The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:42 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,051
Inflatable child sex dolls

I don't know what to rhink about sex dolls for pedophiles except... ewwwwww!!!

I suppose it might even be a good thing if a pedophile could psychologically substitute it for a real child.

FYI: link goes to Smoking Gun arrest documents, not a porn merchandising site.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:45 PM
Dunderman Dunderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim
I suppose it might even be a good thing if a pedophile could psychologically substitute it for a real child.
I doubt someone who would otherwise have raped a child would refrain from doing so due to access to a child sex doll. But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong. And then I'd support the handing out of child sex dolls to all convicted child molesters.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2006, 08:46 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priceguy
I doubt someone who would otherwise have raped a child would refrain from doing so due to access to a child sex doll. But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong. And then I'd support the handing out of child sex dolls to all convicted child molesters.

Perhaps you could test it by seeing if serial rapists would be cured by given one of those Real Dolls?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-23-2006, 09:19 PM
sinjin sinjin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Damn, there was a book that had this kind of thing as a sub-plot, but I can't for the life of me remember it now. BRB as soon as I remember.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-23-2006, 09:26 PM
sinjin sinjin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Got it:


Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-23-2006, 09:26 PM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
You're thinkinf of Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2006, 12:01 AM
Talon Karrde Talon Karrde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priceguy
I doubt someone who would otherwise have raped a child would refrain from doing so due to access to a child sex doll. But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong. And then I'd support the handing out of child sex dolls to all convicted child molesters.
Well, according to the link in the OP the guy who owned the dolls was part of a kiddy porn ring, so that's a sign that it probably doesn't do any good at keeping them away from real kids.
I really don't see helping them feed their fantasies as something that'll keep them from hurting children.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-24-2006, 04:35 AM
Maastricht Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 8,081
Apparently a big part ofJapanese porn is about schoolgirls. So perhaps dolls of prepubescent girls (or at least dolls dressed like those) come from Japan. One cultures acceptable fringe is another cultures deep taboo....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2006, 05:50 AM
Leah M Leah M is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
I personally don't see that a normal, heterosexual man would be deterred from having sex with a real woman by the use of a sex doll, so I wouldn't think that it would work that way for a pedophile, either.

But that may be an oversimplification on my part.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:39 AM
Rune Rune is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
You know what they have in Denmark? Animal brothels. Apparently since beastility isn't against the law, people from all over the world flock to Denmark to ride the happy horse or bang a chicken or whatever it is they do. Animal brothels. That's gonna do wonders for the bacon exports.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:46 AM
Hogwash Hogwash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children

-sized sex dolls!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:59 AM
cckerberos cckerberos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maastricht
Apparently a big part ofJapanese porn is about schoolgirls. So perhaps dolls of prepubescent girls (or at least dolls dressed like those) come from Japan. One cultures acceptable fringe is another cultures deep taboo....
Schoolgirls != prepubescent girls.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:08 AM
Menocchio Menocchio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by cckerberos
Schoolgirls != prepubescent girls.
Yeah. A lot of those are described as being really young, but then drawn as being post-pubescent. It seems that what's being fetishized is innocence or something like that, not children.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:25 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune
You know what they have in Denmark? Animal brothels. Apparently since beastility isn't against the law, people from all over the world flock to Denmark to ride the happy horse or bang a chicken or whatever it is they do. Animal brothels. That's gonna do wonders for the bacon exports.
Jeez did you have to, I mean really HAVE to.

I like(d) roast chicken and bacon.......I'll never look at these foodstuffs in the same light again
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-24-2006, 02:21 PM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune
You know what they have in Denmark? Animal brothels. Apparently since beastility isn't against the law, people from all over the world flock to Denmark to ride the happy horse or bang a chicken or whatever it is they do. Animal brothels. That's gonna do wonders for the bacon exports.
You know, having never heard of this, I googled some, being skeptical and all. It seems that there at least is a rumor going around in Danish an Norwegian newspapers, but I wouldn't go so far as calling them brothels. More like farmers who discretely let people on certain Internet fora know that there might be fun to be had in their barns for a modest fee.

Remember, there are a lot of things mostof us find squicky, but having these strange feelings is in itself not illegal. The laws are in place to protect actual minors. Drawings of child molestation is not illegal, nor is drressing up an underdeveloped 18+ in Catholic school gear and having her pose as 13. I'm all for locking up and throwing away the key for actual child molestors, and while beastiality might not be illegal in some places, I'm sure an animal can't give consent, according to the true meaning of the word. Maybe these guys should spend a some time with a male dolphin in his tank. Google "dolphin rape" if you don't believe me.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-24-2006, 02:23 PM
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 36,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
Perhaps you could test it by seeing if serial rapists would be cured by given one of those Real Dolls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leah M
I personally don't see that a normal, heterosexual man would be deterred from having sex with a real woman by the use of a sex doll, so I wouldn't think that it would work that way for a pedophile, either.
I don't think that these are necessarily comparable with pedophiles. Most pedophiles don't want to hurt the children they prey on. They often convince themselves that their victims have consented and are willing participants. Some pedophiles recognize that this simply isn't true, and are able to refrain from ever acting on their impulses. For those pedophiles, I could see this as being a valuable release. This doesn't compare well to normal heterosexuality, in which there's no reason not to engage in it. There aren't any guys out there valiantly trying to resist their urge to have sex with women. Rape is even further out, as the entire point of rape is to hurt and humiliate the victim. Someone who wants to be a rapist isn't going to be interested in sublimating that urge in a non-harmful way.

Of course, it's also possible that indulging in their fantasy with a doll will make it easier for a pedophile to rationalize indulging in it with a real kid. I'm no psychologist, so I don't know what the more likely out come is. I do think that, for that proportion of pedophiles who are able to control themselves and never hurt a child, anything that can help keep them honest is a good thing. If this sort of doll helps, then their use should be encouraged.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-24-2006, 04:19 PM
Bill Door Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Tan
Remember, there are a lot of things mostof us find squicky, but having these strange feelings is in itself not illegal. The laws are in place to protect actual minors. Drawings of child molestation is not illegal, nor is drressing up an underdeveloped 18+ in Catholic school gear and having her pose as 13.
I had thought that representations of children in which "such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" was illegal according to the child pornography prevention act of 1996, introduced by Senator Hatch. It doesn't have to be a minor, it just has to look like a minor.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-24-2006, 04:51 PM
threemae threemae is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogwash
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children
Actually, I think I might appreciate it if some people would just stop thinking about the children.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-24-2006, 06:09 PM
Charlie Tan Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door
the child pornography prevention act of 1996, introduced by Senator Hatch.
Legislation doesn't always carry from one country to another. When it comes to child pornography, the international concensus is strong, though. However:
Quote:
Pseudo-Photographs
None of the US federal or state laws deal with so called pseudo-photographs. It is not illegal to create or possess pornographic images of children by means of computers. Child Pornography Prevention Act 1995 (HR n.a., section 1237) sponsored by Sen. Hatch (R-UT), Abraham (R-MI), Grassley (R-IA), and Thurmond (R-SC) was introduced to criminalize material that depicts children engaging in sexually-explicit conduct whether or not the material was produced with children or entirely without computer. The Bill is in the judiciary committee (September 1995).

Pseudo-photographs will be subject to the Miller obscenity test and other federal laws dealing with obscenity but not child pornography. It will be up to the defendant to prove that the creation of the pictures did not involve minors.
IOW, if the defendant can prove that a minor was not involved, the DA has no case.

Cite.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-24-2006, 09:34 PM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door
I had thought that representations of children in which "such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" was illegal according to the child pornography prevention act of 1996, introduced by Senator Hatch. It doesn't have to be a minor, it just has to look like a minor.
IANAL, but (I've always wanted to say that):

Most Web sites I've seen with this kind of photo also have clear statements that the models are 18+, often as part of the hype: "Just turned 18!" "Barely Legal!" The producer/seller is marketing to customers who want to see young-looking but legal models. I believe that there has to be some sort of intent to fool the viewer into thinking the images are actually of minors before it becomes criminal. In that case, the producer/seller of the images is marketing directly to people looking for illegal materials.

It's similar to the way a law enforcement agency uses an 18+ person to pose as a minor in chat rooms, and then busts the guy who tries to meet up with someone he thinks is a 14-year-old. If the 18+ agent said, "Hey, I'm 18 but let's get together and pretend that I'm 14," and the suspect agrees, there's no crime: two consenting adults have agreed to a little roleplaying.

So by indicating clearly that the models are actually 18-year-olds dressed up like high school girls, everybody is in the clear. There's no law that says an adult can't dress up in "teenage" clothing, and no law that says I can't look at it. But if somebody were to attempt to pass off the exact same photos as pictures of actual minors, then it would be a crime.

As another example, there's no law that says I can't sell my friend a bag of sweet basil from my herb garden. But it's all sorts of illegal if I sell my friend a bag of sweet basil while telling him it's a bag of marijuana.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-24-2006, 10:56 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by threemae
Actually, I think I might appreciate it if some people would just stop thinking about the children.
Yeah, forget the children. Ignore the children. Screw the children!


oops....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:20 AM
threemae threemae is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
Yeah, forget the children. Ignore the children. Screw the children!


oops....
No, I was thinking that if a certain subsect of people could stop thinking about the children perhaps they could stop screwing the children or a plastic resemblance thereof.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:30 AM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I have only seen one actual blow up doll in person. The thing was under five feet tall and if you put a 'school girl' uniform on her, she would be dressed as a child.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:34 AM
susan susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Y'all know that blow-up sheep are also available, right?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-25-2006, 01:50 AM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
I have only seen one actual blow up doll in person. The thing was under five feet tall and if you put a 'school girl' uniform on her, she would be dressed as a child.
I received one as a gag gift from my female coworkers on my 25th birthday (the bartender had asked me a few days earlier what I wanted for my birthday and I replied, "A redhead who looks like a 22-year-old Ann Margaret") So they got me this redheaded blowup doll. It wasn't very big at all.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-25-2006, 02:43 AM
Oregon sunshine Oregon sunshine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase 42
a bag of sweet basil
That reminds me of Gil Evans' Live at Sweet Basil. Just heard that tonight... Rippin!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:05 AM
chowder chowder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoshana
Y'all know that blow-up sheep are also available, right?
So how much was yours then?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:27 AM
Dijon Warlock Dijon Warlock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim
I don't know what to rhink about sex dolls for pedophiles except... ewwwwww!!!
Well, there's a logical criticism. I (as a straight guy) don't know what to think about heterosexual women and gay men having sex with guys except... ewwwwww!!!

I've said it before on the subject of pedophilia: "EWWW!!" is not a rational argument.
Quote:
I suppose it might even be a good thing if a pedophile could psychologically substitute it for a real child.
If protecting our children is our priority (which I personally believe it should be), then shouldn't we find out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priceguy
I doubt someone who would otherwise have raped a child would refrain from doing so due to access to a child sex doll.
Possibly, but why do you assume that anyone interested in a "child sex doll" would have "otherwise raped a child"? Would anyone interested in a Playboy magazine have otherwise raped a Playmate? Interest/attraction in a demographic does not automatically equate to victimization, you know.
Quote:
But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong. And then I'd support the handing out of child sex dolls to all convicted child molesters.
That's a very rational position to take...up to a point. I don't believe that all convicted child molesters would prefer an artifical partner, but giving them the option would at least not force their hand by definition, and possibly help to some extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
Perhaps you could test it by seeing if serial rapists would be cured by given one of those Real Dolls?
Again, same flaw in the argument. How about testing it by giving some of those Real Dolls to people who would like to have a juvenile partner, but would never dream of harming a real child for that purpose? Why only test on serial rapists? That's kind of like testing gun safety using the guys that shot up Columbine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leah M
I personally don't see that a normal, heterosexual man would be deterred from having sex with a real woman by the use of a sex doll, so I wouldn't think that it would work that way for a pedophile, either.
Probably true, but I think you (and mostly everybody else) are looking at it backwards. Sure, a normal het guy isn't going to be fundamentally driven to choose the doll over the real woman, but if the real partner in question was illegal (as is the case with pedophiles), then at least he'd have an adequately alternative option--and therefore would be more driven to choose the doll, if he were rational, IMHO. I, too, see no difference with pedophiles at that point.

Think of it this way: if you're stuck on the fourth floor of a burning building, and jumping out a window might let you live, but would most likely drive your shins into your ribcage, would a fire escape that lets you get to safety make it more or less likely that you'll choose the window?

(If I REALLY need to explain that illustration: would a safe, harmless means of achieving your goal make it more or less likely that you'll resort to the dangerous, harmful means of achieving it? I say less, if you're rational; thus juvenile RealDolls--or their equivalent--are a good idea. Far better that people invest in a doll for their gratification than go cruising playgrounds.)

Miller, I think, FWIW, is on the right track, here.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-25-2006, 04:49 AM
Dunderman Dunderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dijon Warlock
Possibly, but why do you assume that anyone interested in a "child sex doll" would have "otherwise raped a child"?
I don't, and didn't say I did.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-25-2006, 06:01 PM
Dijon Warlock Dijon Warlock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Oops, you're absolutely right. I misread you. My apologies.

Let me try that a bit differently, if I might, please:

I agree that it's a fair statement to claim that if someone is going to rape a child anyway, they will not be deterred from it by having a sex doll...but only if by "rape" we mean "an intention to victimize a child". I will grant you that much.

(I might note that I have a different definition of rape than the law does--no need to panic; I'm not running for President. IMHO, age should not be a consideration in determining rape: if it's not rape if they're adults, then it isn't if they're kids. It might be something, but it isn't rape. So I differentiate between "raping a child" and simply "having sex with them". Don't get me wrong: I obey the law, I just respectfully disagree with it on this point. Again: not campaigning, don't vote for me...if I get written in, I'll be really pissed).

However, in this day and age where we define nearly any sexual contact with a child as "rape" (what with statutory laws and whatnot), it seems that the pool is much bigger, and includes people who have no wish to harm a child (which I would call rape), but just wish to have the physical experience of having sex with them (which I would NOT).

Wouldn't a doll mitigate that to a significant extent?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-25-2006, 08:07 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door
I had thought that representations of children in which "such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" was illegal according to the child pornography prevention act of 1996, introduced by Senator Hatch. It doesn't have to be a minor, it just has to look like a minor.
That bit of legislation got rightfully stomped upon by the Supreme Court several years ago. What exists now is a ban on legally obscene images simulating child sex, as an offense separate from CP.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-25-2006, 08:40 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
FWIW, I was pretty much being sarcastic-I doubt a rapist would be satisfied with a sex doll. Just as I doubt pedophiles would be with child sex dolls.

(Damn, that's a creepy phrase, "child sex doll")
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-26-2006, 01:10 AM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dijon Warlock
However, in this day and age where we define nearly any sexual contact with a child as "rape" (what with statutory laws and whatnot), it seems that the pool is much bigger, and includes people who have no wish to harm a child (which I would call rape), but just wish to have the physical experience of having sex with them (which I would NOT).
Washington (and I imagine a few other states as well) several years ago retitled all the relevant laws, changing them from "statutory rape" to the new and improved "rape of a child". I suspect that this was done to enhance the emotional impact to the charges. Now if an 18-year-old high school senior and his 14-year-old high school freshman girlfriend who love each other very, very much have consensual sex, it's so much easier to get the boyfriend labeled a "sexual predator" when the charge is "rape of a child" instead of "statutory rape". I mean, "statutory rape" was carrying around that old image of "daddy didn't like his little girl's boyfriend and got him locked up", whereas "rape of a child" implies "baby-raping pervert on the loose!"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-26-2006, 12:36 PM
AtomicDog AtomicDog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoshana
Y'all know that blow-up sheep are also available, right?

[Carnac]The answer is...Sis Boom Baa![/Carnac]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-27-2006, 06:16 AM
Dijon Warlock Dijon Warlock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia
FWIW, I was pretty much being sarcastic-I doubt a rapist would be satisfied with a sex doll. Just as I doubt pedophiles would be with child sex dolls.
"Pretty much" sarcasm noted. I, too, doubt that a rapist would be satisfied with a sex doll. Rape, after all, entails (and/or is driven by the desire for) victimization of a person. A doll would not achieve that, ultimately.

Pedophilia, OTOH, appears to only involve the desire for the experience of sex with a child (whether actual or otherwise or whether only physical or otherwise, might be a matter of debate). I could see a doll alleviating that to a large extent. No studies personally on hand at this point to back it up, but it makes sense to me. People desire all sorts of things that they never actually do. An adequate substitute can often serve as a sufficiency.
Quote:
(Damn, that's a creepy phrase, "child sex doll")
Again (not to pick an argument with you, Guin), but to a lot of people, the phrase "same sex doll" is pretty creepy, too. Not that they're exactly the same thing, but prejudices run deeper than is often realized. Actually, the phrase "statutory rape" creeps me out a lot worse. It seems to imply a desire that rape has occured when it hasn't actually...until we declare it to have done so. It smacks of an artifical crime to justify our prejudices.

One question that hits my brain every once in a while: why does mainstream society want children to be raped/victimized so badly that they will declare it to have happened by definition just so they can object to it?

I know, I'm not the majority, but the phrase "child sex doll" doesn't "creep me out." Not that I necessarily approve of child sex (which I think would be pointless, as would the DISapproval of it), but because it isn't an alien concept. Maybe it's because I (and my peers) grew up on farms, but sex has always been part of our lives. We were born with genitals, we saw the livestock/family pets going at it from earliest childhood, and despite the fact that I don't think I've EVER heard my parents mention the word "sex" (which they evidently believed would forever prevent me from finding out about it ), I still grew up with it being part and parcel of my life, as well as everyone else's that I knew.

It's the abhorrence that the association of children and sex produces which confounds me. It seems at odds with reality.

Phase42: Indeed. How far we are falling.

AtomicDog: My favorite Carnac joke.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.