South Dakota Doll Ban

It seems that the theme of ignorance among lawmakers will never subside, with logical fallacies and patent misunderstandings that say more about those who support draconian measures than the people they seek to cause unjustified harm to and the freedoms they seek to encroach upon.

Taken from a Daily Beast article:

Lawmakers in South Dakota plan to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to have or manufacture sex dolls that look like children in the state. The Argus Leader reports that supporters of the measure fear such lifelike dolls could promote pedophilia, although some academics have theorized they could be a harmless outlet for would-be abusers. “The dolls are a gateway,” Carrie Sanderson, director of the Center for Prevention of Child Maltreatment, told the newspaper. “They have potential of eroding the shame that would typically come with having sex with a child.” Only a handful of other states have similar laws on the books. South Dakota’s bill is opposed by a group of defense lawyers who say it is too broad and that there is no victim of the proposed crime.

A short read, but I wanted to call out a few specific points that caught my eye.

“The dolls are a gateway,” Carrie Sanderson, director of the Center for Prevention of Child Maltreatment, told the newspaper. “They have potential of eroding the shame that would typically come with having sex with a child.”

Absolutely ZERO evidence exists to support this contention, and the idea that social shame and stigma are effective at preventing CSA or the consumption of CSAM is not only laughably incorrect, but also very telling of exactly where their heads are when dealing with these types of matters. It’s an egregiously transparent act of projection on their part to imply that social shame and stigma are what prevent child abuse.


Social shame and stigma do not play a meaningful role in preventing child sex abuse/adult-child sexual contact.
What prevents it is EMPATHY for the children and understanding of the HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES that would befall both the abuser and their victim, and a desire to avoid that harm.

Shame, actually, has been theorized to be associated more closely RISK FACTORS for child sex abuse perpetration, as it increases the risk of Pedophilic OCD and actually drives those who feel they may be at risk from seeking help, as well as furthering punitive measures against those who would benefit from therapeutically engaging with their sexuality in a safe, healthy, and harmless manner that would allow them to reconcile their interests with the reality that they cannot be acted on with an actual child, in addition to disincentivizing the adoption of an “anti-contact” and “anti-CSAM” stance.

The idea that “shame” and “stigma” are effective means to disincentivize CSA can only be read as projection on their part because, assuming the sincerity of these statements, leads myself and others who understand these matters to assume that, if the act of penitratively sexually abusing a child wasn’t “icky” or socially contentious, they would gladly partake in these harmful and abusive acts, if not turn a blind eye to them and the suffering they cause.

It’s a particularly disgusting and repugnant display of prejudice and ignorance whose sentiment can be found with every other punitive measure against this type of engagement and expression.

Without even addressing the overlapping logical fallacy (Gateway/Slippery Slope), anybody with a remote level of critical thinking skills should be privy to all of this and oppose such measures.


Always nice to hear that there are people with brains


Thank you for the insightful post.

It seems such propositions never consider the human agency to moderate.

I find it odd that no one mentions the absurdity of such proposals.

To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom, it would be found that failing to feel protective of a doll is failing to be odd. It’s remarkable that anyone manages to construe that failing to be odd can indicate a failure to feel protective of others. I feel confident that this reasoning has not been considered.

Unless one feels more protective of a doll than of a broom, there’s no shame to erode to begin with. That means that the proposed gateway narrative has no footing.

No one else is expected to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom. There is no reason to mandate for anyone to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom. That’s like mandating for someone to do what many would find odd. That needs to be stated. The absurdity needs to be expressed. Such a mandate holds a group to a standard that isn’t expected of anyone else.


It’s never about actually protecting the public, it’s about punishing so-called “degenerates”. Our very existence is wrong. We are abominations born of evil. They genuinely do not see us a human beings with thoughts and feelings. We are nothing, less than nothing. And we deserve to suffer for the crime of daring to exist.

“If I were a pedophile, I’d do my duty and throw myself off a bridge to spare a child the pain of being molested.”

“If my child told me s/he were a pedophile, I’d take them into the wilderness and shoot them in the head and bury the body.”

“There should be a facility where we involuntarily send all pedophiles to have all their needs met. If they try to escape, shoot them.”

Actual statements I’ve seen on the Internet. It’s never about what’s actually moral or just, it’s about “revenge”. It’s about sending a message. It’s so easy to write others off as mere statistics when you aren’t being personally affected. If it were possible, I’d make every human being on this planet (all 8 billion of us!) into pedophiles (even just for a day) so we all get to see what it’s like. See how you like it when your violent and dehumanizing rhetoric suddenly gets turned on you. Like turning a white supremacist black or a misogynist into a woman. Or a homophobe gay. Enforced empathy.


Same moronic energy as claiming that “moral” vampires should off themselves, if they cannot find a “cure”.


Another classic case of protecting political positions and “protecting children” while under the blinding influence of repulsion, encroaching on private relations and activities that do not even inherently target or involve any children.

Not executing and allowing the banning of dolls = Supportive of adults having sex with dolls = Oh, so you’re supportive of adults having sex with children.

1 = 3 is being passed as truth here. Logical fallacy.

General lack of research. General lack of care. No effort made to categorize and granularize contexts.

They aren’t even trying anymore. If they ever had.


Apparently that goes with Manuel del Palacio’s phrase: “Life offers every creature its cup of bitterness; the good drink it; the bad make everyone around them drink.” Apparently, our “bitter cup” is self-destruction. If that’s what “good” is, I freely choose evil.

That being said, I do appreciate the irony that the best counter to Palacio, a poet, is Cao Cao, a politician, just like how the best counter to Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” is Thomas Jefferson’s “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” FYI, Popper is a philosopher, while Jefferson is a politician, as well. Actually, a less edgy version of Cao Cao’s quote is essentially “I don’t care that life’s unfair, so long as it’s unfair in my favor”.


There might be some basis for this. Supposedly, some homophobes are actually gay (or bisexual or pansexual), but they have internalized homophobia. It’s essentially self-hatred.

See here: Reaction formation - Wikipedia

And here: Haggard's Law - RationalWiki

Speaking of which, you know how there are many so-called “pedo hunters” that get exposed for committing CSA or possessing CSAM?

Like this guy:

Yeah, I wonder if this is a case of “reaction formation”. :thinking:


Seems to always be the case. Deflecting. “Look at them, look at them! Don’t look at me!”