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.
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.
Y’all know that blow-up sheep are also available, right?
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.
That reminds me of Gil Evans’ Live at Sweet Basil. Just heard that tonight… Rippin!
So how much was yours then? 
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.
If protecting our children is our priority (which I personally believe it should be), then shouldn’t we find out?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t, and didn’t say I did.
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?
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.
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”)
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!”
[Carnac]The answer is…Sis Boom Baa![/Carnac]
“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.
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 :rolleyes: ), 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.