Lessons learned from Germany: legislators in favor of a ban will literally and shamelessly LIE to support their notion. In Germany, dolls were banned because investigators claimed that they were found all the time by child sexual abusers, proving how dangerous they (the dolls) supposedly are. Ignoring for a second that this would at most prove a correlation between child abuse and child doll possession, not that dolls cause abuse, this has also been proven to be blatantly false: last year there were 11 130 people accused of abuse, but only 29 accused of possessing or distributing dolls. Even assuming that all these dolls were found at the homes of abusers (which is unlikely), this makes up less than 0.2 % of all cases.
Another lesson learned from Germany: this is not a fair or rational debate. Objectively there is clearly no shred of evidence for the harmfulness of dolls. But facts and figures donât matter in this debate, itâs about emotions. People are disgusted and want an outlet for their hatred against pedophiles. The best way to counter this is by moving to the emotional level as well and promoting personal stories of people, who have managed to find happiness and a positive outlet for otherwise unfulfillable wishes with the help of dolls.
Good luck with that. The activists literally feel that doll use is as wicked as abuse. Interesting it is that thereâd be no issues with handing the same doll to a dog as a chew toy or using it as a door stop.
Iâm not saying that it will be easy to get heard. But the reason why many people feel that way is that they have this idea of the typical doll owner as a weird, dangerous guy, who is raping dolls to work himself up to raping real children. They feel that way because thatâs what they are told over and over again by people who, quite frankly, have no f*cking idea about how this whole thing works, with no one to counter that image.
Most people donât realize that dolls have emotional importance for their owners, and that most owners primarily or even exclusively use them as an emotional outlet. You can try to communicate that by pointing to current research about doll owners which shows exactly that, citing figures and percentages, but it would be much more impactful if some individuals talked about what their dolls mean to them in a relatable way.
I would not need to be a doll enthusiast to feel that these activists need to mind their own business and need to stop meddling with the private affairs of others.
How anyone with an ounce of intellect figures that how someone handles any lifeless object one could hand to a dog as a chew toy or use as a door stop indicates a willingness to harm is confounding. You have failed to convince me that this hate is about preventing harm. The activists reject research to accommodate their agenda. The doll bans are about hate, not protecting.
It is just wrong to dehumanize a person over how that person handles any lifeless object in private. Period.
According to the stepping stone rhetoric, doll ownership communicates an advocacy to commit an unlawful action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
âFreedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled.â
âŚIâm not comfortable with even addressing it this way, because even fictional stories involving non-existent characters or settings which glorify such pedophilic fantasies are not read by their respective audiences as condonements of real-life acts of abuse on the simple fact that theyâre consumed by those who do not support real-life abuse (anti-contact MAPs and anti-contact non-MAPs).
I agree with what you say. The stepping stone nonsense needs to be addressed. That thing is used as a tool to pry into private affairs that no one has any business prying into. The question of law is not about endorsing private conduct but, rather, itâs about whether punishing can be justified. No one appears to view this issue from that perspective. Also, all opposition is shut out.
Can anyone improve on this statement?
Motive.
The doll laws are anchored to a motivation that cannot be demonstrated.
One buys a doll because one likes the doll and not because anything resembles it. The buyer doesnât care or control whether something resembles the doll. The doll laws are anchored to the assumption that one buys a doll because something resembles it when the buyer doesnât even care about what is assumed.
Punishing for buying a doll is tethered to false assumptions and factors the buyer doesnât care about or control.
None of these people take into account women that own them. Maybe just like dressing them up. Girls DO like to play with dolls, no? Some women use them to act as surrogates for children that have died. Or appreciate them as lifelike dolls.
The same woman that argued with me whose child died, was adamant that she could never do that! Well, if I say a trans woman is still a man Iâm in breech of some laws now showing up. Well, WTF? Thatâs perfectly acceptable in society now. Sheâs telling me that âno one uses a doll as a surrogateâ. I could say no one identifies as the opposite sex. Then Iâm the bad guy!
Do they think women are having lesbian masturbation with them? What then? They go so far as to say someone just looking at one and jerking off should be a sex crime. Iâm willing to bet theyâll deem pictures of young-looking dolls to be the same as if it were a REAL child.
If Iâm having sex with my petite, adult girlfriend and imagining my 13yo girlfriend when I was 14, while doing it, will I be punished? Is that a crime? Are thoughts crimes now?
And to actually have some delusion that robots will be made to âpracticeâ raping a child. What planet are you from? Theyâd only cost like, IDK, some ridiculous amount of money that NO predator is going to want to invest time or money into. Or have a doll made to look like a child they know. By the time itâs finished, the kidâs a year older. How would you prove that??
What if I put a bunch of pillows together while masturbating with an onahole with a recording of a rape scene playing; am I practicing rape because Iâm thinking of a young girl while doing it?
Proof the world has lost every bit of sense and everyoneâs delusional. Weâre going to need lawyers with the biggest balls! And they could even be women!
It is much harder to acquire such a doll, because it is a physical object which needs to pass multiple borders. So, this in it of itself already heavily limits the amount of cases. CSAM related crimes however are primarily committed through the internet where criminals feel more safe and have an easier time.
It should also be pretty obvious that someone who consumes X could also do Y, or own Z. And as you already said; It does not prove that one of them leads to the other. Just like how some murderers play brutal video games, some predators also own dolls.
The best way to counter this is by trying to make clear what such legislation eventually leads to. Criminal law is being pushed more and more into the realms of thought crime. There is currently a law being criticized which was implemented to prohibit so called âenemy listsâ, because it also tries to punish âwhat ifâ scenarios. Experts were against it, because it pushes criminal liability once again into a vague state with no actual harm being done. They warned that it could be used to silence journalists and what happened? Exactly that.
There needs to be more awareness, because these types of laws legitimize the use of chat control and other authoritarian methods.
The idea that authorties will quickly latch on to the idea of mind-reading IS frightening indeed. The established governments of the world have all had secret projects for decades on how to implement mind-control over people. Theyâve honed the media to a fairly effective tool through repetition.
Latching on to AI at this early stage means it could and likely will give you false positives, so to speak.
By making everyone a criminal they can then extend pris
on to the entire planet. Making us alll slaves. As if most of us werenât already because of this fiat system of money. We can already see whatâs coming, âyouâll own nothing and be happyâ. They extend their twisted logic to be like, âyouâre only here for about 100 years. Thatâs how long you need to use stuff. You just slave your life away to pay for the stuff you use and then it goes to someone else and the cycle repeats.â
Seems to me weâre being set up once again. When longevity technology takes hold, only the elites will have access to live for almost 1,000 years, leaving the rest of humanity as their slaves. Weâre merely in transition to another dystopia. Unless we can progress spiritually and break out of it?
A federal judge overturned a ban on drag in Tennessee.
Hereâs an article that explains a Trump appointed judge overturned the ban as unconstitutional.
The article explains that the Honorable Judge Parker stated, âSimply put, no majority of the Supreme Court has held that sexually explicit â but not obscene â speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech.â
And pretty soon, this will change too. The obscenity doctrine has no place in a functional democracy, moreover, being sexually explicit does not rob speech of value. That whole dichotomy was based on a lie, a fallacy.
I love it, because what has been said by the female in the video is so blatantly wrong and contradictory that it could pass well enough as a satirical comedy skit; plausible enough content for The Onion.
I hate it, because these people are actually serious, and anyone who would disagree with the arguments would be placed into the crosshair of presumed CSA advocacy.
ââŚsex dolls because they are afraid to have sex with a childâŚâ
Which is good. We donât want people having sex with children. We want people to be redirected away from children. Psychotherapy and safe detours that are self-incentivizing and are basically free for a nation to adopt are effective, just so by allowing and leaving them be. But thenâŚ
â100% become no longer satisfied with sex dollsâ ⌠â[and suddenly no longer afraid] and will move onto sex with a childâ
The complete 180 degree flip which builds and connects an imaginary bridge to people who do not want, nor are applicable, to have this bridge connected to them. A quantum leap from mild bell pepper to Carolina Reaper.
âIâm no longer satisfied with water. [moves on to drink sulfuric acid.]â
Typical low quality arguments. No actual proposed solutions to prevent harm to children. No thought provocation, pragmatic reasoning, or anything of real use. Low effort.
I like this article that mentions obscenity law and how the law conflicts with the Brandenburg framing of the First Amendment.
The article cites the 85% CSAM rate associated with importations of small dolls but fails to acknowledge that the reporting countries count cartoons and dolls as CSAM.
Laws against dolls are a way to circumvent the 4th amendment, seize everyoneâs computers, and dredge for CSAM. Same reasons tthey trying to ban encryption and are pushing toward everyoneâs personal data and all their personal computer data being open to the government. Itâs a way to take total control over everyone in the name of âsaving the children!â.
Ultimately controlling all communication among the public. Canât have dissention against tyranny if no one can have private communication and firearms. Itâs a totalitarian agenda.
Iâm a little late to the party. Here are ideas to consider.
The pretext to ban is tethered to the idea that evil deeds follow evil thoughts.
Itâs not an evil thought to think that what happens to a doll doesnât matter. Itâs not an evil act to be no more protective of a doll than of a nondescript sex toy.
To the extent that the pretext to ban resembles sympathetic magic, the rationale is akin to punishing for witchcraft. Imagining a connection between objects solely because of shape is magical thinking.
Jenkins v. Georgia states that nothing that doesnât explicitly depict hard core conduct can be found obscene.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition states that fictional material is protected.
Stanley v. Georgia states that possession of even that which can be found obscene is protected.
The pretext used to ban is a media effects argument. The Brandenburg framing of the First Amendment means that unless speech (or media) that advocates lawless action is likely to cause immediate lawless action, it is constitutionally protected.
