Request for expert support for the constitutional complaint against a ban on "child sex dolls" §184L in Germany

Really dude? I already explained to you about this. The first two you mentioned are a huge part of american culture. punching bags and shooting range are an aspect of sports in America. There is a lot of pride to these sports. Child sex doll use is a shameful thing and kind of a last resort to dealing with a mental health disorder.

Your answer is, “It’s different because people are used to it.”

You’ve just appealed to tradition. It was traditional to do a lot of bad stuff, that didn’t make it right…

And being seen as shameful doesn’t say much of anything. What’s shameful to one person isn’t shameful to another. Homosexuality is shameful depending on who you ask, same with someone being around others who are from different ethnic/religious/societal backgrounds…


Sexy underage girls are a huge part of American culture as well, but you can’t seem to be able to stand that.

1 Like

Prove it.
Show us evidence that will change our minds.

CSDs are harmless. There is zero evidence that they will “normalize” acts of real-life child abuse, in fact, in countries where pornography and CSDs are legal, the rape rates are even lower!
I’ve yet to see a single case in countries where it’s illegal to own/import one that a person arrested for one was convicted or accused of committing subsequent sexual assault.


They are nothing more than sex toys.

Your attempt to supplant reason with disgust.
The only “experts” on the issue who are against the legality and availability of child sex dolls are those who use logical fallacies and appeals to morality in the absence of concrete scientific evidence or empirical evidence consensus and they will even admit this.

I think it’s safe to say that these dolls are harmless, and treating them as real CP is a step in the wrong direction. You can certainly be disgusted by them, but you can’t criminalize them.


CSDs are harmless.

We don’t know this to be a fact yet. Also, sex doll ownership looks at mostly adult owners. There is a difference between adult dolls and child dolls. Which is why I want CSDs to be treated like a prescription medication like methadone.

Here is my challenge to any social scientist reading: Demonstrate with clear and beyond convincing evidence, that these dolls are really what you say they are, and I would be ok with recreational use of CSD. For the time being, prescription only makes the most sense.

You need to prove they’re harmful.
Guilty until proven innocent mindset…

The only difference is how much material is used in the height of one vs the height of another.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Prove you aren’t a menace to society. Demonstrate I’m not an ancient reincarnation alien warlord from 3 dimensions over possessing my fleshy human vessel. Show me how to prove a negative.

Also… HOW are they supposed to present clear and convincing evidence when you yourself continually ignore scientific research?


Guilty until proven innocent.

In criminal trials, yes, but not when it comes to trying to legalize the use of a medical technology for recreational use.
Before California legalized recreational marijuana rather than keeping it strictly for medical use, they had to convince voters that it would be safe. Same is true for a whole number of other states. It’s up to the person trying to legalize it to prove with clear evidence that it’s as safe as they think it is. Why should CSDs be treated any differently? As far as I’m concerned, it’s a medical technology, it’s not for random people to screw around with. Until it’s proven safe for recreational use, CSDs should be a prescription only device.

The only difference is how much material is used in the height of one vs the height of another.

One looks adultish, or at the very least has a slight resemblance to adults, the other looks unquestionably like a child. It’s not as simple as how big it is.

and treating them as real CP is a step in the wrong direction

CSDs definitely shouldn’t be lumped with real CP, since they don’t involve the use of real minors, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with regular adult sex toys either. They belong in their own category as a prescription.

If you want research done, PAY. FOR. IT.

Scientists and researchers deserve to be paid for their work.


Research on sex doll owners is rather limited, but we have evidence on pornography consumption.

We know that pornography exposure or consumption does not lead to the subsequent commission of sexual offenses, nor is it likely to increase the risk of sexual aggression.
We know that rapists and molesters of adults or children typically share the same characteristics, in that the variables relevant to whether a person may be sexually aggressive or commit sex crimes are that of psychosocial pathology and personality traits, such as callousness.
We also know that pornography consumers and contact offenders are two distinct groups, with a small minority of mixed offenders.

Pornography consumption is not a risk factor for sexual aggression for those who are not predisposed and pedophilic desires or tendencies are not risk factors for CSA offenses.

Where the scholarly consensus becomes blurred is how such materials affect those who are predisposed to sexual aggression, which there lacks sufficient evidence to form a causal link since only 50% of CSA offenders are known to even be pedophilic and of those who are pedophilic, only 30% even consume pornography or engage in sexual fantasy.

There is simply no reason to assume that CSDs will cause or serve as a stepping stone for contact CSA offenses, since not even child pornography consumption is able to accurately predict hands-on CSA offenses.

No, there really isn’t. One caters to those who may be teleiophilic and the other caters to those who may be pedophilic.
And comparing pornography and sex dolls to controlled substances or drugs is one of the oldest false equivalencies in the book. They are nothing alike.

That depends on how willing you are to be convinced. Social science and psychology are some of the spottiest, most chaotic and inconsistent realms of science out there. We can only show you what we see.
I assure you though, that what is there only shows why CSDs and pornography should be legal.

The existence of mixed offenders isn’t new, but what can be shown is that it isn’t causal or likely to cause CSA or sexual abuse.

There are a handful of researchers who are actually looking into the effects of virtual pornography, a couple of whom have actually posted on the forum looking for survey participants.

The issue of CSDs and simulated/fictional pornography seems to have intrigued many in the academic community. Hopefully we can get some clarity on the issue.

It’s my belief that pornography exposure and consumption may have preventative aspects and perhaps even therapeutic.
I think it’s relatively clear that pornography exposure is not a causal factor when looking at CSA or acts of sexual aggression on the simple fact that only a minority of CSA offenders are even pornography consumers and that crime statistics on conjuction with population studies have shown a negative correlation between pornography availability and sex crimes for both adults and children.


at first you should know not everyone use this dolls for sex!
And then you should think about the fact that in 27 states in the US, even marriages to ten year olds are legal.
I find that perverse, because people are being harmed.
Not with a doll!
Not every pedophile is a pederast, not every pederast is a pedophile!
And to break basic law, just because you want to create laws based on emotions and not with provable expertise, I think is very dangerous!


Prescription? No, I’d rather just have recreational enjoyment. As for the reason that innocent until proven guilty is a thing is because it’s ridiculous to prove a negative for any situation.

1 Like

I couldn’t possibly do that without getting banned from YouTube. :joy:

1 Like

You run this charity, not me, why don’t you start a gofundme or something for this? The technology surrounding sex dolls and sex robots are advancing quick. Went from cringe blow up dolls to almost but not quite life like realism. Seems it’s something worth researching where CSDs reduce risk of offending and where CSDs increase it.

And then you should think about the fact that in 27 states in the US, even marriages to ten year olds are legal.

There were even states who made attempts to set a minimum marriage age. Yet they got voted down.
Personally, I think anyone who voted against raising and setting a minimum marriageable age deserves to be executed. They are complicit and enablers of some of the most egregious crimes in America. And are enablers on a mass scale.

Not every pedophile is a pederast, not every pederast is a pedophile!

Never said they all are, but if you consider the lack of research, there is obvious reasons why we’d be fearful that it might tempt them to go after the real thing. It’s also possible it could prevent them from going after the real thing too. We don’t really know yet. Cartoon pornography really isn’t the same thing as a doll.

I am program director and social media manager, I literally do not run this charity, the executive director does. Also, if you don’t run it, what makes you think you get to tell us how to?

This is absurd. Crowdfunding relies on individuals and small amounts of money. No comprehensive study of this issue will ever be funded solely with crowdfunding. You’re also ignoring the fact that people rely heavily on their kneejerk emotional reactions rather than the logic of research. Sex doll research is not popular and really hard to get funding for despite it’s obvious worth.

Larger scale fundraising involves chasing down grants, which is a full time job unto itself.

Prostasia has helped to fund research on fantasy outlets, including sex dolls. Does fantasy cause or prevent offending? - Prostasia Foundation


Deciding who gets to live and who has to die once again, hmmm? Seriously man, I’m an old carny and have spent most of my life on the weirdest fringes of the entertainment industry. I’ve known con artists, pimps, and worse. I’ve known stage mothers begging for the privilege of selling their own daughters in exchange for the slightest possibility of vicarious “fame”. I thought I’d seen it all. But, if you really believe the things you say (instead of, as some here suspect, just having a macabre joke), you are just about the most dangerously disturbed and despicably evil person I have ever encountered. Congratulations.


If you have some spare money then feel free to donate to them, because they are making sure that the Rechtsstaat prevails. It would be a shame that the legal system Germany invented would be betrayed by themselves.

This decision is what a Unrechtstaat would have done

1 Like