So in your opinion, by your standard of morality, you would be willing to release a child murderer, in order to punish a person who bought a sex toy. Okay.
I mean, you could very much punish both, no one forces you to choose, but you still would release a child murderer, and give your nieces and nephews to him, instead of taking responsibility for taking care of your family by yourself as a responsible human being. Okay.
Who the fuck said anything about child murderers? Most murderers do not prey on children. In fact, convicted murderers often beat up (and in exceptional cases, even rape and torture) those convicted of child molestation. While I’m not going out of my way to advocate for torture and rape of anyone within prisons, it’s completely understandable while child molesters are targeted for assaults. This is because inmates, including murderers despise those who prey on children.
It’s a universal human norm to despise those who molest and kill children. THIS is why I would gladly have a convicted murderer look after my niece and daughter before I let someone with a child sex doll look after them. Most paroled murderers are not a danger to children, they might remain danger to adult women and men, but almost never to children. You know who is a danger to children? pedophiles are, whether they offend or not. Especially those with such vile fantasies that they had to buy a sex doll.
Let me try and summarize where you’re coming from, and explain where I think you are talking at cross-purposes with most other people here. In your opinion, having pedophilia is wrong independently of whether the person with this condition hurts a child or not, because the desire itself is morally wrong. Other people here would disagree, because they would say there is no justification to attribute moral blame to someone for an unchosen condition, or for thoughts that they don’t act on.
At the end of the day, whether you are right or they are right is entirely subjective—or, if you are religious, may be a valid theological question—but it is certainly not a scientific question. Child abuse protection experts don’t care about labelling people as “vile” or “disgusting”, they care about protecting children from sexual abuse. And if that means allowing people to possess a sex toy in whatever shape arouses them, the end result is more important than your hurt feelings.
At the end of the day it boils down to a question like this one: is your comfort at knowing that somebody is not masturbating with an unapproved toy, more important than the safety of a real child? For every dollar of law enforcement money, how much should be spent on prosecuting someone for having a sex doll, instead of being spent on prosecuting someone who actually abused a child? (There is a backlog of such cases against perpetrators of real abuse, so yes, you do have to make a choice.)
We get it, that you feel uncomfortable about the existence of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Join the club! But this isn’t all about you. Our job isn’t to make you comfortable. It’s to protect children from being sexually abused–by whatever means works. If treating people with pedophilia as human beings allows one more struggling teenager to come forward for help with their unwanted attraction, then we will happily wear the smears of being known as the only child protection organization that supports research into the impacts of sex dolls.
At the end of the day it boils down to a question like this one: is your comfort at knowing that somebody is not masturbating with an unapproved toy, more important than the safety of a real child? For every dollar of law enforcement money, how much should be spent on prosecuting someone for having a sex doll, instead of being spent on prosecuting someone who actually abused a child?
To secure more funding to prosecute child molesters/rapists, I would suggest releasing all prisoners not a danger to society. Make more room for child molesters. I don’t see why we can’t prosecute both the monsters owning these dolls AND the subhuman who rape children. If the issue is funding, maybe release some prisoners that are better off on license suspended sentence. Let mandatory life imprisonment be for those who rape children.
I know this is a wildly unpopular opinion, but I’d like to do away with the mandatory life sentence for murder. If they murder a child, yes, life sentence mandatory makes sense. But it seems most murderers do age out of crime. And divert the savings to prosecute child molesters and those who own child sex dolls.
Suggestion is 2nd degree murder carries mandatory minimum of 5 years and maximum of 15-life. If premeditated 1st degree, mandatory minimum will be 10 years max 25-life. Rape of a child under 14 carries a mandatory minimum of 20-life and a maximum of LWOP. For Rape of 14-18, I suggest mandatory minimum of 10 and maximum of LWOP. Murder of a child will carry identical sentences to that of rape of said child. Rape AND Murder will be mandatory LWOP. Child sex doll owners will be maximum 25 years. No minimum, if judges want to give these sick fucks suspended on license sentence, sure but only for first offense
Free up more resources to prosecute and imprison child molesters.
Wow… you are so far gone it’s unreal.
You’re seriously willing to release convicted murderers just to satisfy an incorrect and unhinged desire to marginalize and cause suffering to assumed-to-be prospective child predators and to cause the deliberate harm to already-established predators??
You’re sick.
The same can be said in reverse. Most people with child sex dolls do not pray on children.
But your assumption, based on nothing than your own personal uninformed bias, instead of any empirical data is that you don’t trust people who want such dolls, and you are worried that they might go a step above, and hurt a real child.
Which is a reasonable worry, although hypothetically speaking, I think buying such a doll by a person who already has predatory intentions is a waste of money and effort. If anything, buying such a doll instead of investing the money into CSEM or gifts they can use to gain the trust of a child as a step in the process of grooming seems like a good indicator of the person is unwilling to go after real kids, but still wanting to satisfy their sick fantasy. Regardless of the rhetoric, such compromise is a staple of decency, even if it’s disgusting.
A murderer is a person that already displayed an extremely non-normative behaviour. Being angry at someone, desiring revenge, creating power fantasies in which you kill and torture those you hate - all of those things are sick by normal standards, we consider murdering people for disagreement as an immoral and horrible act, but such fantasies occur in every person’s mind and are a part of human nature, and despite being “sick” and “disgusting” are crucial for emotional regulation. Everyone does that, and while immoral, it’s completely fine as long as it doesn’t go step further to hurting real people.
This is the definition of decency. You don’t get to pick and choose which things become a thought crime and which don’t.
A murdered is such a person that crossed a line. Who broke the law, who displayed a disregard for other humans lives, who didn’t restrain themselves, who didn’t care about morality, who didn’t care about the risk of them getting into prison, who had no empathy - of course talking about murderers that intentionally killed someone. And there is a huge amount of people murdering children, even little toddlers as well, like psychopathic and narcissistic mothers who don’t find any pleasure from taking care of a child, and want to party like they used to with no restraints - like the famous case of Casey Anthony.
How do you know that convicted murderer that you so strongly trust wasn’t convicted for child murder? Or that the murderer you will pick as a babysitter is really incapable of hurting those kids? Or what if he kills the parents of your nieces and nephews, and hurt them this way indirectly? I’m sorry, but logically speaking, my worry that a convicted murderer is more likely to hurt a child than a person who displayed consciousness and awareness of his position in society and the risks abuse of minors carries by buying an alternative way of satisfying his urges with the artificial victimless product instead of spending this money on actually hurting a real being is more reasonable.
But then again, you missed my point. Having suspicions and worries is a good thing, and that what I was advocating you should do, have a suspicion and worry to both kinds of people. But you seem to apply this standard to one type of criminal, while completely clearing another type of criminal of any worry and suspicion, in a blind ideological belief that murderers are good because people with sex toys are bad. Where is the link between those two groups? There is none, and yet you assume that for some reason, one group affects the other in such a way.
If you are a responsible human being, and you are given the responsibility to take care of some children, you do it yourself. You don’t give that responsibility to any other person, because guess what. There are way more child abusers that don’t sexually exploit minors, than the ones that do. DSM-5 approximates that 5% of the world population are pedophiles. And less than that do commit sexual crimes. And the rest of 95% might have all sorts of other disorders that make them a danger to children: antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, alcohol use disorder - I could enumerate without an end, and many of people which such disorders, sometimes, albeit rarely do sexually abuse minors as well, without being attracted to them. But you ignore that fact since in your mind, only pedophiles are capable of doing that, which makes you even less effective in protecting children from possible dangerous individuals. In your blind rage towards your imaginative idea of what an average pedophile is, instead of what we actually know about this type of person, you completely ignore all other types of child abusers. You didn’t even consider, that the murderer you would hire as a babysitter, could be a child murderer, you just assumed, again, with no actual data about your assumption, simply because you felt like it’s the case, that murderers “mostly” don’t murder children, yet you are still willing to take that risk, rather than don’t trust both kinds of people as a reasonable human being, to own the pedos. This is the danger of your attitude, you would expose children to danger, to prove an ideological point. And to explain it better to you, speaking in your language: kind of like the parents who hire drag queens to their children’s birthdays, and dress their children in sexually explicit costumes. You are exactly the same type of person, as you think of such parents.
Of course, they despise those who prey on children, even pedophiles despise those who prey on children. Everyone despise those who prey on children. Only those who prey on children don’t despise those who prey on children, albeit they will create a public image of hating on those who despise on children, something even more strongly than an average person.
You say you don’t advocate for torture and rape of anyone within prisons, but you still justify it if it happens, by claiming it’s understandable. It’s understandable to want to kill such a person, there is no denying of that, but it’s not justifiable, reasonable and acceptable to actually do it. You are aware of the reason why we abolished the death penalty, despite the idea of killing serious criminals who have no chance of redemption being logical? Because mistakes happen. Wrong convictions do happen. False allegations do happen. And the legal system isn’t some sort of perfect never wrong entity that is controlled by goldy powers who are omniscience. Here, look for yourself:
And yes, it’s in the US, Australia doesn’t disclose how many innocent people did they wrongfully convicted, perhaps because your government think such information is immoral and would hurt Australian’s minds. But such wrong convictions do happen everywhere, in any country. The difference is that totalitarian regimes will simply not tell you about it, because they want to keep the illusion of having standards and being guided by morality to manipulate their citizens into being obedient and following every single of their orders.
Which is exactly why only hypothetically you might make the case that it’s okay to murder and despise those who molest and kill children. Because hypothetically, you can assume that such people exist, and hypothetically, you don’t deal with a real being, and because of that, hypothetically, such attitude is reasonable, since you orient it onto a hypothetical person who is objectively guilty. But in practice, in the real world, you never know if the person you accuse of doing something wrong to a child really did something, wrong or not, to any child. Even if they admit to it, there have been many cases where a person who was innocent admitted to committing a serious crime and was killed for it by the government, while the real criminal went free, with everyone thinking that there is no longer any danger, hurting more people for many years, with the only witness of his crimes being dead. Here you have another list of such cases:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/description-of-innocence-cases
And if you accuse an innocent person of being a horrible human being, punishing them for crimes they didn’t committed. Guess what that makes you, a horrible human being that hurts innocent people. Which is the reason why we all hate child abusers in the first place.
This is why we have rules like “innocent until proven guilty”. And this is why the justice system, should focus on protecting and helping victims, instead of punishing criminals. Locking people in jail shouldn’t be a form of revenge, it should be a method of separating a dangerous individual from society, so they can’t hurt anybody else. There is a thin line between justice and vengeance, and you clearly don’t distinguish those concepts at all.
We despise people who molest and kill children because those actions harm the children, not because it’s a “norm”. Just because something is normal, doesn’t make it good. There used to be a time when it was a universal human norm to despise those who have interracial relationships, there used to be a time when it was a universal human norm to despise people who wanted to marry people of the same sex, there used to be a time when it was a universal human norm to despise people who were stripping themselves naked on the street in front of people, there used to be a time when it was a universal human norm to despise people who have sex with animals.
And guess what, some of those things, are still valid, while others are not. Because norms and normality in general have nothing to do with whenever something is good or wrong. It never was and never be a good descriptor of morality.
And no one makes a case that those who molest and kill children shouldn’t be despised. But the difference between you and me, between you that is outraged on my behalf for things that happened to me and not you, and me, who actually suffered from child abuse, is that you care more about bashing and destroying pedophiles, just because they are pedophiles, which you later rationalize in various ways, while I care about being effective in protecting children.
While you indulge yourself in power fantasies, creating a boogeyman in your mind, of an ugly middle-aged man who rides in vans kidnaping kindergarteners in order to rape them and hide their body in the forest, that you feel vindicated in relieving all your sadistic desires on, which is not a bad thing as long as you understand the difference between the reality and such fantasies.
I actually think about ways that could improve the safety of minors in general, not only from sexual abuse, from all abuse. And I want to figure out solutions that wouldn’t result in them being thrown into another hell once they grow up, where they are locked in prison for reading a comic book that was deemed “immoral and obscene” or for buying themselves a piece of silicone that “looked too young”, and without having their privacy constantly eliminated by the government, who just must monitor every step of their life, “to protect the children”.
Ask yourself the question, what is your long term plan? Let’s assume you spend your life killing every single pedophile on this planet. It would take you more than a lifetime, but let’s assume you killed them all. New people were born, and among them, new pedophiles. What then? You are in grave, and you expect that some random person will take the mantle of responsibility? How many people you think would be willing to sacrifice their entire lives hunting down all pedophiles on this planet? So far, there aren’t much of such people. Rarely some individuals play vigilantes, but even they are far from eliminating all pedophiles on the planet. And sometimes, such vigilantes are child predators themselves:
Sure. If having opposition to pedo hunters who are hunting pedophiles as a ploy to disguise their efforts in praying on children, and attacking innocent people falsely accusing them of being pedophiles, to create a distraction from themselves is a proof of having a questionable moral compass in your opinion, then I suspect your magnetic north is really on the south.
Protasia to my knowledge tries to develop additional solutions to the problem, solutions whose result is to increase the number of safe children, in a way that doesn’t involve putting those children into jail once they grow up. And of course, those methods might be unconventional but are not extremist, and while being sceptical about them is a good thing, you need reasons to be sceptical about them, instead of blind fixed and baseless assumptions that are simply nonsense for anyone who spends at least a day gaining knowledge about the topic. You literally try to make a case that we shouldn’t try new solutions that can save more real children lives because they might make you think about your childhood less rosy, or make you feel disgusted for a while, and you twist this horrible logic that prioritizes personal comfort above children’s lives by stating, that it’s somehow a moral stance.
We had no improvement in the child protection sector for years in most countries. Japan has been seeing a constant betterment, with less and fewer rates of child abuse each year. They allow child sex dolls, they allow virtual CP, because they know, it won’t cause more harm and focus on more effective solutions. While your country and mine, truly believes that all they have to do, is to ban things they find disgusting and call it a day, sometimes reacting once someone tells them that some kid was tortured their whole life, which rarely does happen. Well, guess what, banning stuff didn’t help me. And Australia, during pursuit based on the approach that you display, has a 3000% bigger rate of rapes in general than Japan. It’s of course not conclusive evidence of anything, there are many reasons why this is the case, but that fact is disturbing nontheless:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
You can set up as many laws as you want, it won’t change anything. Because fundamentally, the law is only as strong as it’s enforcement. And you can’t enforce anything without knowledge about the person you want the law to be enforced against. And truth is, you will never know anything about persons sexual intentions unless they decide to tell you about it, or after it’s too late and they committed a crime. But a lot of laws can be used if someone has a mere suspicion, so such laws will be used against innocent people, on a mere probability. Which considering, that the approximation of pedophiles is that they constitute 5% of society, means that per 100 of people against whom such laws will be used, statistically speaking 95 will be unjustly punished by those laws.
What we need are global passive systems that sustain themselves and reduce the amounts of sexual abuse of minors. If realistic sexbots turn out to result in the reduction of sexual offences, they will be one of such systems. I don’t care about whenever they will be “moral” or “disgusting”. All I care about is being effective in protecting children.
Because by prosecuting people who own dolls you ultimately fill the prison spaces with prisoners that are not a danger to society. You assume that they are based on your own suspicion, but the same can be said about drug users, making a claim that they are a danger to society under the influence of drugs, since it might have an effect on their inhibitory functions. With that logic, you will never release any prisoners, because all prisoners will be a danger to society. This is why people make an argument, about legalizing victimless crimes. And owning such doll or fictional images is exactly that, a victimless crime. That is exactly the point, those two things shouldn’t be criminalized because fundamentally such decision wastes important resources: money, time, people, tools and more, on people who don’t harm anybody, instead of on people who actually pray on children, and you don’t have any confirmation, that by banning such things, you will catch all predators since predators might have no interest in it, which is why it’s better to focus on catching predators, since then, even if we assume that such victimless alternatives somehow magically invite such people to commit sexual crimes, it won’t matter because if they try to pray on children, this is where our law enforcement has 100% of focus, they will be caught more effectively, instead of situations in which the attention of law enforcement is split between various groups, especially if you consider, that the number of people interested in such things, will be significantly bigger, than the number of child predators, since ultimatelly, what classifies as virtual child pornography is strongly subjective, and you will have a lot of nonpedophiles who are interested in young looking anime and cartoon characters, that for some will appear underage, while for others, might not. If you make laws against sex dolls and drawings, you will have to monitor, let’s imagine, due to lack of any data on the topic, about 15% of the society, instead of just 5%. That would be 3 times more resources needed and ultimately wasted, while the same amount of resources could be spent to monitor those 5% 3 times as effectively.
And once again, you justify one horrible crime, because some other horrible crime exists. You want to protect children from being sexually abused so they can be later killed by some psychopath that derives sexual pleasure from taking peoples lives. Sexual sadism disorder is a thing, you know?
This is where I will agree with you, which is why I don’t want to imprison people for possessing sex toys and erotic comic books, and instead, prefer to focus on for example: developing methods that help us detect attempts of online grooming. Because child predators don’t necessarily have to be interested in victimless alternatives, after all, they want to go after real kids, not artificial ones, so banning them wouldn’t allow us to catch them before they make any attempts of hurting a minor, and just a mere fact of being attracted to someone, regardless of who that person is, doesn’t eliminate persons ability to feel empathy, fear of imprisonment, fear of social exclusion, of losing family ties, of losing friends and coworkers, of having their reputation ruined, of having later problems finding a job and place to live, and many more reasons, that would make a person not willing to break a law and sexually exploit a minor. And such people could use the alternative, as a way to reduce their sexual frustration on a regular basis, making them more emotionally stable in the long run, which would work as basically a natural way of reducing libido, kind of like chemical castration, but without any side effects, and allowing the person to have a substitute of sexual life, assuming they are primarily or exclusively attracted to minors.
Seriously, you are most likely attracted to some demographic of people, ask yourself how many sex toys and pornography would you need to decide to rape someone? In my case, it wouldn’t change anything. I would prefer to be celibate my whole life and die a virgin than to rape anyone in my entire life. And I think I can safely assume the same about you. Because those things ultimately don’t matter, and whenever someone decides to sexually exploit anyone else, be it a child or an adult, in both cases it’s never justifiable, depends on the person alone, and not bans of anything erotic will change the person, who is already willing to hurt other human beings for their own pleasure. Such people don’t care about laws, societal norms, morality or what you think, they do what they want to do, and in case of such individuals, I will completely agree with you about the necessity of the imprisonment, disregard for such individuals and that feelings of hatred towards them are justified, simply because no alternative will work on them. But you will find such people among those interested in children as well as among those who are interested in adults, and I think you would agree that you and I shouldn’t be treated worse on a mere fact that there are rapists who have the same sexual interests in adults as us. That it would be illogical to ban regular pornography and sex toys, and adult sex dolls (even though most of them look creepy) in fears that they might somehow make you or me more willing to rape someone.
There is no evidence that dolls make any difference in the abuse of real children. So there is no reason for anyone to have a rational position on this subject. So, what’s left is for people to have a EMOTIVE opinion on the subject, which is exactly your case. You think sex with children is disgusting, and that’s why you think that if anything reminds us of this, even if remotely, that thing should be criminalized. But of course you know that finding something disgusting or not, is not an argument that supports any stance, right? Anyway, what happens is that you wish that pedophilia don’t exist, even in people’s imagination. And in fact I sympathize with you. I have similar problems (wanting something to disapear because I find it disgusting). So anyway I know how you feel. But unfortunately your side is the wrong one ^^"
PS: Sorry if I said something obvious, or something that has already been said. I’m too lazy to read all comments here ^^".
You are fucking asking us Australians to LEGALIZE these dolls. It’s up to YOU to prove they reduce crime. We are not changing a fucking law because you felt like it. I’m going to be clear here. If it’s true they REDUCE crime, I will be ok with legalize it on the condition that it’s kept OUT OF FUCKING SITE of children. But you have YET to demonstrate ANY FUCKING PROOF.
Honestly, if shifting the burden of proof was an Olympic sport, you’d get gold every time.
Honestly, if shifting the burden of proof was an Olympic sport, you’d get gold every time.
By default, media in this country are banned. It’s up to you to prove that it’s not very harmful.
Thats fair. I mean 
Personally I’m not asking anyone to criminalize or decriminalize anything, but you probably aren’t talking to me, so… ¯ _(ツ)_/¯
I’m pretty sure they are the most oppressed group of all, but not because of dolls. Is because people treat them like human garbage and, even worse, do it because they are something they didn’t choose to be. Even so, most pedophiles struggle with their own instincts not to abuse children. Which ironically is something that I guarantee that these people who call them trash wouldn’t do if they switched places. Well, be thankfull that I’m not a pedophile, because if I were, I wouldn’t be able to do what the people here do.
I’m pretty sure they are the most oppressed group of all
Hardly. Pedophiles are so common among the elite. Jeffrey Epstein being one such example. If anything, pedophiles are among the most privileged.
I believe the problem is that people only hear about pedophiles in the newspapers, and naturally those who are more powerful and famous are the ones who will be most in these headlines. But if you accept my opinion. What I believe makes people become pedophiles is a very early contact with themes related to sex when the person is a child. Like, don’t they say pedophiles are people who were abused as children? Anyway, this is a wrong correlation, but I believe that is “kinda” correct. Like, If the child has contact with sex (it may be sex itself, but not necessarily, it may also be contact with erotic content) Anyway, in these cases, the child may end up developing sexual desire very early. Which will naturally make her feel attracted to friends of the same age, that is, other children. And this will remain in the person as an adult. So, that person will continue to feel sexual attraction to children, because she “learn” that when she was a children herself. In short, this would be based on the fact that the first experience with sexual desire ends up being definitive for the person’s sexual development.
And of course, this is just my opinion, it’s just something I was thinking about these days, I didn’t take it from anywhere in particular. But, I don’t know, maybe someone could start a research on this ^^
Anyway that could be one answer for this problem. Do you want less pedophiles in the world? Then double the effort to keep children away from erotic material / situations or anything related to sex.
PS: I just noticed that my last sentence kind of disagree with some of the things that the organization here advocates ^^" But, I also never said that I agree with everything they defend ¯_(シ)_/¯ Also, as I said, this is just my opinion, what I would really like is for it to be more studied.
I already said it but I will say it again. Explain to me how you can at the same time claim, that pedophiles are such a commonality among privileged elites that control the government, believing all they want to do is to normalize pedophilia, but when the government bans victimless alternatives while being completely fine with movies like Cuties, that are far from being victimless in my option, like in the case of your country, you clap your hands and cheer your government, believing, that this one single time, they did something against their own interest. Never has ever crossed your mind, that maybe such bans are exactly what they want? To keep the pedophiles in their country sexually frustrated, more emotionally unstable, more prone to sexual abuse in lack of any alternatives? Because of that, they can point the public attention to such cases, creating an impression that they are against pedophilia, so no one suspects that they have their versions of Epstain islands all over the world. Or less tinfoil version, because keeping the public in a state of moral panic, just like in the case of satanic panic, makes people irrational, more gullible and way more willing to accept rights that restrict their freedoms in the promise of false hope?
I used to dig conspiracy theories, I still do. And always, among all conspiracy theories, there is distrust to the government. The idea that they want to take our rights and control us. But you for some reason seem to completely exclude that possibility, and instead, trust the government to the fullest. I’m curious why.
It’s simple: Government is not just a single entity, but a huge group of people. Some of them are really dedicated to protecting children while others are dedicated to enslaving them. The fact that they OK’ed cuties actually is an argument IN FAVOR of the theory of a secret government sex trafficking enterprise and that they are trying to normalize pedophilia. However, I think in this case, it’s more likely a mistake. I believe their original ruling will be repealed and specific scenes within Cuties will be considered legally child pornography in due time.
Actually, those who banned the illegal outlets are not likely to be involved in the sex trafficking. They are the good side of government. The evils of government are much more complicated than most conspiracies think. I’d say the US gov leans very heavily towards being evil considering the Epstein revelations while the Australian government is largely good.
I really think that things like normalizing, relativizing, problematizing etc., are basically fallacies. It is the last resort that a cornered person uses when they cannot defend their own point of view. None of these things are “bad”. Everything can be questioned, reviewed, etc. when it comes to a rational discussion. Anyway, if the only thing you can say about “defending pedophilia” is that it “normalizes pedophilia”, then I’m sorry, but that just proves that you don’t have an argument against pedophilia.
Also, it should be unnecessary to say, but just for the record, when I talk about pedophilia I’m not talking about the act of child abuse.
When it comes to the questions of nature vs nurture, the usual answer is both. The origin of people sexual interests to my knowledge is unknown in the scientific field, but I doubt it’s as simple as just being exposed to themes related to sex - most people saw some porn site by mistake as a kid, or a sex scene in a movie, or porn magazine left in the forest, or found their parents sex toys, or simply talked with other kids about this stuff since it’s so forbidden. So it’s very unlikely.
Oh yeah, they say that part of the reason why I never talked about being abused as a child sexually to anyone I know even to this day, so they don’t freak out thinking I will be a danger to society. I think there has been some research about this that I saw ages ago, but considering most of such research uses phallometric test which is not the most reliable method, and usually researches convicted sex offenders, I would say that this hypothesis is questionable.
This one for example:
States that “The analysis of self-reports confirmed that the proportion of pedophiles who report having been sexually abused in childhood by mature persons is larger than that of men who were not charged for or accused of a sex offence against a child though the difference is relatively small (28.6 vs. 13.9 and 10.7% for the heterosexual pedophiles and the two groups of gynephiles, respectively, and 25.9 vs. 11.8% for the homosexual pedophiles and androphiles, respectively)”
But also adds “Further analysis demonstrated, however, that pedophiles who admitted having an erotic interest in children significantly more often claimed that they had been sexually abused as children than pedophiles who did not admit having such feelings. This interdependence renders the reliability of these self-reports questionable.”.
I was very hypersexual from the earliest days, without need for any sexual materials, albeit I was motivated more due to curiosity than a desire, and that fact has been exploited by a person that I trusted later on in my life. Sexual desire seems more like a result of nature, more accurately speaking, it’s strongly related to testosterone levels among some other hormones. And the idea that sexual materials influence peoples sexualities seems unreasonable. People have been living without such materials for ages, had different fetishes, sexual orientations, practices even rituals. And there isn’t any other medium that would affect humans in any other way, other than just by giving them informations for them to process, so I doubt it’s any different when it comes to human sexuality.
I don’t think anyone in here would mind any disagreements. It’s good to exchange ideas in order to find out what is true. I personally don’t agree with some opinions Protasia has as well, but I’m willing to wait and learn more before I make any conclusions.
Just “seeing” will not necessarily trigger desire in anyone. BUT it’s always a possibility, so I still think it should be avoided as much as possible. But I agree that it would hardly be just that… Sex is always a complicated thing 
However, if this is an “factor”, I think it deserves to be treated with great care.
Well, you said yourself, it was more a curiosity than a desire. And apart of being a desire, my hypotesis is that need to be a STRONG desire. But again, I agree that its not that simply. Things are never simple when it comes to sex and human mind.
Actually, we are not actively campaigning to change Australian law. It may not even be necessary to do so. The recent Australian doll ban does already provide an exception for dolls that are purchased for medical reasons. It should be a relatively simple task for someone who is in need of one of these devices to obtain a prescription from a well-informed professional, that would provide them with a legal justification for owning it.