Reforming child sex doll bans to better prevent innocents being convicted

There is no evidence so far that child sex dolls prevent the commission of any felony offense. So no desire to push for it’s legalization in countries such as my country of New Zealand, Australia, UK or really any country.

But having statues that are too vague can ensnarl consumers who are not pedophiles. There must be proper affirmative defenses to an accusation of the offense of importation of a child sex doll. This is my main issue with these types of doll bans. It shouldn’t be only at the personal subjective opinions of government to decide what is and isn’t sex doll. It needs to be based on objective fact.

Affirmative defenses to the offense of importing child sex doll:

Must have three of the following characteristics for a complete/total defense:

Doll is 150 cm in length or taller.

Doll proportions is 7.25 heads tall or taller.

Doll waist to hip ratio is 0.8 to 1 or smaller.

These proportions represent that of an adult. No one who purchases a doll would mistake it for a child sex doll. Unless they are ignorant.

I read through some of your older posts, someone came up with a similar idea to this, but im modifying it in such a way that it would be more likely to pass. Is it possible that someone could somehow make a doll with these proportions and still be “obviously child like”? Possibly, but it would be a considerable effort. There is the old saying that it’s better 10 guilty go unconvinced than a single innocent becomes wrongfully convicted. Doll owners who simply want a smallish adult doll should be left to their own devices.

They should not be illegal to begin with as there’s no evidence showing that they lead to harm. It shouldn’t be up to anyone to decide how people are allowed to explore their sexuality in private as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. The only reason they are illegal is to punish paedophiles for our “sick thoughts”.

4 Likes

Reforming them is easy. Repeal the bans entirely.

This is an adult. And obviously, NSFW for, you know, sex.

This is incorrect. There already is evidence of a preventative aspect regarding dolls and virtual/fictional pornography and a relationship with actual instances of CSA, and it’s being looked further into by both the Prostasia Foundation and other concerned parties.

We already know that CP/CSAM offenders and CSA offenders differ greatly, and we also know that the variables that govern a pedophilic individual’s chances of committing a contact offense are not related to pornography consumption. Rather, these variables are very similar, if not identical, to those seen in adult rapists and abusers. Though there is a degree of overlap between CP/CSAM offenders and CSA offenders, that overlap is too small and too chaotic to support a causal, or even exacerbative hypothesis.
This means that there is no causal connection between a pedophilic individual and their propensity to act out against and victimize a child.

The reason why I bring up child pornography offenders is because child sex dolls act as masturbatory aids in much of the same ways that pornography use does.
We already have evidence that pornography usage has a cathartic and preventative property with many pedophilic individuals, namely in the form of population studies where the child sexual abuse and rape rates correlate negatively in areas or jurisdictions where such material is legal and accessible. This is also the case with pornography in general, with adult rapes going down in countries where it’s more accessible.

Child pornography or child exploitation material is rightfully illegal because of the harm it causes the children depicted, wherein victims of sexual abuse and exploitation and their abuse are turned into a commodity, and a market for a commodity such as this which possesses an intrinsic relationship with child sexual abuse threatens the safety and wellbeing of children.

Also, you have yet to offer an ounce of reason why they should be prohibited in the first place.
In the face of all that, why ban them?

We know for a fact that such material doesn’t cause it, we’re just investigating the preventative qualities about them so that way we can better understand ways they could be incorporated into the CSA prevention schema, rather than censored or criminalized, which only furthers the stigma against pedophilic persons. This stigma has very real and drastic consequences, with many people deathly afraid to seek counseling, therapy, or treatment because many of them are afraid of being labeled second class citizens or viewed as monsters, as well as further implications with understanding pedophilia and the struggles faced by these people which could both help them and help prevent instances of child sexual abuse!

There is absolutely no reason why these dolls should be banned. They’re lumps of anatomically-correct plastic, not victims of abuse. All you’re doing by criminalizing these dolls is inflicting unnecessary harm to people who have done nothing wrong. It’s cruel. It’s barbaric. And it has no place in a decent, rational society that puts the needs and interests of its people before some half-baked moral panic with absolutely zero scientific consensus to support it!!

I get it. The dolls offend you. Fictional pornographic cartoons or other media depicting child sex offends you. It’s icky. It’s gross. It makes you feel things you don’t like, and you can’t help but think about the people who consume or create it and the fact that such people live in your communities and coexist with you, your families, and your children.
But banning them on that outlook alone, without a more objective, concise, and well-observed link to something that’s actually meaningful, like crime, is not what a civilized society does. That’s akin to witch burning, heretic stoning, racial lynching, and human sacrifice.

Absolutely not!!! That’s the logic used by supporters of the death penalty and authoritarian regimes to justify civil rights violations!! Such a montra is innately wrong because allowing the innocent to be lumped in with the guilty undermines the very laws, and their rationales, in the first place!!
Why do your kind, the Australian and New Zealanders, favor such brash and unwarranted assaults on your own freedoms and rights?? I’ve never seen such a backward-thinking people act and lash out at nothing like I’ve seen with your people.

Imagination should not ever be illegal. Imagination should remain free of all law.

Illegality must concern only actions involving people that promote, endorse, and produce physical and mental harm because they can do no better.

No thought should be illegal. No interest should be illegal. No art should be illegal. No doll should be illegal.

We should not ban things that are incredibly positive for some people. We should not assume that everyone is the same person. I’ve collected dolls from small figures to small dolls, to large dolls for nearly two decades as my personal self-fulfilling hobby. No felonies. No desire to assault random people. No desire war and destruction. I don’t even kill insects. It does not get any more pacifist. I don’t like the idea of people going to jail because they like collecting sculpted artwork, regardless of the artworks physical capabilities - sexually explicit, sexually functioning, and non-sexual are all irrelevant properties to the fact that it is still an artistic object.

Not everyone is the same. Not everyone does as the same even if they may share a commonality of an interest, which is primarily a thought until it physically involves a living person. There is an infinitely massive difference between thought and action that is frequently skipped over and connections are forcefully drawn when they shouldn’t.

How do you convince someone that you aren’t a murderous demon just because you like Death Metal? How do you show people that you are still a human being and that there are always exceptions to their assumptions?

4 Likes