I just saw this posted on X. I haven’t checked it out.
The X post gave a hint.
Did Senator Cindy O’Laughlin just read a bill on the Missouri Senate floor that legislates sex dolls?
I guess this is it.
https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=r&BillID=462
The stated sponsor has a twitter account.
https://twitter.com/TonyForMissouri?t=f73CNtvJxgrONx6jTxQxrA&s=09
Anti-CSD laws are unconstitutional.
Well, don’t preach to the choir here.
“…with the intent to…”; how on Earth can you prove THAT?! I guess just owning one makes it automatic then?? I guess just like every person who owns an AR-15 rifle has the intent to go on a killing spree? Or people using kitchen knives to stab random people? When is this clown show gonna end?? I mean, really!!!
I’m sure that the people who lived during the witch trials thought the same thing, but remember the “hard lot” is never at fault because their actions are just driven by fear and ignorance… That last line was sarcasm by the way. Of course, they’re at fault. Dracula (Castlevania) did nothing wrong in trying to avenge his wife’s death at the hands of those ignoramuses.
Kentucky
Dietz’s bill would make it a Class B Felony to possess one of the dolls in Kentucky. It’s the third time she’s tried introducing a bill outlawing the dolls after her first two attempts failed. She said she now has support from Attorney General Russell Coleman, who told Dietz he’s also dealt with cases involving the dolls.
They just don’t stop pushing these bills until they get their way. The desire to imprison people for victimless crimes is strong, and most anyone charged with doll possession probably won’t have the financial resources to fight the cruel and unusual punishment for owning plastic.
X link to this story from FOX19
https://x.com/fox19/status/1744918842155966685?s=46
That’s why I pretty much don’t care about any other political movement, unless it’s stuff, like this. If my freedoms are in danger, why should anyone else feel safe? That being said, I don’t suppose that the disclaimer at the beginning of most eroge would help in that “all characters are over 18” etc. message.
I love how factually wrong these people are. How they will make factually unsubstantiated claims.
“It’s going to help us on the front end,” Dietz said. “It’s going to help police officers so we can stop this.”
“This bill closes a loophole that allowed pedophiles to practice victimizing children,” Sanders said. “It will save countless children from rape and sexual abuse.”
These dolls are not being used as “training dummies” like how a firefighter or EMS worker in training would use to learn CPR.
They’re masturbatory aids. Perfectly harmless on their own, they do not have the effect of turning pedophiles or MAPs into contact offenders. The fact that they want to link these to CSAM possession without a proper, concrete link to any form of contact offending, with nothing more than this flawed and uninformed intuition goes to show how much they actually care about the rights of their citizens, much less the rights of children.
Oh, and she’s a Republican. It’s no wonder why conservatives tend to support these heinous bans, they’re seemingly less capable of rational thought and rely mostly on emotion when addressing or considering these matters. Democrats can be wrong on this, too, but they’re far less likely to openly support these or make them a priority issue, given the implications that a proper analysis of the issue would entail.
Do we have evidence that these dolls actually cause harm?
What about the broader civil liberties implications, should we take legislative action?
Would these prohibitions actually protect children, or just fill up our prisons?
Is it proper to treat all owners of these dolls the same as someone who had CSAM, despite not having possessed any?
These are not questions that a politician with conservative ideals would likely consider. They would see these questions primarily as obstacles, and not meaningful criteria when deciding whether to draft legislation, at most. Liberals tend to be more objective in these types of analyses, with their focus being primarily on whether they’re harmful, not whether they’re icky.
Whether people like it or not, the factual substance of the matter is that these dolls do not harm children. They do not increase risk of sexual abuse in their users, and in fact, all studies which ask about them seem to be very positive in their effects on preventing contact child abuse.
They allow pedophilic and minor-attracted people to reconcile their sexual interests in children with the reality that they cannot be acted on in a way that would involve a real child. They afford them both a level of confidence and privacy that are both fundamental and necessary to living a safe, non-offending life, which objectively keeps kids safe. It helps them draw lines and promote effective and positive ethics.
These dolls, along with other forms of fantasy engagement, do have a positive impact on CSEA prevention. Banning them would erode that and put more children at risk.
It’s because they are deliberately confusing the ends and the means. They think that child molestation is the end, but the truth is that the end is simply pleasure. Because they think the former, they think that dolls must be the “means” of doing those ends (of child molestation). However, the truth is the latter, where those means are actually to achieve the end result of pleasure without involving real kids.
So in other words, they want to use this to jail people who are not harming anyone or doing anything illegal they could otherwise get them with. Just because they feel that they should belong in jail for supposedly being “dangerous”.
Not to mention that this is circular reasoning:
“We should make this illegal this so we can persecute more people”
“Why should they be persecuted in the first place?”
“Because it would be illegal, of course”
They are inventing ridiculous crimes for the sole purpose of trying to get as many people they deem “dangerous” in prison as possible.
I really hope future generations are going to laugh about how our primitive and naive society found the resources to police how people use objects for their private enjoyment, while the planet is literally burning up beneath our feet.
Because it’s easier to vilify people who live on the fringes of society than “normies”. Global warming is done via activities deemed “normie”.
I’ve wondered whether buying a doll could possibly be framed as an inchoate crime but think that when the appearance of a doll alone is ample reason to purchase a doll, a claim that some other underlying reason must exist would easily be considered preposterous.
I have argued that one buys a doll because one likes the doll and not because something resembles it.
It appears the Wisconsin doll law has progressed.
This shows the progress.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/proposals/reg/sen/bill/sb321
I suspect many lawmakers are aware that a doll law collides with civil liberties and is utterly unconstitutional. That’s why I wonder why such an absurd law gets pushed.
I find that few people who claim “justice” actually care about justice. They just want to kneejerk-react to maintain the stupid peasants of their constituents’ votes
I’m waiting for these laws to be challenged upon attempt at enforcement, but moreover, it’s my hope that Evers, a democrat, vetoes this bill for being unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the leftist version of the rightist word, “immoral”, is “problematic”.
If using a sex doll is more or less the same as child rape, why can’t I claim them as children on my taxes? ^_6
It demeans the severity of a child’s abuse by equating the offense and disgust felt by the idea of a doll with the sympathy and concern for a child’s well-being. Banning sex dolls and putting people in prison over this is beyond sensible, but it is no more helpful to a child in that it cements the implication that such punitive measures are taken in response to self-serving interests, rather than the interests of a child. One could rebuff this by asserting that allowance of these dolls undermines the concern for children, but this isn’t true since those who use and sell these dolls still acknowledge that adult-child sex is still wrong, abuse, and worthy of punishment.
To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel protective of a lifeless object, a failure to feel protective of a lifeless object cannot logically be construed as a failure to feel protective of what matters.
To the extent that shape isn’t what makes the precious precious or what makes a human human, shape doesn’t make cartoons or lifeless objects precious or human either. Applying ideas of morality to the shapes of lifeless objects is tethered to sympathetic magic.
I’m a broken record.
