I don’t believe that owning the dolls should require a medical license. Rights are not and should not be contingent on such things. That feels like a cop-out, but whatever. I hope that broad legalization and availability elsewhere, though, such as the United States remains a goal of the Prostasia Foundation.
7 Likes
I actually prefer the idea of people getting a medical license for such dolls.
This will create statistics, a lot of data, that in some years can be used to completely legalize or delegalize them, depending on the results. Kind of like in the case of research about pornography, that correlated it with a decrease in sexual crimes.
To put it simply, creating a search of people who were given such a license with the reports that are being held by the police will show how many of such people committed sexual offences or any crimes for that matter, and how much of sexual abusers had no such dolls.
The question is for how long such data is going to be held by those institutions, and how to obtain it.
1 Like
I disagree. We already have some data on how virtual/fictional child pornography is likely to reduce sex crimes, I have a feeling that the data on these dolls will be likely to mirror those results.
Maybe requiring a license for those already previously convicted of a sex crime, you know, actual problematic persons, but not otherwise innocent persons who’ve done nothing wrong.
I don’t like the idea of someone being arrested for owning a sex toy of any kind. I’m just as uncomfortable with the phrase “…without a license.” attached to it.
6 Likes
Some data isn’t convincing to most. There used to be a lot of people who were anti-porn 20 years ago, they still do exist to this day, by the power of their arguments is nonexistent due to strong data, that disproved most of their claims. One of such claims was that porn causes more rapes to happen. And the research I mentioned was strong enough to completely debunk this claim.
The history repeats itself in this case as well, it’s intellectually dishonest to claim we can’t draw conclusions from that research onto any other type of erotica material, be it a drawing or a doll. But the question is about convincing most people that this is the case in here as well and that considering the stigma pedophilia has, will be way difficult, but still achievable.
Also, we have no data that it reduces sex crimes, correlation doesn’t have to imply causation. It’s more likely that improvements in sexual abuse prevention methods are responsible for lowering the rates of sexual crimes, than pornography.
If you will require such license from only convicted individuals, all you will have is information whenever they help in reducing recidivism. Unless they will have 100% success rate, I doubt it will be convincing to most people.
Requiring a medical license isn’t a punishment. You need a license for a car as well, but do you protest against that as well? I doubt that this is the case.
And as much as I don’t like the idea of being arrested for owning a sex toy of any kind even if personally I have no interest in those, there might be a lot of good coming from that decision to require medical licenses. Look at it this way, if your speculations are true, this will allow you to get one of the best empirical evidence you can have.
2 Likes
I do agree that we need better, more conclusive data to back up our claims, though, I remain unconvinced that we should humor the idea of penalizing people for owning a doll even if it requires a license. You don’t need a license to watch pornography on the internet, do you? Nor do you need one to watch or read Japanese lolicon hentai manga or anime?
My contention is that they’re all the same.
We have some data that sort of “begs the question”, so to speak. Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic have all seen dramatic lows in reports of contact sex offenses in general since they legalized pornography, including virtual/fictional child pornography, which the could not be said enough about Japan. Japan is interesting, though, as they also have statistically lower crime rates period for a country with as low a high a population and as big a player in the global economy as they are.
Denmark is also worthy of analysis, in that their traditional liberal ideology has been a staple of their culture since the 1970s, with many studies and observations being done on their experiments with the hardcore pornography and sex crimes.
You are correct in stating that correlation does not imply causation, but when the statistics and variables are so consistent, one can only imagine.
In any case, what data we do have is that it doesn’t incite abuse.
They have yet to establish a link between the consumption of pornography and the commission of sex crimes.
2 Likes
I’m not making the claim that they aren’t. But the public doesn’t see it this way. And I don’t like the idea of penalizing people for owning a doll, but that is the thing about this license, you can now have such dolls once you obtain this license.
And if someone discovers that you have such toy, and get panicked, now you can say “hey, hey, hey, don’t worry, I have a medical license that allowed me to get it”.
Most people think that pedophiles should seek treatment or kill themselves, well, such license can be used as a proof of seeking treatment, and calming people down in such scenario, as rare as it might be, it might give some people at least a little bit of comfort, instead of constantly worrying what they should do if someone were to ever find out they have such doll. Look at the positives, it’s better to have regulations instead of restrictions, and that will give you strong data for your case.
This is the research I’ve mentioned. But in the case of the Czech Republic, they were talking about real CSEM, not fictional one. But then again, what they showed, was a correlation, not causation.
But that was more than enough, becasue the hypothesis was:
“Pornography causes an increase in rates of sexual offences”
And the data showed, that there is a correlation between lowering rates of sexual offences and an increase in accessibility of pornography, including real child pornography, and sexual offences against minors.
Thus the hypothesis was abolished. It’s a fact that pornography doesn’t cause an increase in rates of sexual offences. But it’s a speculation that it causes rates of sexual offences to lower. We can’t infer that from such informations, and there is a lot of other speculations that can explain why the rates of sexual offences have been lowering in all those countries.
The same can be said in the opposite, if you were to see data that sexual offences have increased with the increase in porn accessibility, you couldn’t say that porn causes an increase in sexual offences. But you could state that it’s a fact that it doesn’t lower them.
Yes, because if anything, the research we talked about proves that pornography is simply an insignificant factor. Which is why Japan has focused its efforts on different methods of preventing sexual crimes from happening. Some people claim that it’s just because sexual crimes are underreported in Japan, but that is a lie. Not because they aren’t underreported, since every country has an underreported crimes, but because people stating that, simply don’t know that for sure, and instead rely on stereotypes, that in Japan there is a huge problem of sexual abuse of women and children (and somehow at the same time they have such informations, but make a claim that Japanese people don’t have it). Japan basically does what Protasia wants to do in western countries in my opinion.
If you really have such impression, that indicates that there is a bias at play. Recognize it, and consider it while searching for informations, since if you want to see some pattern strong enough, you will see it everywhere. There are always hidden variables that are at play, but in some cases, they are simply insignificant.
Yes, but at the same time, no. People tend to disassociate the topic of pedophilia from the topics of human sexuality, partially because, in their understanding, pedophilia is wrong, immoral, disgusting crime performed by totally inhumane devils that in no way can have anything in common with human beings, but mostly, because they know nothing about the topic, have no foundation for reasoning, and are worried, that they might become pedophiles.
The feelings of disgust have a function of making us avoid diseases, which implies that people who refer to pedophilia as disgusting, think of it as a disease that they can catch too. This is also why people whose moral foundation is purity, for example like most conservatives, are so often fixed over the topic of pedophilia, way more often than an average person. This is why they morally panic, they want to reinforce themselves in the righteousness of their belief, that “pedophilia is wrong”, to supplement the lack of knowledge as to why it’s wrong.
Why do you think that Australia ultimately allowed such dolls with a medical license. This was the only way they could accept it, by almost unconsciously thinking, that such dolls will be like a treatment for a disease.
You won’t convince such people with appeals to freedom and peoples rights. You can only appeal with those arguments to people whose moral foundations are that of liberty and fairness. But they are pretty much already against banning of such things, and the only thing that would make them change their minds is empirical evidence that those things cause harm, which won’t be the case, ever.
And if you manage to find arguments that such materials will result in better protection of minors, it will be convincing for those whose moral foundation is care.
Which leaves you with loyalty and authority, that doesn’t really matter in this case.
So it’s really only the purity that is the problem. But just like you won’t convince a person attracted to minors that they shouldn’t be attracted to minors, you won’t convince a person who was born with a huge level of the morality trait called purity, that they shouldn’t feel disgusted, sanctity or piety.
1 Like
this line of reasoning was used during the Civil War to pacify opponents of slavery, in that some of the South’s most prolific slaveholders were black, as if that was an excuse to justify state sanctioned inequality.
Why so I keep detecting parallels between anti-pedos and civil rights violations??
2 Likes
Nah, I wouldn’t use dopeko as a good example of what anti-pedos are like. He does not only support civil rights violations, he also supports releasing proven child predators unpunished and defends organizations that have been proven to operate a website distributing CSEM materials for about a year. I think you would agree, that it’s not a behaviour of an average anti-pedophile.
3 Likes
To parrot the rhetoric they ascribe to those who support free speech and civil rights, “they all look the same”
1 Like
I’m not willing to humor this idea, though, it is likely that it’d be a better reality than just broad criminalization. I still don’t support it.
Unless it’s limited to those who’ve already proven themselves to be a danger to children with prior convictions, then no one should be required to have a “sex doll license” in order to legally own a sex toy. I’m open to that idea on the condition that it’s in a medical doctor’s best judgement that someone with a history have one for therapeutic purposes, but again - that’s only furthering my previous point.
Either way.
As you’ve already have empirical evidence that it does not incite abuse or actual crimes. I believe that the correlation previously mentioned only shows support for the contention that it can reduce sex crimes, and, when factoring in the culture and legal systems of each individual nation over a period of time, those numbers remained consistently low even after efforts were made to modernize reporting and prevention methods, in addition to keeping safe, harmless, and victimless material legal and accessible to those inclined to consume it. It may be speculation to a degree, but it’s educated speculation that hasn’t been disproven by data.
I’m not so much as interested in “convincing” antis to take our side. They are under no obligation to be swayed one way or the other, but it is likely to make them concede that their points weren’t in line with the objective reality surrounding the subject matter. Subconsciously, they are required to acknowledge this fact if they are to trust the academic institutions that give them so much.
1 Like
Guilty until proven innocent? I didn’t realize that Australia was not only a dictatorship, but a middle easter one. Do you guys still stone people? Ironic for a former penal colony.
4 Likes
Traditionalism in case of Australians would be about putting people into jail, I guess.
But in all honesty, most if not all Australians are great people. It’s just their government that cares more about their image than children’s lives that is a problem.
2 Likes
It’s a possibility, but just like with everything in science, it has to be first proven before we can assume it’s true.
And the act of a person to commit a sexual crime is a multilayered and complex problem. The cost-gain analysis, as well as risk-benefit analysis of such person, has many factors that partake in the decision-making process of such an individual:
- Fear of social repercussions,
- The risk of imprisonment,
- The risk of being killed by someone in vengeance,
- The aspect of personal ethics and empathy, that would make it difficult for a person to not feel emotional distress before and after the crime,
- The issues finding job and housing after release from potential imprisonment.
I could enumerate without an end, but the point is, reducing the problem to a single variable and making a claim that if something affects this variable than that proves my idea is an incorrect approach. If the hypothesis you state is “sex dolls will reduce rates of sexual abuse of children”, then we have to evaluate how sex dolls would affect all those variables that play a role in a decision-making process.
And each variable has it’s own weight. Empathy, for example, might be an extremely significant factor, which would explain why many pro-contact MAPs I’ve seen develop all sorts of moral justification and rationalizations, or better called, cognitive distortions as someone from Protasia stated if I’m not mistaken, to basically alleviate any sense of guilt that would come from sexually exploiting a child.
How would sex dolls affect fear of social repercussions? I don’t think there would be any effect on it.
How would sex dolls affect the risk of imprisonment? Again, I don’t think it matters.
The next one, the same situation.
And again.
And again.
Sex dolls might be used by a willing participant as a tool to release their sexual frustration to nominal levels, allowing them to function properly during daily life. The analogy that I would use to this idea, is that it’s exactly the same as chemical castration, but without side effects. And I think most people are satisfied with the option for pedophiles to be chemically castrated, albeit perhaps because they believe the term has something to do with person genitalia.
But this is only a single factor, and the only factor that I think is affected by those alternatives. So it’s helpful in that regard. It definitely won’t result in harm. And might motivate a person who is legitimately a pedophile, to use them as a substitute for a sex life while abstaining from relationships with real minors. On this simple merit, I believe such alternatives should be allowed with no restrictions different than other erotic materials. They might help good people stay good, instead of punishing them for wanting to be a decent human being, because “morality” or “disgusting”.
But at the same time, I don’t think most pedophiles need to have such an option, in order for them not to exploit any minors. It will be definitely helpful for them, but I think there are more significant factors that take place when it comes to committing a crime of any sort, especially sexual ones, regardless of persons target of attraction. I don’t think that most pedophiles are even personally capable to sexually exploit anyone, out of their own will. And those who are capable of doing that, won’t even consider the option of using victimless alternatives, so it’s not like those drawings or dolls will have any effect on them.
I don’t find pedophilia to be any more special than any other sexual interest. I have no reason to assume that. So I draw conclusions from other sexual interests while thinking about the topic. I’m attracted to females, about my age. But I would prefer to die alone than to even molest any person. The idea of living my entire life in celibacy is more comforting than an idea of me hurting someone, and having to live with that, not because I care about the others since I have no reason to care about people I don’t know, but because personally, it would make me feel bad about myself.
And when we look at statistics, regardless if it’s data about heterosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, homosexuals, or any other sexual interests, the sexual abusers are extremely rare among those groups. There are more significant factors that play a role in the person committing such crime than the demographic they are attracted to.
Of course, I think that child sexual abuse is more common, but not due to pedophiles being pedophiles, but rather because of other types of people who also have a gain or are motivated to exploit minors sexually without them feeling any attraction towards them. Antisocial personality disorder (be it psychopathy or sociopathy) who simply want to exploit someone vulnerable and illegal for the thrill of it, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder, making the individuals emotionally unstable and desiring connection, especially the romantic and sexual one, which, if all adults become alienated from such individual due to their behaviour, might make them seek such connection among minors that are simply easier to be influenced, out of desperation rather than attraction, people with the addition of alcohol, that loosens any restrictions a person might have, and twists their cognitive abilities, individuals who suffer from social anxiety, or any anxiety that makes them strongly isolated, might also find minors as less intimidating, and thus seek sexual and romantic interactions among them. There is a lot of groups like that, the ones I listed, of course, to keep it short are generalizations, there is more nuance to each of those disorders, but I think you get my point.
So in summary, I don’t think it’s possible for us to ever know that those things cause the reduction in sexual abuses because there are too many variables to consider. This is why this license for child sex dolls is a good thing, it will allow getting data from a large sample of people that shows the ultimate results of the sex dolls effects - an average from all the variables in a sense, including the ones we would never even consider. Which means we don’t need to know how they affect every single one of them independently, we will see with such data the finite outcome. All you have to do is to gather the information from the police and proper medical institution, make a correlation graph, and you have your answer/proof.
It’s not about convincing antis, it’s about being effective at achieving your goals, and fundamentally being a better person than the ones you hate, instead of seeking revenge against them. You can create all sorts of generalizations about certain groups, and pack people you dislike into them, finding it as a justifiable course of action to dismiss their claims. But that won’t help you with anything. It will only give you temporary satisfaction that comes from “owning” the bad guys, but if you do it too often, you will alienate regular people from your cause, people who would otherwise help you, and that is what you should focus on.
By going into a thinking trap of “antis are like that” or “anti pedophiles seem to do that often”, you effectively alienate any person who could agree with you, before they even acknowledge your points, simply because they might identify with those terms. And it’s simply not optimal to make yourself unnecessary enemies.
Also, while there are individuals who you never will convince, it’s important not to compromise your own values in a pursuit of revenge against those that wronged you. Otherwise you might end up just like dopeko. And I think you wouldn’t want to be like dopeko, am I wrong?
1 Like
It’s an issue of tactics, not principles. Australia has no bill of rights. We have no staff or resources there. There is a conservative government in power. The chance of us rolling back this law right now is less than zero. Once we have research to back up our case, we might have a better chance.
5 Likes
Wait… we have sexualized 120-year-olds?
I didn’t even know humans could live that long
4 Likes
I strongly agree that people who harm other people should be punished.
I strongly disagree that people who cuddle with a mass of material should punished.
Not everyone in this world wants to hurt other people. Not everyone who has a kink suffers a mental disorder that causes them to forget how to respect other people. Some people lose control of their senses and go on a killing or raping spree, yes. But there are also other people who would NEVER do such things to a person. Not everyone is the same. We should stop assuming the person who plays with dolls also want to hurt real people or treat them as dolls, regardless of child or adult.
6 Likes
Imagine criminalizing things for grossing you out, lol.
“I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK THIS IS OKAAYYYYY”
I don’t have to. Whether I, or you, or 95% of people think something is tastefully wholesome or not is utterly irrelevant to the morality of banning it. You know how long ago we would’ve made whole genres of music illegal?
How eagerly some people want to live in Nazi Germany or the USSR, I swear.
6 Likes
This is perfect.
It becomes evidently clear that it’s not about morality when those morals form the basis of a crude tool used to destroy, silence, or cause great harm to those who may simply disagree.
I always retract to John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” when arguing against matters of morality and the law. It’s a tried and true methodology that simply works.
Moral harm simply isn’t real harm.
I think these are good points, but if we want to change minds, we need to showcase instances of how needlessly and objectively harmful this insatiable need to validate and enforce their “morality” is, especially when in the perspective of a free-speech and freedom of conscience motif.
3 Likes
Lets not use slurs, you can disagree with people without using slurs.
3 Likes
“PLEASE stop trying to legalize child sex dolls”
no
4 Likes