# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/41 "2010-01-18T05:15:04Z")
I meant teen girls in general, NOT the “abritarily illegal by a year” 17 year olds. > [@](#): > > 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. Der Trihs, NOT talking about thinking that mid-teens are cute/hot/attractive. That’s nothing. (and you know that biology theory is just that. A theory. Who’s the famous comedian who said that he’s always attracted to his teen’s female friends, until they open their mouths and ruin the whole fanasty?) What I AM talking about are those really gross guys who are FIXTATED (as in a monomania/Asperger’s Syndrome way) on young girls. ---
**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 18, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/42 "2010-01-18T05:19:53Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > and you know that biology theory is just that. A theory. So’s gravity. For most of human history,what we consider underage girls ( and boys for that matter ) were considered marriage material. While I consider our present standards better, we are defying biology with them. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/43 "2010-01-18T05:24:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Slap a bar code label in the corner of the picture or video that references the manufacturer’s name and a product ID code. Then you just need to look at the manufacturer’s records for this information if you want to confirm it. While the general principle might work, I feel obliged to point out that the compression methods suitable for photographs (or photographic video) will wreak havoc with a bar code. You’d have to come up with some other sort of encoding. Yeah, I know, I’m nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/44 "2010-01-18T05:30:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While the general principle might work, I feel obliged to point out that the compression methods suitable for photographs (or photographic video) will wreak havoc with a bar code. You’d have to come up with some other sort of encoding. > > Yeah, I know, I’m nitpicking. Serial numbers and logos work too if you don’t feel the bar codes are a safe bet. Same difference either way. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/45 "2010-01-18T05:39:39Z")
: > [@](#): > > So’s gravity.For most of human history,what we consider underage girls ( and boys for that matter ) were considered marriage material. While I consider our present standards better, we are defying biology with them. It’s still only a theroy. Besides, it’s only about finding someone attractive. Maybe a lot of dudes are simply mixing up “thinking that girl looks hot” with " I’d so want to do her." Maybe too it’s a lot of dudes getting mixed up with “frat boy” style thinking. Besides under that thinking the type of lesbians who are likely to identify as F2M would do young femmes. Never heard of that happening. ---
**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 18, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/46 "2010-01-18T06:48:59Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > It’s still only a theroy. One fits the facts, and which you’ve provided zero evidence against. If the reason isn’t biology, then what is it? Magic? Why is such attraction so common, in so many cultures and centuries? We are the wierd ones here in trying ( badly ) to pretend otherwise. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Besides, it’s only about finding someone attractive. Maybe a lot of dudes are simply mixing up “thinking that girl looks hot” with " I’d so want to do her." What do you mean “mixing up”? Those are the same thing. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Maybe too it’s a lot of dudes getting mixed up with “frat boy” style thinking. > Besides under that thinking the type of lesbians who are likely to identify as F2M would do young femmes. Never heard of that happening. I have no idea what you are getting at. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/47 "2010-01-18T20:51:01Z")
> [@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. Totally agree. These are pieces of rubber and plastic made to look like something. It doesn’t harm real people. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/48 "2010-01-18T22:34:10Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Totally agree. These are pieces of rubber and plastic made to look like something. It doesn’t harm real people. Well, except the underage kids working in the Chinese factories to make such things… ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/49 "2010-01-19T05:15:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, except the underage kids working in the Chinese factories to make such things… I don’t think anyone’s having sex with them though. Maybe in Thailand.. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/50 "2010-01-19T05:22:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, except the underage kids working in the Chinese factories to make such things… Honestly, I don’t see how the anotomical correctness of a given baby doll could impact the working conditions of the people who made it one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/51 "2010-01-19T12:39:30Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Serial numbers and logos work too if you don’t feel the bar codes are a safe bet. Same difference either way. As it is many digital copiers/printers/CD burners already have the technology to “stamp” the output in a way not easily detectable. Or in the case of digitally recorded electronic images you can embed the identifiers inside the very _code_ that makes for the picture. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/52 "2010-01-19T14:37:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While the general principle might work, I feel obliged to point out that the compression methods suitable for photographs (or photographic video) will wreak havoc with a bar code. You’d have to come up with some other sort of encoding. > > Yeah, I know, I’m nitpicking. Most of the video porn I get from legal sites now has a blurb in the titles similar to “Records on file concerning these models pursuant to US Code whatever”, followed by a Custodian of Records contact address. I haven’t thought to look for similar verbiage in the tagging information of the photography. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/53 "2010-01-20T03:03:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Second, such material being legal would make it more difficult to enforce the laws against the real stuff, since the prosecution would have to prove that it wasn’t faked. wha-wha-wha-what? The prosecution can’t meet its burden of identifying the evidence in one crime, so it becomes illegal to manufacture artificial depictions similar to the original? Is this true with any other type of crime or evidence, or is this a new doctrine cutting into free speech? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/54 "2010-01-20T03:06:29Z")
> [@Angry Lurker](#): > > This can easily be avoided: Put the burden of proof on the defence to prove it doesn’t involve actual children. Quite contrary to US law, and its fundamental principles over a 1000 year span dating to the Magna Carta. Would essentially require a coup to implement in the US. So that one is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/55 "2010-01-20T03:30:44Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Most of the video porn I get from legal sites now has a blurb in the titles similar to “Records on file concerning these models pursuant to US Code whatever”, followed by a Custodian of Records contact address. I haven’t thought to look for similar verbiage in the tagging information of the photography. Because it would be trivial to strip out or obfuscate anything like that. It doesn’t work for music or checking to see if images are copyrighted, why would it work for this? ETA - I don’t have a cite handy, but I seem to recall a recent article that claimed that that bit about the “record keeping” is on shaky legal grounds, and may be tossed out soon anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/56 "2010-01-20T03:50:23Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Because it would be trivial to strip out or obfuscate anything like that. It doesn’t work for music or checking to see if images are copyrighted, why would it work for this? > > ETA - I don’t have a cite handy, but I seem to recall a recent article that claimed that that bit about the “record keeping” is on shaky legal grounds, and may be tossed out soon anyway. Meh, I suggest the label primarily as a potential consumer. Just like one might want to have a government certification that your chicken dinner was slaughtered humanely, I’d like to have some clear indication that this piece of porn wasn’t produced through rape. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/57 "2010-01-20T03:51:47Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > What I AM talking about are those really gross guys who are FIXTATED (as in a monomania/Asperger’s Syndrome way) on young girls. This manages to be demeaning both those with Asperger’s and oriented pedophiles. ---
**Author:** ![Bertal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Bertal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bertal)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/58 "2012-10-20T14:46:32Z")
Sorry for bumping up an old thread, but it took time to discover it from the other side of the Atlantic and I think I have some things to add. I am a male who decided to divorce a few years ago. I own a realdoll, with which I mean the kind of doll, not the Realdoll brand for mine was manufactured by Ai 4Woods in Japan. The doll doesn’t look really underage, but all dolls of this kind look not aging. I don’t show myself in public with the one have sex with. That was normal in the days that marriage was the only way to have sex. But those days are gone. My doll doesn’t carry the burden of that history and I don’t bring her out in public. That I own one matters in this post only. What I want to tell is that I’m not interested in porn any more since I own this doll. Before I bought her, I was interested in nude pictures of pretty women. Not interested in hardcore porn; any male part in a picture was a turnoff for me. There is a well-known website that offers a really huge collection of nude art pictures. A really huge collection means that they don’t have to mind and don’t really mind the average taste. Every taste will be met. So I found enough that met my taste, and downloaded 18 GB of pictures in a month. After a month my subscription ended. Of course I still receive a load of emails inviting me to subscribe again, but I changed my mind. Watching the pictures that I liked, I found out that I had only a computer screen to cuddle. I knew the realdolls already, but seeing pictures of them, I couldn’t imagine that they were worth the money. The difference was that the art pictures were images of women I couldn’t get, while the doll pictures were pictures of dolls I could get. So I ordered a doll that looked the most like the pictures that I downloaded. My taste is oriental, so it became a Japanese doll, but that is only my taste. I don’t regret the purchase. I didn’t throw away the 18 GB of pictures, but they are an archive to me. What disappeared was the urge to expand the collection. I admire the perfect body of the doll like I admire the women in the pictures, and I do everything with her that I cannot do with my computer screen. Back to the discussion. I read some statements here that I want to comment. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > 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. Similar in concept, yes. The same thing, no. Porn is addicting. One picture isn’t enough, ten pictures aren’t enough, a hundred pictures aren’t enough… and I know what I’m talking about. So porn drawings cannot keep the desire for real porn away. > [@MitzeKatze](#): > > 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). It’s often asked if dolls can keep the desire for real sex away. To me, my doll does, but it doesn’t matter in my opinion. Why does nobody ask if dolls can keep the desire for porn away? That matters much more. Most paedophiles don’t get the chance to have real sex with children, or don’t want the risk of being caught, or even don’t want to harm children. People who would behave well if there were no child porn, behave wrong as soon as they get in touch with child porn. I have a surprising example of it. > [@Incubus](#): > > 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. It was in an article on [salon.com](http://salon.com) where this was stated, not by the author but by the interviewed person, Matt McMullen, the boss of Abyss Creations and creator of the Realdoll. He told that some would-be customers asked him to create dog-like sexdolls and child-like sexdolls, and that he refused to meet those requests. He just found them too creepy. But just stating his disgust didn’t help. In February 2012 one of his most important employees, the doll mak-up supervisor, was arrested on federal charges for possession and distribution of child pornography. Porn is addicting, and so is child porn. And children are abused in order to produce it. So please stop making statements and start protecting children. Give paedophiles their dolls. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/59 "2012-10-20T16:37:02Z")
Okay, I think we’re going to put you down as a statistical outlier. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260/60 "2012-10-20T18:25:08Z")
> [@Bertal](#): > > What I want to tell is that I’m not interested in porn any more since I own this doll. What a bizarre statement. I have a hard time believing it; you were interested in porn when you had a wife, but owning a doll has removed any interest in porn? > [@Bertal](#): > > The doll doesn’t look really underage, but all dolls of this kind look not aging. What does doesn’t look “really” underage mean exactly? > [@](#): > > There is a well-known website that offers a really huge collection of nude art pictures. A really huge collection means that they don’t have to mind and don’t really mind the average taste. Every taste will be met. So I found enough that met my taste, and downloaded 18 GB of pictures in a month. > > The difference was that the art pictures were images of women I couldn’t get, while the doll pictures were pictures of dolls I could get. > So I ordered a doll that looked the most like the pictures that I downloaded. My taste is oriental, so it became a Japanese doll, but that is only my taste. Referring to a porn site as offering nude art pictures starts to set off a few alarm bells. That the doll you ordered looked the most like the pictures you enjoyed and the doll doesn’t look “really” underage sets them off quite loudly. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Okay, I think we’re going to put you down as a statistical outlier. I was thinking of putting it down as TMI. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethics-of-underage-looking-sexdolls/525260.md?page=4)