How to criminalize child sex dolls without implicating adult sex doll owners

Criminal justice
1

So I fully support the criminalization of child sex dolls. Just seize their doll and a warning on the first few offenses and Fine them $2500 after their 4th and subsequent offenses. But here is the problem. I am an adult doll owner. The doll I own looks like a young adult. 18-25 year old. If we legislate a ban on child sex dolls, I don’t want some paranoid retard to think young adult dolls look “child like” therefor young adult dolls can be subject to seizures.

We need the definition of child sex doll to be specifically defined to be an objective standard rather than subjective. A doll that looks 18 to one person could look to another. I propose a law:

To qualify as a child sex doll, the doll MUST have at least be LACKING in two of the following -

1 Breast of B size of larger
2 Face which looks sufficiently mature enough. To pass the test, a face which looks ambiguous (you are not sure as to whether it looks “young-adult like” or “minor-teen like”) would pass the test. Faces that look obviously child like would not.
3 Height 5 ft 0 or taller
4 Waist to hips ratio smaller than 0.75

You only need to meet 2 of 4 standards to be exempt from seizers and fines.

All my sex dolls have all these features so I am safe. We need objective standards to protect non pedophilic people from being falsely accused of possessing child sex dolls when we were simply interested in dolls.

2

What’s so infuriating about you is that you don’t justify your desire for criminalization or prohibition. You just say “it’s gross” or “it’s offensive” and act like that’s in any way, shape, or form reasonable.

You claim they incite abuse, but we’ve proven that they don’t. We then provide a valid and time-tested criticism of your views, how they’ve never worked in history and always lead to more crime and don’t actually prevent any crime, abuse, etc. Yet you go mum to it. It’s like you ignore it because you know that actually imparting our words will sway you the other way.

You’re weak and your prose is weak.

There is no reason to criminalize or ban any kind of sex doll, whether it resembles an adult, child, animal, alien, or whatever.

There is no abuse, and there isn’t likely to be any abuse as a result of using a doll as a masturbatory aid. If anything, these dolls may decrease the likelihood of further sexual assault.

Sex Doll Ownership

Pornography Availability in Japan = Lower Sex Crimes
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=179581

More Porn = Less Crime

2 Likes
3

When developing our No Children Harmed policy we did consider making some criteria like this, in consultation with doll experts. But it was pointed out, correctly in my view, that there was no way to make a set of criteria that couldn’t be unfairly applied, and neither was there any suggestion that policymakers or anti-doll activists would accept such a compromise. Honestly, they think that all doll owners are creepy would-be child molesters, and they would criminalise you all if they could. It’s better to make a stand for all doll owners, rather than try to sacrifice the small doll owners to placate the mob.

3 Likes
4

It’s weird how that works. If you placate a mob, it’ll only validate their prejudices and they’ll want to oppress more and more.

Yet, if you placate someone sexually, they’re likely to be satisfied and not move on to commit crimes. Almost like pornography is, in essence, “entrainment”, unlike the massive ego stroke that comes with causing deliberate harm to a socially undesirable group, especially without good reason.

It’s either all okay, or none of it’s okay. It’s a doll. Even if your theory on “feeding the beast” had merit, what’s actually stopping a pedophile from molesting an actual child without a child sex doll? At least a doll offers an outlet for them to tend to their desires.

3 Likes
5

LOL THAT’S YOUR ARGUMENT. Porn is NOT the same as CHILD sex dolls FFS. They are not even fucking comparable!!! At best, porn normalizes sex acts between adults.

It’s been said time and time again there is the possibility that these sickening dolls might lower the inhibitions of an offender and he may gravitate towards far more serious crime of rape against children. SO MANY EXPERTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE UK AND THE US AS WELL AS IN AUSTRALIA HAVE SAID THIS.

If you want to convince us to avoid passing a bill to criminalize it, you have to prove that it doesn’t do harm. Your time is running out, sooner or later, the Creeper act or some variety will pass. While human rights organizations can campaign to get some of the statuary penalties reduced or eliminated like incarceration as a possible penalty, do not expect them to support decriminalization.

6

There’s that word again. Normalization! Holy crap dude normalization Isn’t real! We’ve been trying to say this for so long! You can’t use the pluralistic aspect of an idea to justify getting rid of it.
And yes, sex dolls are, in fact, a form of pornography. They’re a masturbatory aid, a tangible work or object by which one could indulge or express themselves in a sexually gratifying manner.
But then again, anything can fulfill that objective if it’s appealing to the right person.

Anyway…

No. These dolls don’t “normalize” child sex abuse. They’ve been available in the United States, Japan, China, etc and we’ve seen sex abuse rates go down, alongside other countries and jurisdictions. This is consistent with the scientific articles I linked.
More porn = less rape. Plain and simple. The same concepts exists with sex dolls.

Fears of normalization are unsubstantiated by evidence, fact, or reason. The same arguments were made about violent media. But since the proliferation of violent and pornographic media, we’ve only seen statistics go lower and lower and lower.

But that’s not true. Those “experts” are usually in law enforcement and not in the proper psychiatry fields which are conducting this type of research, nor are their conclusions backed up by valid, non-biased, peer-reviewed scientific consensus. If we allowed the such literature to be upheld, then we wouldn’t have nearly as much freedom as we do now.
Please consult my relevant research on the issue. This issue is subject to ongoing research and scrutiny by institutions all over the world, and the consensus is leaning more towards supporting decriminalization and legalization.
They have not been shown to “lower the inhibitions” of offenders, and such a claim has been rightfully criticized by the scientific community as “not scientific or evidence-driven”.

The studies and peer-reviewed literature held by the Prostasia Foundation IS peer-reviewed and unbiased.

The CREEPER Act died in the Senate of 2017 after being passed in a GOP-controlled House.
It IS unconstitutional for various reasons. But that’s beyond the scope of this topic.

I’ll put it like this. If a child sex doll is likely to cause a person to commit contact offenses with a minor, then any doll could. It’s been consistently shown that (virtual/fictional child) porn and sex dolls are harmless, and the likelihood of a person to commit contact offenses with minors are governed by variables not related to their sexual desires. This has been observed with both rapists and child molesters alike.
Those who are at risk of committing such offenses are sick with pedophilic disorder, which is distinct from pedophilia or some other psychosocial affliction that drives them to cause interpersonal harm to others.

Read the DSM-5.

5 Likes
7

Lmao normalization isn’t a thing?

8

No. It isn’t.

“Normalization” isn’t even a word in the dictionary, at least, not in the context you’re using it.
It’s a form of pearl clutching that’s been used by culture vultures, prudes, and sensitive individuals for ages. It assumes that certain ideas, opinions, or interests should be censored or banned for their harm, when ideas are harmless. It’s the actions that have harm, and by placing responsibility on the idea, rather than the individual or how they act on said idea. By robbing people of their right to entertain or analyze a specific idea, regardless of how offensive or “immoral” it is, you also rob them of the ability to properly understand it and why any associated activity is also wrong or harmful.

There’s a reason why it took 300 years for censorship to become seen as counterproductive or downright wrong. It’s a poison. And it has no place in a free society that values privacy and individuality.

Just like with violent or pornographic media, we’ve seen a decrease in violence and rape. Just because you saw the hero in an action movie kill somebody doesn’t mean you’re going to kill someone, nor would it drive society to think killing others is okay.
The same logic applies to rape, and child rape with virtual/simulated/fictional child pornography and child sex dolls. It’s like this in Japan, Denmark, and the US. These calls to ban child sex dolls are charged by the same feelings that drove soccer moms in the 90s to ban violent video games

3 Likes
9

Seems that this organization and it’s natural inhabitants are on a warpath to decriminalize these dolls. I’ve genuinely never met anyone who feels so strongly about decriminalizing them.

Impressive… That someone would dedicate so much time arguing for them to be allowed. I’m completely unconvinced, but your effort is at least admirable. Set whatever laws you want on these dolls in YOUR state, but don’t force mines to comply. If the Supreme court rules our doll laws are unconstitutional, we will ignore the ruling and continue enforcement.

10

Thank you but we will not be patronized. We have precedent (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, etc) along with a myriad of supporters, none other than the ACLU, the FSC, and the NCAC, in addition to academia.

You’re on the wrong side of history. I’m sorry to say but you cannot counter our fact and science-based reason with the same logic used by Karens.
That mindset simply isn’t valid. I’m sorry.

You’ve yet to address, or counter, any of our points.

2 Likes
11

Well, if you ignore the laws, then you are the criminals.

1 Like
12

The supreme court has no enforcement abilities. Up till this point it’s just good faith to comply. We intend to ignore any ruling that goes against laws banning child sex dolls. We will continue to fine and seize child sex dolls from offenders of these repulsive evil dolls regardless of ruling.

13

The US isn’t the UN, dearie. The US is still a single country.

14

I don’t think you understand how the SCOTUS works… but okay.

They sent in the National Guard to enforce desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education.

2 Likes
15

They sent in the National Guard to enforce desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education.

Yeah, during a time when most Americans already oppose segregation. There is no way the ruling that laws criminalizing child sex dolls as unconstitutional will be enforced, not when 85% support criminalization and only 3-4% actively oppose it.

16

The law isn’t a popularity contest. Like I said, few witches are more worth than many stupid peasants.

1 Like
17

It may not be, but enforcement depends on popularity.

18

??? so you’re saying that people are just going to break the law?

2 Likes
19

I don’t see why not? If no one is going to stop us from seizing and fining offenders, why should we stop? This is assuming the supreme court even makes such a ruling.

20

Um, no, it doesn’t. The tyranny of the masses is something that must be destroyed. Also, I would like to remind you that vigilantism goes both ways, so if law enforcers do not protect law-abiding citizens, then the law-abiding citizens have the right to neutralize criminal threats, no matter the size, and I repeat that I find the lives of witch-burners less than pig shit.

4 Likes