.
Prostasia’s approach is evidence based and sex positive. It’s a very different approach from traditional child protection organisations who generally attack easy targets (paedophiles) and are very sex negative and anti-kink. If you’re looking for the traditional “paedophiles are evil”, “porn is evil”, “think of the children!!”, emotion led type charity then you’re probably better off elsewhere, but if you want something more nuanced then you might find something of interest here.
Normalise is a buzzword thrown around constantly when talking about paedophilia. Sex dolls “normalise” paedophilia, loli & shota “normalise” paedophilia, fantasies “normalise” paedophilia, just us existing “normalises” paedophilia.
Child sex dolls exist to provide pleasure, they have potential to be a safe outlet for feelings for people attracted to children. Criminalising them without significant evidence that they are harmful criminalises people for seeking a non-abusive outlet. Your undecided stance is great, because the science is still undecided.
This is defending what is potentially a safe, non-abusive outlet for sexual feelings. It has the potential even to reduce the use of real CSEM and reduce actual abuse. Criminalising loli/shota is a knee jerk reaction that ends up criminalising people for seeking a safe outlet.
Someone sent me a link to this forum. They said it was a pedo apologist website so I’m going to make a point here that others from our FB group has been making: IT WILL increase crime. Use your common sense. Use your BRAIN. It is so obvious that it will significantly increase crime! HOW is this even a QUESTION?
Also do we want to normalize this? Do you really want to normalize the idea of someone using an item that looks very childlike as a SEX thing? What the fuck is wrong with you??? It’s absolutely wrong.
Sounds like a personal disgust thing. As has been pointed out there is no evidence suggesting that sex dolls increase offending. Your issue seems to actually be that you find the idea repulsive, not that there’s good reason to believe it would be harmful.
How will it increase crime?? Literally every single scientific review of the subject matter seems to disagree with it. You’re not using your brains, you’re thinking with your emotions.
YOU are the one that needs to provide proof. PROVE IT that it reduces crime. Prove it that it deters people from committing rapes.
Aside from the obvious that using something that looks like an obvious kid is morally wrong regardless on outcome on crime. Using something that looks like an obvious child leads to the the loss of value of childhood for everyone. At least with unusually young looking 18 year old adult porn stars, they are actual adults so any sexdoll based off them can be argued to be an adult sexdoll. But when it comes to dolls advertised as child sex dolls, there is no such thing as an adult that looks THAT young therefore it must be illegal.
Why? Because you find it icky? Or because it is harmful? If you’re arguing it’s harmful then you have to provide evidence of that link between someone using a masturbatory aid and real harm to a real person. But I think we know which is actually true of you.
Child pornography is illegal, as it should be due to its intrinsic relationship with child sexual abuse. But - as with other varieties of pornography - countries where pornography was available had seen lower occurrences of sex crime, such as rapes and sexual assault for both adults and minors. Milton Diamond suggests that fictional or simulated depictions be legalized to satisfy the demand.
Morality is NOT a valid justification for prohibition. It is not ethical to impose your moral viewpoints on others simply because you find their ideas distasteful. How is that so hard for you to understand??
So long as it’s made clear they’re not real minors, then it’s fine. Your arbitrary “morality” is not a valid substitution for logic and reason.
Burden of proof lies on the accuser. And you just said it yourself. There are 18 year-olds who look under 18. For example, look up Rina Hatsume. Or anyone who can pull off a convincing cosplay of Shuten Douji or Krul Tepes. Pretty sure that this cosplay is over 18, for example: https://twitter.com/maako1013/status/1314896934310612994
So yes, I would like a Jack the Ripper sex doll.
What the heck kind of straw man stuff are you on about? Those two things are completely different. There’s a huge difference between wanting consensual intimacy with other adults, and wanting to rape kids.
I don’t have any problem with legal, harmless lewd stuff. I do however think sexualizing kids is disgusting.
But you haven’t demonstrated how they’re different, either. Pedophilia is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And punishing those with a sexual interest in minors will only cause unneeded harm without justified reason. You can’t use fear and moralism as a reasonable justification for censorship or prohibition, and sex dolls fall into that category.
Actual, real children who exist, with identities, deserve to be and are free of that.
Children as a concept, though, is not a justification for censorship or prohibition of the topic.
A safe outlet means drawings, or pieces of plastic that bear a resemblance to children. They “normalise” only drawings and pieces of plastic that bear a resemblance to children.
There are many efforts by “child protection organisations” that seek to heavily restrict pornography and outright ban many types of pornography.
In the same way that joining the Dark Brotherhood in the Elder Scrolls series “normalizes” murder. Heck, I promise you, that in video games, I’ve done much worse things than rape a few kids. Murder, terrorism, cannibalism. Just another Tuesday. In the virtual world, of course.
I don’t think that pedophilia should be “normalized”, or even that something advocated here encourages this normalization. As far as I’m aware, what people here advocated is WAY MORE COHERENT than any other child protection organizations that I know. That is that Pedophilia should be treated like any other disorder. As something similar to schizophrenia, that is not “normalized” anywhere, but its also not criminalized, or the person suffering from it and doesnt offend should be considered some kind of human garbage. Also, other things like Lolicon in my opinion should be treated like drugs, cigarettes, alcoholic drinks, etc. All of that have its own place, and should not be encouraged by anyone. I would particulary agree to ban this kind of material off the market (to not to encourage its consumption). But prohibition is just a stupid idea. It is literally the state trying to legislate what people can and cannot think about.
In short, you do not need to oppress anyone, nor do you have to prohibit something so that something is not “normalized”. For something not to be normalized, you only need to make people aware of the harms of it when practiced in real life. Sometimes I wonder if people will ever understand this?
Normalization isn’t a real thing that can be applied to everything. You can’t really “normalize” something if it’s already incompatible with the culture in some way or if it’s too controversial.
I agree to an extent, I don’t think it should be popularized in media or culture, but I also don’t think there’s a reason to eradicate all media catering to it without just cause.
In terms of popularization, there’s very little risk in validating its existence either, so long as a clear distinction is made between “acting on” pedophilic urges in such a way that’s harmful, or likely to cause a child to be victimized. If the distinction between reality and fiction is cemented in the culture, then there’d be nothing to worry about. Children deserve protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, but implying that the mere concept of children deserve the same protection is a losing battle.
It’s best to leave that to real children who deserve it.
There’s a difference between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia is a paraphilia termed as pedophilic “sexual orientation” and pedophilic disorder is the unfortunate offspring of it.
Both of these are outlined in the DSM-5.
Pedophilic disorder is what’s usually linked to acts of hands-on abuse or consumption of CSAM.
I disagree. It should be treated like normal fetish pornography, isolated to appropriate venues as well as conventional “time and place” restrictions. I wouldn’t be against the passage of laws that criminalize the act of showing this content to minors, however.
In the state of Oregon, there are adult novelty and smut shops that sell loli/shota hentai DVDs, manga, etc but you’d have to find it in a specific shelf where all the other hentai is sorted.
