# Ethics of underage looking sexdolls **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260 "2010-01-17T01:19:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Incubus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@Incubus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incubus)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/1 "2010-01-17T01:19:59Z")
Wierd thread title aside, I was reading an article about Realdolls and the author was talking about all the weird custom requests he got. One particularly disturbing request was underage-looking dolls. Of course at first I was repulsed by this. But then I started to wonder- If someone like this has these kinds of urges, wouldn’t it it be safer for everybody for him to be throwing 12 grand to hump some lump of rubber in the privacy of his own house, then try and victimise some minor? But then again, having an outlet might encourage the behavior. It also makes me wonder if Pedophilia can truly be cured- if someone has these urges, do they ever go away? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/2 "2010-01-17T02:22:27Z")
Arguments on such things can go either way. We’ve had a number of debates including pornographic drawings that appear to be under-age. It is similar in concept. My opinion is anything that does not involve actual children should be fair game. I feel no compelling need to dictate what sexual media people can chose to enjoy. If some one wants to screw a blow up sheep that’s their business. Even if you could prove to me it encouraged that individual to commit actual acts of bestiality, I say stop them at that point not before. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/3 "2010-01-17T02:33:42Z")
I can’t see why this should be legal and already produced child pornography should be illegal. I don’t really mind whether both are legal or both are illegal, but for god’s sake be consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/4 "2010-01-17T02:53:36Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > I can’t see why this should be legal and already produced child pornography should be illegal. Because child porn, of actual children, at some point involves an actual child who is a victim. While a sex doll is not and always has been just an object. ---
**Author:** ![MitzeKatze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@MitzeKatze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MitzeKatze)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/5 "2010-01-17T02:54:36Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > My opinion is anything that does not involve actual children should be fair game. I feel no compelling need to dictate what sexual media people can chose to enjoy. If some one wants to screw a blow up sheep that’s their business. Even if you could prove to me it encouraged that individual to commit actual acts of bestiality, I say stop them at that point not before. That pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Although I am on the fence about whether it would lead to victimizing children (I’ve grown bored with the fake stuff…now on to the real thing) or would actually protect theoretical victims (I don’t need a real kid because I have this fake thing that is just as good). I can see an argument being made in either direction. But deep down I have a problem legislating what people think or even fantasize about. If there is no harm being inflicted to any flesh and blood, existing person (or animal for that matter) then I don’t really care if someone gets off to the thought of whatever they may think is sexy (no matter how abhorrent I may find it personally). > [@Angry Lurker](#): > > I can’t see why this should be legal and already produced child pornography should be illegal. I don’t really mind whether both are legal or both are illegal, but for god’s sake be consistent. I do see a distinct difference between already produced child pornography and a blow-up doll doll made to appear child-like or CGI/animated/handdrawn depictions of child pornography. In the already-produced (but real) pornography there was (and is) an actual victim. Even if that child is no longer being victimized or is no longer a child, there was actual harm done. “Enjoying” such pornography is not necessarily victimizing that child any further, but is creating a market for more, with the resultant more victims, more children, more harm. “Enjoying” fake child pornography (for lack of a better description) creates a market for more fake stuff- no one is injured by an adult drawing a picture or computer generating even realistic-looking scenes to be distributed to other adults. The problem that I have and have not yet reconciled in my own mind is whether or not the fake stuff creates a market for the real stuff which in turn would cause more harm to be inflicted upon more children. I would need to see some data showing that those who enjoy underaged-looking dolls, or computer-generated child porn or hand-animated child-porn are more likely to move on to the real thing or conversely that those who make use of such an outlet for their desires are less likely to “take it to the next level” before I can say for sure whether I believe it should be illegal or even unethical. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/6 "2010-01-17T03:30:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because child porn, of actual children, at some point involves an actual child who is a victim. While a sex doll is not and always has been just an object. So does any footage of any crime. There are two other arguments against child porn, but they can both apply to this doll. 1. Does harm to existing victims through prolonging agony - sure, but so could their knowledge of the existence of this doll. 2. Creates demand and thus leads to more child abuse - so could the doll. Equally both child porn and this doll could lessen child abuse through helping to control paedophile urges. But whichever is the case it is unlikely that one decreases and one increases net abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/7 "2010-01-17T03:35:29Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > 1. Creates demand and thus leads to more child abuse - so could the doll. False comparison; creating more child porn requires the abuse of children; creating more dolls does not. As for secondary effects, lacking data how can you say one way or the other what the effect is? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/8 "2010-01-17T03:40:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > False comparison; creating more child porn requires the abuse of children; Hence why I was saying **already produced** child porn. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As for secondary effects, lacking data how can you say one way or the other what the effect is? I can’t, but it is one of the main arguments against it. In any case it should be the same as with the doll, whichever way it is. I doubt that there will be no effect. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/9 "2010-01-17T03:50:28Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > Hence why I was saying **already produced** child porn. But it’s still not the same; making more live action child porn requires the abuse of children. The doll doesn’t require the abuse of children at any point. They just don’t compare; you might as well compare watching _The Silence of the Lambs_ with watching recordings distributed for profit by an actual serial killer. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/10 "2010-01-17T03:58:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But it’s still not the same; making more live action child porn requires the abuse of children. The doll doesn’t require the abuse of children at any point. They just don’t compare; you might as well compare watching _The Silence of the Lambs_ with watching recordings distributed for profit by an actual serial killer. A more accurate comparison would be watching schinler’s list versus some nazi concentration camp footage. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/11 "2010-01-17T04:04:19Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > A more accurate comparison would be watching schinler’s list versus some nazi concentration camp footage. Not really. There aren’t any more Nazi running concentration camps to make more footage. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/12 "2010-01-17T04:13:21Z")
but if there were, they’d be illegal 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/13 "2010-01-17T04:17:15Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > but if there were, they’d be illegal 🙂 Because they’d be killing actual people. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/14 "2010-01-17T05:27:45Z")
Underage doesn’t nessarily mean pedophile. The customer could have been one of those jerk-off men who are OBESSED with teen girls. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/15 "2010-01-17T05:34:17Z")
Of course it should be allowed. And the faster this technology develops and the sooner they get ‘even better than the real thing’, the better. > [@](#): > > Underage doesn’t nessarily mean pedophile. The customer could have been one of those jerk-off men who are OBESSED with teen girls. By this do you mean people who are attracted to technically underage 17 year olds? Because that’s hardly unusual or despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/16 "2010-01-17T05:52:16Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Underage doesn’t nessarily mean pedophile. The customer could have been one of those jerk-off men who are OBESSED with teen girls. Most men find young but sexually mature girls attractive; that’s when they are, biologically speaking “supposed” to attract a mate and start having children. For various generally good reasons we as a society have decided that older males having sex with 16 year olds is a bad idea; but that doesn’t change the biological drives involved. And there’s nothing “jerk off” about being “obsessed” with young girls when you weren’t consulted when your sex drive was evolved. Only in giving in to such urges. But you are right in that it isn’t pedophilia to be attracted to teen girls. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/17 "2010-01-17T07:47:12Z")
> [@Incubus](#): > > If someone like this has these kinds of urges, wouldn’t it it be safer for everybody for him to be throwing 12 grand to hump some lump of rubber in the privacy of his own house, then try and victimise some minor? But then again, having an outlet might encourage the behavior. Are you familiar with the concept of an outlet? A person’s sex drive is not something that just goes away if you ignore it. Fundies have been failing to learn that the hard way for a very long time. > [@Incubus](#): > > It also makes me wonder if Pedophilia can truly be cured- if someone has these urges, do they ever go away? It’s no more curable than homosexuality. They tried the same sorts of treatments, and had the same sorts of results. Namely, no one was “straightened out” and a lot of people ended up broken shells. > [@Angry Lurker](#): > > I can’t see why this should be legal and already produced child pornography should be illegal. I don’t really mind whether both are legal or both are illegal, but for god’s sake be consistent. Asking for consistency from people who want to control the inside of other people’s heads is a bit much to ask, don’t you think? > [@MitzeKatze](#): > > That pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Although I am on the fence about whether it would lead to victimizing children (I’ve grown bored with the fake stuff…now on to the real thing) or would actually protect theoretical victims (I don’t need a real kid because I have this fake thing that is just as good). I can see an argument being made in either direction. But deep down I have a problem legislating what people think or even fantasize about. If there is no harm being inflicted to any flesh and blood, existing person (or animal for that matter) then I don’t really care if someone gets off to the thought of whatever they may think is sexy (no matter how abhorrent I may find it personally). Apparently you don’t have too much of a problem considering your closing statement in this post. > [@MitzeKatze](#): > > I do see a distinct difference between already produced child pornography and a blow-up doll doll made to appear child-like or CGI/animated/handdrawn depictions of child pornography. In the already-produced (but real) pornography there was (and is) an actual victim. Even if that child is no longer being victimized or is no longer a child, there was actual harm done. And how does destroying the evidence of that crime change the fact that there was harm done? > [@MitzeKatze](#): > > “Enjoying” such pornography is not necessarily victimizing that child any further, but is creating a market for more, with the resultant more victims, more children, more harm. “Enjoying” fake child pornography (for lack of a better description) creates a market for more fake stuff- no one is injured by an adult drawing a picture or computer generating even realistic-looking scenes to be distributed to other adults. Ah, the eternal “market” argument. The same argument can be applied to declare that Cops encourages people to comit crimes in order to satisfy the market for that entertainment. It is an identical concept, after all. A recording of a crime being used for entertainment purposes, distributed for profit. > [@MitzeKatze](#): > > The problem that I have and have not yet reconciled in my own mind is whether or not the fake stuff creates a market for the real stuff which in turn would cause more harm to be inflicted upon more children. > > I would need to see some data showing that those who enjoy underaged-looking dolls, or computer-generated child porn or hand-animated child-porn are more likely to move on to the real thing or conversely that those who make use of such an outlet for their desires are less likely to “take it to the next level” before I can say for sure whether I believe it should be illegal or even unethical. So it really doesn’t matter to you that people are being punished for things that aren’t harming people so long as you can draw some flimsy statistical connection between said act that doesn’t harm people and some probability shift in the likelihood that they’ll eventually harm people? What happened to punishing people for actually harming others? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > False comparison; creating more child porn requires the abuse of children; creating more dolls does not. Creating more episodes of Cops also requires people to commit crimes. No difference at all. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As for secondary effects, lacking data how can you say one way or the other what the effect is? Why should it matter? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/18 "2010-01-17T08:11:58Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Ah, the eternal “market” argument. The same argument can be applied to declare that Cops encourages people to comit crimes in order to satisfy the market for that entertainment. It is an identical concept, after all. A recording of a crime being used for entertainment purposes, distributed for profit. It’s not at all identical, as can be seen with a bare moment of consideration. Many of the people who produce and sell kiddie porn are profiting directly from that porn. Demand for new images of abuse channels directly into the pockets of the abusers. The payment for circulating images provides a _direct monetary incentive_ to create more. For a program like COPS, in stark contrast, payment is rendered to the producers of an entirely legal TV show. Yes, the show needs images of crime to work. Yes, there is demand for those images of crime. But that demand is not providing any direct monetary incentive to create an additional supply of crime over what already exists. This is an essential difference. Kiddie porn, even already existing kiddie porn, is vastly and essentially different from fictional depictions whose creation required no abuse and thus provides no incentives for future abuse. ---
**Author:** ![MitzeKatze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@MitzeKatze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MitzeKatze)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/19 "2010-01-17T08:29:41Z")
I am going to address only the remarks that were made about my previous statements. > [@Cesario](#): > > Apparently you don’t have too much of a problem considering your closing statement in this post. > > And how does destroying the evidence of that crime change the fact that there was harm done? > > Ah, the eternal “market” argument. The same argument can be applied to declare that Cops encourages people to comit crimes in order to satisfy the market for that entertainment. It is an identical concept, after all. A recording of a crime being used for entertainment purposes, distributed for profit. > > So it really doesn’t matter to you that people are being punished for things that aren’t harming people so long as you can draw some flimsy statistical connection between said act that doesn’t harm people and some probability shift in the likelihood that they’ll eventually harm people? What happened to punishing people for actually harming others? > > Creating more episodes of Cops also requires people to commit crimes. No difference at all. > > Why should it matter? You seem to have read something completely different than what I wrote, and then responded to what you decided I said rather than what I actually said. Let’s try again, shall we? This time I will try to use more concise thoughts, so you won’t misunderstand. (1) I am against legislating thoughts and fantasies- hence I agree with **boytyperanma** in that anything that does not involve actual children (or actual animals) should be fair game. (2) I am against child pornography involving actual children regardless of when it was produced. I am against already-produced child pornography because it involves harming actual children, and perpetuating a cycle of harm. Destroying it will take it off the market, but will not cure pedophilia nor curb the demand or desire for such pornography. But I never called for destruction of anything. I would like to see it out of circulation, but what’s out there is out there. (3)Fake child pornography may or may not protect actual children from harm by giving those with such urges an outlet for their sexuality in a safe (to children) manner, I have seen no data to support this in either direction, so I can not definitively say that it has one effect or the other nor can I say providing such outlets will keep anyone from taking things to the next level by victimizing a real, flesh and blood child. (4)If fake child pornography is an acceptable substitute for those with such urges and keeps them from victimizing children, then I think it is ethical and should not be criminalized. If fake child pornography does not keep those with such urges from victimizing children then I think it may not be ethical and probably should not be criminalized. But my opinions are not firm because of point (3). Until I see some hard data I cannot say anything definitive. (5) I believe that real child pornography and real victimization of children is the criminal act and should remain so. I do not believe that the harmful effects of child pornography is mitigated in any way having already been produced if it means there is a market for more. Do you honestly believe that those who get off on child porn would be content with the same old pictures and the same old victims forever without wanting or demanding new faces, new bodies and new pictures? (6)How this is in any way relevant to the production of COPS is a mystery to me and beyond the scope of my involvement in the discussion. I disagree with that entire analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/20 "2010-01-17T08:30:57Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > It’s not at all identical, as can be seen with a bare moment of consideration. This should be good. > [@Hellestal](#): > > Many of the people who produce and sell kiddie porn are profiting directly from that porn. Demand for new images of abuse channels directly into the pockets of the abusers. The payment for circulating images provides a _direct monetary incentive_ to create more. For a program like COPS, in stark contrast, payment is rendered to the producers of an entirely legal TV show. Yes, the show needs images of crime to work. Yes, there is demand for those images of crime. But that demand is not providing any direct monetary incentive to create an additional supply of crime over what already exists. This is an essential difference. This is not an argument that child porn should be illegal. This is an argument that the people abusing children shouldn’t be allowed to reap the profits from its sale. Make it illegal for those individuals to profit from it and allow a third party to sell the stuff the cops confescate from the producers and this argument evaporates. > [@Hellestal](#): > > Kiddie porn, even already existing kiddie porn, is vastly and essentially different from fictional depictions whose creation required no abuse and thus provides no incentives for future abuse. I haven’t been discussing fictional depictions here. I’ve been comparing apples to apples the doccumentation of an actual crime being sold as entertainment so people who are so inclined can get a kick out of the vicarious experience. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260.md?page=2)