Not child sex-dolls: hypopituitaristic "proportionately dwarf" dolls

Wasn’t aware there was a new “Orphan” prequel in the pipeline. To be honest, I found the original much more problematic on a moralistic level than anything I came across in “Cuties” (maybe Netflix censored it, idk). But to show what we’re supposed to believe is a 9 year old murdering her adopted brother so casually just screwed with my head as to how far a director/writer will go to smash the concept of childhood innocence.

Of course, turns out 9 year old Esther is actually 33 year old Leena Klammer… played by a 12 year old Isabelle Fuhrman. (Which itself sounds like the plot narration at the start of an episode of S.O.A.P. - “Confused? You will be…”) Despite the dissonance that the film invokes, I was highly impressed with Ms Fuhrman’s portrayal; she ought to have been the lead in ‘Hunger Games’ imho.

Anyway, genuine examples of people who are affected by ‘hypopituitarism’ do exist. So I have to ask: when someone is accused & put on trial for purchasing a supposed “child sex-doll”, why don’t they simply claim they have a fetish for adults (ie: 18+) with this condition? Is the prosecution going to try and argue that the doll is behaving like a child?


Moral plague doctors are mind readers, always detecting the worst-case scenario playing out in the subject’s mind. Therefore, the judge would simply know this line is not true, after being so informed by an expert witness.


Aye, you’re probably right. And I don’t suppose a judge would need to go so far as consulting expert witnesses in order to rule that the offence is conditional on how the doll appears, and not how the defendant might relate to it.

However, I put forward this concept as the seed of an idea; why court disaster by marketing them as “child sex dolls” in the first place? It isn’t inconceivable that an adult with this condition, or, indeed, who simply appears much younger - for whatever reason - might at some stage agree to pose for a likeness to be produced.

Just speculating really, seeing what response I get.

I suppose it may depend on where you are. In Canada, where I am, anything that looks underage, whether doll or cartoon, is illegal in a sexual context. Although being 16+ would be a defense in person no matter what you looked like, if you were 30 and looked prepubescent, your nude photos would undoubtedly occasion arrest. The underlying rationale is incendiarism, the doctrine holding that instantiating a conception of the illegal act in any way will cause an out-of-control brushfire of abandon and covetousness to ignite and cause immoral conflagration in the subject’s brain, leading inevitably to abuse. This pre-scientific doctrine is now ornamented with modern terminology like ‘cognitive distortion’ and ‘desensitization.’ And as I discussed in an earlier post somewhere in this forum, it’s exquisitely difficult to design research that robustly tests this idea.