wait, does that mean you think a childâs life and safety are worth 50% more than that of an inanimate object?
8 Likes
One of my former coworkers was a survivor of child sexual abuse and when I told her about Australia, the UK, and other governmentâs attempts at criminalizing child sex dolls, she genuinely got upset.
âSo you mean to tell me that they wanna put forward money and resources to go after DOLLS and not human trafficking victims or child pornographers?? Does my struggle mean nothing to them??â
12 Likes
Iâm a little late to this thread.
Proscribing dolls proscribes expressing the ideas that sympathetic magic has no effects, that what happens to a doll doesnât matter and that itâs never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a nondescript sex toy.
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974).
â[N]udity alone does not render material obscene under Millerâs standards.â
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The test for incitement is the imminent lawless action test. Doll ownership doesnât even express intent or advocation, so it cannot be proscribed as incitement. Proscribing because of speculative ideas (such as normalize, desensitize, intensifies, or other speculations) is disallowed.
Texas v. Johnson (1989).
âThe Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable[.]â
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
â[S]peech that records no crime and creates no victims by its productionâ is not image based abuse.
I will now tap on dates to get the year to show.
2 Likes
And when theyâre not used for that should that person be punished? For wanting to love and holds his dolls. Not feel alone and abandoned. Creating their personalities to be what he needs. Or do you force them into an uncomfortable relationship with a woman he has no interest in, who mistreats him and is cruel. Go fuck yourself @joycelin!
1 Like
Youâre heartless and cold.
2 Likes
Youâd think that religious people would be easier to convince, if you look up all the paintings of Saint Eulalia. The dolls can easily be purchased to create a 3D version of the same. FYI, Saint Eulalia was crucified when she was 13, and all the classic paintings of her that I found were of her topless (there is one âmodernâ piece where there is cloth over her boobs, but that one, being modern, doesnât count), and yes, I did fap to said paintings.
4 Likes
Bro, I am spiritual myself, and as you know, fictional outlets are kosher for me. These religiois people give a bad name to those of us who want to experience the sacred and still have an open mind. I have a friend who thinks that lolis are âspiritually wrongâ, whatever that means. And I am like âNo, Susan, they are not âspritually wrongâ. Wrong is wrong, and if there is no victim there is no wrong. Thoughts are not wrong. They are just thoughts. And masturbating to disturbing ideas is not wrong, in any way.â And then she says something along the lines of âyou are feeding negative energy to this thought complex. You are making evil thoughts grow!â But I am like âno, there are no evil thoughts!â. Imho, thoughts only become âevilâ when you intend to hurt someone, an element which is lacking in the use of fictional outlets. I would argue that fictional outlets are neutral, and maybe even âspiritually goodâ, as they promote non harm by keeping those who would otherwise offend from offending.
2 Likes
IDK, can your friend actually conjure up the ghost of Abigail Williams or Elizabeth Bathory, so I can jerk off to them for real?
I doubt she can. If she could, she wouldnât do it.
I wonder whether anyone would even consider asking for forgiveness for not pretending that a doll is precious.