Consequentionalist extremism is someone who only cares about the consequences. It’s not a bad theory in principle until it gets pushed too far. We start normalizing “child sex dolls” and computer created cp. Just because there are no actual children involve does not make it ok. Just because in a hypothetical scenario that “there is no victim” does not make it acceptable.
I DO strongly hold the view that owning a child sex doll is a very serious crime. Partly because it does have victims. It NORMALIZES children as sex objects. But even if that were not the case, it does not make this crime any less heinous. There are things in this world which are wrong because they are wrong. Not everything has to be wrong because it causes harm. Some things are wrong because they are simply wrong.
The discussion should not be about whether it increases or decreases any type of other crime because owning a child sex doll is a moral abomination in on itself and a crime itself so owning a child sex doll absolutely causes crime! It causes the crime of owning a child sex doll!
Owning a child sex doll that so clearly resembles CHILDREN is one example. There is a sickness in the minds of extreme consequentionalists that leads them to contemplate this.
I live in Australia. We are increasing the prison sentence for owning a child sex doll to 20 years. I welcome these changes.
It normalises only pieces of plastic who look somewhat like children as sex objects. If people are unable to distinguish between a sex doll and a real child then that is it’s own issue.
“It does cause harm”, “it doesn’t cause harm”, you don’t even seem to be able to decide which argument you’re making.
And here lies the real issue for you. You are not concerned that child sex dolls may result in harm to real children, which would be a respectable and understandable concern, you are just personally disgusted with the idea of child sex dolls. Your problem is that people might obtain sexual pleasure from something that resembles a child. This is an entirely emotion led thought process and doesn’t help anyone.
It normalises only pieces of plastic who look somewhat like children as sex objects. If people are unable to distinguish between a sex doll and a real child then that is it’s own issue.
The body type of a child MUST NEVER BE USED FOR SEX. If it looks so child like that it’s literally PRE PUBERTY it is NO QUESTION that it is a child sex doll. PEOPLE LIKE YOU take the innocence away from children
“It does cause harm”, “it doesn’t cause harm”, you don’t even seem to be able to decide which argument you’re making.
It causes harm, but even if it doesn’t it does not MATTER.
And here lies the real issue for you. You are not concerned that child sex dolls may result in harm to real children, which would be a respectable and understandable concern, you are just personally disgusted with the idea of child sex dolls. Your problem is that people might obtain sexual pleasure from something that resembles a child. This is an entirely emotion led thought process and doesn’t help anyone.
By objectifying a child like object, you devalue the value of children. Why can’t you get it in your head? Something that looks so obviously like a child must never be used for sexual purposes
Again showing your true colours and true reasoning. Your issue is with the very fact that some people have sexual feelings for children, and you believe they should be punished for those feelings.
People like me do no such thing, you clearly have no idea who you are talking about. I am a paedophile and I have sexual thoughts about children, but I keep them to safe and harm free outlets. I do not harm anyone. I’m not going to harm anyone and I’m not going to bottle up my feelings until it damages my mental health because you personally believe my thoughts are icky.
Again showing your true colours and true reasoning. Your issue is with the very fact that some people have sexual feelings for children, and you believe they should be punished for those feelings.
Yes because it should be fucking common sense that certain body types are not to be used for sexual purposes!
People like me do no such thing, you clearly have no idea who you are talking about. I am a paedophile and I have sexual thoughts about children, but I keep them to safe and harm free outlets. I do not harm anyone. I’m not going to harm anyone and I’m not going to bottle up my feelings until it damages my mental health because you personally believe my thoughts are icky.
So here is how I am different from other Q Anon members: I actually don’t care if people make cartoon/manga “lolicon”. Manga characters do not look human, so manga characters that are really short do not look like children whatsoever. They both look like aliens objectively. But it is a different issue when SEXDOLLS and computer generated porn LOOK LIKE REALISTIC KIDS
I want to criminalize possession of child sex bots because they are DESIGNED TO BE REALISTIC
“Normalization” does not exist. You cannot use the pluralistic exchange or communication of a communally shared idea between individuals as a justification for censorship or prohibition of ideas, speech, etc. You cannot exclude pedophilic ideas from the marketplace of ideas because they are “icky” or offensive. Otherwise, you open the door to a culture of control and repression no different than the attitudes found in Jim Crow.
You’re messing with forces you cannot control. Attempting to do so will only cause unneeded harm and heartache for persons who wouldn’t deserve it. Child sexual abuse is a valid subject matter, but the ideas associated with them can be sated without causing child sex abuse. This is proven.
“Wrong because it’s wrong” sounds like “perfect because I’m perfect”. You sound like President Eden from Fallout 3. Unfortunately, unlike a reasonable AI, like Eden, you wouldn’t be literally self-destructing just because I point that out, huh?
Your views are not unusual. Most people instinctively treat child sexual abuse as if it was about the enforcement of morality, rather than about the prevention of harm. But attempting to enforce moral thoughts is for religious leaders, not for abuse prevention groups. In fact, the two approaches are at cross-purposes: the stigma that is inherent to the morality-enforcement approach has been shown to prevent victims from reporting abuse, and to prevent potential perpetrators from reaching out for support if they need it. You really do have to choose between the two: your first priority has to be either protecting children from harm, or enforcing the morality of other people’s thoughts. It can’t be both. Read more about this here.
Who’re ironically the last people who have any high ground in that department; especially if you look at the Catholic Church and their numerous sexual abuse scandals.