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.