Sex doll for better or worse?

Sex positivity
1

Hi, I’m new to this forum and have read a good amount here and elsewhere about, specifically, child sex dolls.
My stance is, as a diversion to those whom have not offended it will not be effective and may make the patient worse. Yet, can the same be said for known offenders?

The realism factor for me is too uncanny valley (the closer to real something gets, the creepier it looks. Google it, fun topic) but beyond that I’m still not absolutely certain it’s the answer.

I’d love to start a discussion hearing both for and against

2

I haven’t done enough reading on this to be able to make and defend my own argument, but I know this paper was recently published on the topic
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2199727

1 Like
3

Don’t forget this, too:

@Kamayakan

No evidence exists to really support this, but based on what has been observed from those who own/use child sex dolls, in addition to what little actual, hands-on research that actually exists, it does not seem to be a risk-supportive outlet or promote criminal behavior.

With known CSA offenders, even less is known, but so far literally zero evidence exists supporting their risk-supportive use by them in the commission of crimes.

The closest thing that exists to a talking point those who are supportive of prohibitions against child sex dolls can have is the presence of CSAM possession correlating with a minority of child sex doll owners, but such a correlation does not imply causation, nor is it statistically significant in relation to the broader community.

Much of the public discourse surrounding these dolls has been polluted with emotion, rather than reason. We’ve seen plain conjecture, loosely-grounded assertions, and outright falsehoods.

7 Likes
4

If only more people realized that this is a bad thing, I was having an argument about lolicon in general, and when I called out the other person for appealing to emotion, they talked about it as if it were a good thing. Even that trick where they use their own personal traumas as a justification for their views, rather than for mere motive. Unfortunately, those types of tears (I’m not even saying that they’re crocodile tears, but tears that simply don’t move me) move too many people.

5

Emotion can be good, but it can’t be allowed to stand in the way of reason. You must be able and willing to set aside your emotions and actually discuss the matter, even if you feel that your own points may not convince the other side. If they’re not willing to do so, then it is your job to call them out on it.

6

That’s a great response. I agree with decisions being fueled by emotion, in thinking about it now the reasonings to take an ‘against’ stance was driven by the ick factor- don’t know, not sure, lets say no.

I’m almost wondering if society has been treating this like drugs. For someone curious (a MAP isn’t curious, am I right in saying they don’t exactly have a choice?) about drugs you wouldn’t want to give them some. Now, I do share concerns about dolls being a potential gateway but as you have mentioned, there is so little research on this field who’s to say?

It’s ironic and fascinating, when I heard dolls were illegal I assumed it was because a link had been found to dolls and offending, but there’s nothing… It’s literally because of conservative groups going “eww, no!” In some places even adult sex dolls are highly shunned.

Question:
What if a child doll was prescribed to MAPs by an authority and they could not change/request any of the features beyond their age of attraction, I believe what concerns most families is the idea that the offender could be simulating sex with their own loved one so, if that aspect is removed would sex dolls become more acceptable?

1 Like
7

Here are some ideas to consider.

Doll ownership is no more about social boundaries than undressing to shower is, so no one has any business intruding.

One will no sooner confuse a person for a doll than expect for a doll to eat breakfast.

Comparing an activity that’s conducted within the confines of solitude with one that is not is akin to comparing undressing to shower with undressing to ride a bus. Undressing to shower does not desensitize one to undressing to ride a bus.

To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a nondescript sex toy, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified.

There’s a limit to what matters. Dolls do not matter more than a nondescript sex toy.

It took fanatics to stir folks up over what is unworthy of public attention.

Unjustifiable punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. Punishment for what someone does in private to the same lifeless object one could hand to a dog as a chew toy or use to wipe mud off the shoes is cruel and unusual punishment.

Activists write with a focus on what they declare to be similarities, while being completely dismissive of the vast differences. Declaring that differences don’t matter, one could propose a ban on petroleum jelly.

The stepping stone nonsense is unfounded; it’s trash. Activists use it as a tool to pry into affairs no one has businesses prying into.

It shouldn’t take much thinking to conclude that the difference between being alone with a doll and what it takes to act out on a person is enormously extreme. It’s dishonest to not admit this. The difference is the same as the difference between using a nondescript sex toy and acting out.

One more thing to think about is this. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of these types of dolls about, and these types of dolls have been about for over 19 years. Doll owners cannot stop bad actors from buying dolls. There have been maybe 15 reports in the last 5 years about bad actors who purchased dolls. Claiming that justifies taking action on thousands of others is beyond unreasonable.

3 Likes
8

Folks need to mind their own business.

3 Likes
9

I don’t think a prescription for a sex doll is going to change anyone’s opinion of them. The heart of the issue is government dictating how someone can masturbate in the privacy of their own home with a piece of plastic. A large percentage of people gladly will throw away every right to freedom of speech, privacy and unlawful searches, and support cruel and unusual punishments, if they are simply told that it protects children.

3 Likes
10

Same as violent video games are a “gateway” to criminal behavior. Don’t be offended, but that’s the type of ignorance being promoted. Your surmising something based on zero knowledge about it. No different than smoking weed leads to heroin. Go back and read the many posts about dolls. I’m not going to lay it out again.

Because no matter how many times we give our view about them, no one believes us anyway. It’s a doll, not a person. So why do people automatically assume your masturbating with it? That’s a very presumptive attitude. Do I assume your having an incestuous relationship with your children? So because it’s not real, the assumption is made. No one assumes your having sexual relations with your children. Yet how many times do we see it? If you know the difference between what’s real and not real then why put dolls into the equation of being “as if” they were a real child? It devalues the child.

Because I do treat them as my children, I don’t masturbate with them. SHOCK! These causality statements and coorelations have become tiresome. As if people are grasping at straws for something they can’t understand and find some moral outrage based on their narrow opinion.

Dolls help some of us to feel whole again for what’s missing in our lives. Not everyone gets a chance at a happy family life. Not everyone who plays violent video games goes out and commits violent crimes. Not everyone smokes weed. And not everyone that smokes weed moves on to heroin. Enough already!

3 Likes
11

The irony nowadays is childrenn aren’t being protected in many areas. All this talk about dolls being a problem is simply moral panic. “We’re gonna stop people from masturbating with dolls because they’re gonna go after kids next.” The idea of that is presumptive and simply ludicrous! How many times can I say it? Why can’t people see? A real predator is not about to waste his time and money with a doll. They’re gonna spend their time stalking their victim.

They love feeding people’s fears about “what ifs” and “maybes”. It’s all a smoke screen for “feel good” virtue signaling to win voters over and make it look like they actually did something. When in reality, it does nothing to protect children.

3 Likes
12

I think this is the best doll analogy I’ve heard so far. Society accepts the ability of anyone to reproduce and have children, regardless of their financial, mental, or social status. A large portion of society accepts a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. But god forbid someone owns an anatomically correct child-like doll.

3 Likes
13

Because you MUST be humping it, that’s what “they” would do. Seems to me they’d rather hump the real thing but know that it would get them in trouble. Why else would that be the first square they jump to?

Like when they see they’re daughter wearing an inappropriate outfit, “you’re not going out like that!” Yeah, cause your first thought was “holy cow! I’d wanna f! her!”. If you’re an adult male, you knew what you were like when those hormones were flooding. IMO most people are sick. They’d do things they’d never do on their own once pushed by a herd mentality.

I’m getting off topic. The benefits of dolls far outweighs any imaginary, “possibly”, “maybe” criminal suppositions of those who don’t have a need for them. They can’t possibly understand what they mean to us since to them it’s just a stupid thing. Yet they’re morally outraged which then circles back to their own degenerate thinking. Then labeling doll owners as sick, pervert, degenerates because that’s how they would see themselves. Putting dolls on the same level as a real person is wrong. I know they’re dolls. I don’t want the real thing. Ever!

3 Likes
14

Well, that is the basic idea behind sex dolls. They are sex toys after all.

1 Like
15

Not necessarily. It’s presumptive. That narrow view of them feels judging to me. Like that’s all they are. Sex toys. Like anything anyone says after that doesn’t matter. Anything can be use as a sex toy.

They’re also works of art. If I have them made without “love holes” they’re just dolls. TPE and silicone dolls are not the same as hard manequins. You assume everyone buying them wants them for sex. These are much more poseable for photography. What other dolls are made as lifelike dolls with the same quality? None. So if you want them as just dolls you buy them as they are or have them made without the holes. If you’re never going to use them for sex, why should it matter? Just because they’re built that way doesn’t mean someone HAS to use them that way. What does anyone have to defend or prove when we’re talking about inanimate objects?

Is a vibrating dildo just a vibrator? A back massager? Or do you use it to gently stir your custard? Is it right if someone sticks it in their rectum? Funny how they advertise it as a massager, being quite vague. Why not call it what it is? A woman’s masturbator.

Some things are made for one use only. Dolls are advertised as sex-dolls because sex sells and most men are horny. They were made at first to replace manequins, being cheaper to make and more poseable. Someone though it would be a good idea to make them “usable” and the term sex-doll came about and created a multi-billion dollar industry.

Dolls can be used for sexual pleasure, physical comfort, as photography subjects, to help someone feel not alone, or even as an emotional safe place as a surrogate to love and care for without the fear of being hurt. I saw them as an answer for myself. Surrogates with no fear of emotional trauma attached. Only time I’ve been traumetized is when one of them fell over and her eye popped out!

2 Likes
16

I don’t disagree with your description, but you remind me of the person who says they bought Playboy magazine for the articles. They did have well written articles and stories, but no one was fooling anyone, it was primarily purchased to see the naked women.

Vibrators were sold as facial massagers. Again, everyone knew the reason they advertised the waterproof nature and the safety of battery power, was that the actual use was as a sex toy. You just couldn’t promote that then.

Speaking as one who purchased a silicone and TPE doll, US Customs held it at the border for 18 months on the claim it was illegal. When, with @terminus’ assistance, I made them back down on obscenity, they relied on it premise that it was a “doll” (children’s toy) and not a mannequin as listed for importation as an excuse for seizure. Even though the difference was ludicrous. Also, how many “dolls” are 4 foot tall, anatomically correct and freestanding?

Turned out, once released to me, it did NOT have its holes. Seems they failed to check it out thoroughly and just made assumptions. Which left me with no recourse to complain to the dealer, as they were gone by then. Despite the $600 cost, it went into the trash. That was not why I bought it, and I suspect, why MOST people buy them.

2 Likes
17

Just to get back on topic.
Assume the doll will be used for the purpose of sex.
Assume also it is a product available on the open market (any one can freely buy it from a store/online without government intervention)

.Do you believe there is strong potential for misuse?
i.e. If anyone can buy one, what are the risks associated with this?

.Should any restrictions be put in place surrounding the dolls?
i.e. Features, amount of dolls purchased, age, customisation…

.Should dolls be specifically non-sexual, being realistic but not anatomically correct for the purposes of emotional intimacy only?

. If a MAP was able to purchase or access a doll, for the purposes of sex, would this harm or help society at large?

18

If it’s never an evil thought to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified.

Such should be obvious and illuminative that doll use is not a problem. This focus on doll use as a problem is nonsense. Activists skillfully show the power of persuasive polemics and scaremongering to stir people up over what is unworthy of public attention. Doll use is no more of a problem than the use of a nondescript sex toy.

It is impossible for one to be alone with a doll and be out pillaging the neighborhood.

The activists’ motive is hostility, not protection.

The activists would rather someone be harmed than to miss an opportunity to punish for an evil thought.

It’s not an evil fantasy to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter and that what someone does while alone is no one’s businesses.

Not criminalizing dolls gives doll owners a huge reason to not get into trouble with the law. Such is especially so, because the vast majority of doll owners seek to keep the hobby discreet. They don’t just keep the hobby private; they keep it a secret. Doll ownership is no more about social boundaries than undressing to shower is.

Of course, doll owners cannot stop bad actors from buying dolls anymore than from buying ice cream. Condemning for an act merely because a criminal does it, one could condemn for tying shoes.

3 Likes
19

.Do you believe there is strong potential for misuse?
Well, I have never heard of anyone being beaten to death by a doll. It has no sharp edges, so I don’t see how the doll could be misused in any possible manner.

.Should any restrictions be put in place surrounding the dolls?
Do we need restrictions on what size vibrators women can buy? Some are very small like the genitals of a child and discreet. No.

.Should dolls be specifically non-sexual, being realistic but not anatomically correct for the purposes of emotional intimacy only?
A lot of people hump pillows, those are about as non-sexual as it gets and they are about the size of toddlers. You can’t legislate how people masturbate.
Should everyone be forced to wear locked chastity cages that can only be removed temporarily for breeding purposes? I bet there are some law makers that would love this idea.

. If a MAP was able to purchase or access a doll, for the purposes of sex, would this harm or help society at large?
There are two types of MAPs, the largest percentage will never offend against a child, no matter if dolls exist or not. There is a much smaller percentage that either do offend or are so emotionally unstable that they would be likely to offend if they were alone with a vulnerable child. Then there is the most prevalent abusers, who are not sexually attracted to children but will use them simply because they are vulnerable and available.
The first group of MAPs I mentioned will never commit a sexual offense against anyone, but they still want to have a fulfilling sex life. Dolls may help them achieve this.
The second smaller group of MAPs will either commit an offense or possibly decide that a doll could take the place of a real child. Someone that is determined on offending with a real child is not going to spend $800 to $2000+ on a doll. No one is buying them to “practice” putting a penis into a hole. The only possible outcome concerning doll ownership by this group is that CSA could be prevented.
Those that are not sexually attracted to children but cause abuse anyway are not buying dolls.

These dolls only have the potential of providing minor attracted persons with a safe sexual outlet, emotional support, and the prevention of child sexual abuse.

3 Likes
20

Maybe some did buy it for the articles? Did they buy it with the idea of wanting to see nude women for art or pornography? Did they buy it for the jokes? So you assume Playboy only serves one purpose, as jerk-off material. IMO their nudes were artistic not pornographic. And again, who is anyone to judge one way or the other. By making an assumption and a judgement, you’re basically telling someone that you don’t care why they bought something, you just don’t agree with why they did. Too bad!

Everyone’s reason is their own. To shove a set of morals over an inanimate object as to why they bought it or what it will be used for down people’s throat is tyranny. If it’s harmless who cares. All the surmising and supposition in the world won’t make a difference as to someone’s likelyhood to commit a criminal act.

Dolls aren’t promoting sexual aggression or acts against others. People use things to do that. They don’t need dolls to help them. People need to stop thinking they facilitate these types of crimes. Guns do one thing, shoot bullets. They aren’t always used for violent crime.

So people are offended that some people are using them for sex, too bad. Some aren’t used that way. But it’s perfectly OK to throw them in the trash. No one’s offended? Especially when it’s bought for sex and made for anything except sex. It’s not made for killing or harming anyone and should be nobody’s business!

You could’ve likely sold it to someone that wanted a doll not-for-sex and recouped some of your money.

I actually think CSA is more of a problem for people without dolls IMO.

Your still basing your questions on an assumption. So “misuse” and “restrictions” are still based on supposition of potential crime. It’s thought policing.

So you’ve set a restriction based on the supposed crime that “might”, “possibly” be commited.

Again, this is a “what do you think?” opinion question. If all guns were banned in the world, would ALL violent crime suddenly stop?

My opinion, based on all this “possible” thought crime is, and I’ll say it AGAIN, predators are never satisfied with a doll. They won’t waste the time or spend the money for one. I agree with Stargazer 100% on this. Most MAPs enjoy their dolls for what they are and I believe actually lose interest in pursuing any idea of harming a child even if the fleeting though crossed their mind.
I would think CSA is more prevalent with predators. I wouldn’t know. I never bought my smaller dolls for sex.

My ‘D’ cup 158cm I thought she would also be good for that, but only used her a few times before I became more interested in the emotional part of ownership. It made it OK for me to shop for clothes that would look good on her. I found I enjoyed that. And doing her hair and what little make-up. She keeps me company and is wonderful to hold being closer to my height. I have no interest in having sex with any of my dolls now.

I love buying clothes for my surrogate daughters and doing their hair! So I feel that dolls can help with lonliness and depression more than anything. People feeling fulfilled sexually also gives them a sense of overall well-being.

All the arguments surrounding them seem to hinge around sex and THAT is the problem. What someone wants to use to masturbate with should be nobody’s business. We don’t need to legislate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. All this rhetoric is “thought policing”.

2 Likes