I want to commit suicide

(Please do not link me any hotlines, or anything else. I have already seeked out such help, but I just do not care anymore.)

I work a very well paid job, have a very supporting and tolerant family, but I still have this feeling inside of me. No matter how well I am doing financially I still feel awful. All of this does not matter, because I am not truly free. These unnecessary laws that severely limit my freedom have been impacting me more than I thought.

The moment I became financially well off a new regulation passed banning CLSDs. I was very interested in buying one for myself, but now I am unable to. I remember crying myself to sleep, because I knew that I will never be able to live the life that makes me truly happy. I know from my childhood that I am very capable of having romantic relationships with such objects. It used to be plushies back then. I took care of them, pet them, put them to sleep and yes even did the forbidden.
Whenever I was bullied I would come home and cry myself out on my plushie, talking to her and finding comfort in it. Tearing up as I write this.

To be honest with you; I am not interested in actual humans at all. I just prefer something I can have control over, something that is there for me all the time. Something that does not judge me whatsoever. This was the only way for me to really pour my heart out in a truly meaningful and genuine way. I thought about all the possibilities; going shopping for my plastic wife, celebrating her birthday, having someone to talk to and fulfilling the most absurd fantasies. Someone I truly look forward to on my way back home.

Think of it as if the government takes away your wife. That is essentially how it feels. I did not own a doll before, so it might have not hit me as hard as others. Imagine having to kill your wife, one that you have perhaps invested years of commitment into. Someone you truly love and have many fond memories of. Now being legally obliged to kill your true love. What a world.

I have no mental capacity to even think about migrating. It is immensely stressful and difficult. No idea what I can do now. The only hope I have are orgs like Prostasia and all the other scientists trying to prove these legislators wrong. I am very doubtful tho. Just look at how long it took for weed to get legalized. I will be a senior by the time that any meaningful research is concluded. Why even live like this in the hopes of betterment. The point such a state is reached I am old, ill and devoid of joy.


What country do you live in?

Welcome to the forum.

My guess is that you’re in Australia.

This breaks my heart to read.

1 Like

It is indeed unfortunate these careless laws cause such despair. They don’t even protect children. They just outlaw what the masses consider ‘disgusting.’

I’m glad you can communicate your feelings. And I have a question, in attempt to better understand you. I hope my question is not misinterpreted as rhetorical. What exactly do you mean by not caring anymore, yet still posting here? I’m glad you posted. I’m just curious why you would make a post and say you don’t care. Perhaps because of the hope you mentioned in the last paragraph?


I do not care about what happens to me anymore this does not mean that I do not care about others. This post is simply here for others to see what the consequences of these laws are.


I dont know if this is good advice, but you said you were fond of toy plushies so maybe buying one of those would make you happier, since dolls arent an option.

All of this does not matter, because I am not truly free.

There are still options, although bleak, in a world full of people who will not attempt to understand you at all.

put them to sleep and yes even did the forbidden.

Not so forbidden, if it is an object used in privacy. Human morality need not apply.

Imagine having to kill your wife, one that you have perhaps invested years of commitment into.

Negative. If I have collected and owned dolls of many shapes and sizes for over 10 years, even when/if they are suddenly banned, I will continue to own my dolls, and I will continue to collect dolls.

  1. They are harmless.
  2. They are mine and emotionally necessary.
  3. It is criminal to cast innocent people into criminals over night.
  4. Prosecution should be reserved for actual child abusers, predators and traffickers. Not people playing with plastic toys where there is not a single child to be found and rescued.

I wish that I could console you, and to offer some solutions or advice. Alas, there are none feasible without risk, as we are subject to laws made on the spur of the moment without any real critical thinking involved, which is not only a war on our freedoms, but an insult to our intelligence.


I happen to live in a state where dolls are not banned… yet, and I know my state is one that will likely fall in line with this hoax unless these laws are seriously challenged soon.
I love my dolls and they are like daughters to me. I won’t abandon them of my own will.


I own Dakimakuras, but it is obviously not the same. It is also the social pressure that just weighs life down in general. Wherever you go, you read threats, insults, generalization. It does not matter if you have not abused someone, because you get pressured into feeling as if you did.

I would care less if it were individuals being mean, but the governments worldwide are starting to join in. They have the power to actually ruin your life and you are unable to do anything against them. When you have done no harm to anyone then they will come up with something.

Make the best of it, because the world is going into a much more authoritarian direction. Much harder to defend people like us, because of all the media and politicians dependence on votes.


In some ways, a representative republic becoming a pure democracy (AKA mob rule or tyranny of the majority) is more dangerous than it being a dictatorship because those doing it would just use the word, democracy, like a shield. Not to mention that most political movies will easily make a single dictator an easy villain. Hard to tell the rabble as a whole that they’re the bad guys.

Please do not take your own life. Please.

There was a time when I was considering the same as well following a previous development, but what kept me going was my desire to see the world improve. Because if I die, then so does my ability to ensure that my ideas are shared, and reason can be appealed.

There are a lot of good, caring, and intelligent people working to study these matters, to be the voice of reason over a crowd of angry, emotional, and anti-rational ideologues who equate fantasy with intent and rely on logical fallacies and baseless social-science assertions to ground their arguments.
Those types, and the rhetoric they espouse, are inherently unreasoned, and so long as there are people who consign themselves to it and are wiling and able to speak out against it, then the fire of hope will continue to burn brighter and brighter.

Besides, a lot of them seem to be tripping over themselves in their rhetoric. I sent a message to @Gilian via email regarding a phony ‘study’ written by two lawyers from Australia.

The Characteristics of Virtual Child Sexual Abuse Material Offenders and the Harms of Offending: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Print Media

This paper is devoid of any science, any reason, and it doesn’t take a psychology or sociology major to recognize rhetoric where it rears its ugly, disgusting head.

Like…look at this.

VCSAM is a form of CSAM

Several articles drew from the voices of authorities and highlighted their messages that VCSAM is a form of CSAM, signifying that this type of material can still result in harm. Several cases included messages from judicial officers. For example, in one case, while the judicial officer indicated that drawn images and anime are considered to be less serious compared with pictures of real children, it was still considered to be “of great concern”. In fact, this judicial officer highlighted the “serious risks” of this material, having the potential to “degrade and incite”. In a different case, the judicial officer highlighted the reasonable “public concern” about any type of offense in relation to possessing CSAM and that regardless of whether the children were real or anime, protecting children is of “paramount importance” in society. Another judicial officer highlighted those individuals accessing this material “creates a market” and that this material can still involve the suffering and degradation of children. Another case drew from the voice of law enforcement, with VCSAM charges serving as “a reminder” to society that cartoon/animated images are illegal and can result in serious charges.

Copied from the email I sent to Gilian…

“Virtual child sex abuse material” does not exist, it is not a valid term. CSAM, by definition, is limited to content or materials which are intrinsically linked to the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, which requires their participation or direct involvement.

By definition, virtual child pornography (the actual term) does not involve real children, only the idea of children or the use of child-like characteristics and attributes.

Expanding the term to encapsulate materials or contents beyond that narrow scope of real children undermines its legitimacy and runs the risk of promoting a flawed understanding of what these things actually mean, and why they’re serious, or in contrast, overstating certain aspects or qualities which are inherently unreasoned.

No evidence exists supporting the contention that it would lead to the escalation from cartoons/anime/CGI to real CSAM, nor does any evidence exist supporting that any real harm or risk of “degradation and incitement”. In fact, of the communities I’ve been able to personally survey (first or second-hand) regarding this, the overwhelming majority of individuals appear to maintain anti-contact or pure fiction/fantasy, while the more ‘discourse tolerant’ communities appeared to be fervently against any form of adult-child sex with some vocal minorities of participants expressing pro-contact beliefs or ideals.

Such individuals are a poison, I admit, but they’re far from a concern. The fact that a stigma against pro-contact ideals or beliefs within MAP communities is solid proof of this (as taken from @elliot’s link on their MAP resources page)

Moreover, existing cultural anthropological works regarding these communities (namely Japanese culture), like with the works of Patrick Galbraith, emphatically and explicitly dispute these claims.
It’s very clear that those making these types of assertions regarding behavioral escalation and invoking moralism have absolutely zero understanding of how this type of material actually affects people or how they’re engaged with.

The fact that these Australian lawyers never bothered to actually analyze the themes captured by their paper, or how they square up with research evidence which questions or contradicts them makes it extremely clear that this paper is anything but qualitative.

There’s other parts of the paper which I find to be problematic, but this was the brunt of their claim, the rest being pure legalistic.


This is just odd. No connection is explained. Such incoherent leaps are disturbingly common.

The leap is an obvious Motte-and-bailey fallacy.


Yep. It trounces reason by equating ideas with reality, regardless of context or use or how they’re engaged with. The moralist juridification of our minds and consciousness cannot be justified by such weak and ham-fisted approaches. It runs counter-factual to the long-held and well-validated free speech principles, which time and time and time again show to be worth protecting against moralist ideology.


I remain confident that, in due time, all of these laws and statutes targeting victimless expression, which seek to do nothing but impose and validate the preferential prejudices of people, will be put on trial and summarily struck down, in their entirety, for the unconstitutional, poorly-reasoned, and unprincipled bits of schlock that they are, not necessarily because they are unconstitutional, but because the reasoning they are founded on (legal moralism) is plainly incompatible with the Constitution.

They said we’d never have LGBT rights, yet here we are.

1 Like

Sadly, not all countries confer civil liberties but, rather, consider personal liberties in an ad hoc manner.


A claim that an activity that involves no minors involves minors needs to be explained without conferring any adherence to sympathetic magic.


So these two clowns quoted these two other clowns about how protecting nonexistent anime children is of paramount importance in Australian society. I find it astounding that at no point did the sheer lunacy and stupidity of that statement trigger any alarm bells in any of these individuals. Somebody should also tell these lawyers that quoting two people who have no experience in the relevant fields saying the equivalent of “it is because I said so” isn’t actually evidence of anything and it’s not how research is done. That being said, none of this really matters when the legal precedents for criminalizing “offensive” speech and expression is already so well established in these countries . You can debunk the horseshit public harm arguments all you want but that’s just rebutting the pretext which they put no effort into creating and never needed in the first place.

The real reason for these laws as it is and has always been is to punish deviants and deviant desires