# Humanity hits new low- paedophile sex dolls **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 18, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649 "2018-04-18T16:59:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lost4life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@lost4life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lost4life)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/81 "2018-04-19T23:05:14Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > … “Hannity hits new low”?.. Thank you. I am not alone. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/82 "2018-04-19T23:11:01Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Cite? I have heard of the threat of prosecution being used to convince owners of websites featuring such materials to shut down, but I’m not aware that anyone has ever actually been convicted of any crime for writing or possessing text-only porn. > [@Slash1972](#): > > I’d be interested in seeing any convictions as well. Shoot, if you own a copy of Steven King’s book IT, it has pages and pages describing sex acts between children. > [@adaher](#): > > Piers Anthony’s Firefly not only has extremely explicit sex acts between children and adults, but is a defense of such acts. May I use the cite I provided in a thread about 4 years ago (both links still work): > [@If hand drawn child porn cartoons are illegal why are pedophile text only stories not illegal?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-hand-drawn-child-porn-cartoons-are-illegal-why-are-pedophile-text-only-stories-not-illegal/708172/3): > > Right, and, if the text stories _ **are** _ deemed _obscene_ by the court, under regular obscenity law, **yes you can** be prosecuted and convicted, but it happens only rarely. See the [Frank McCoy](https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=frank+mccoy) and [Karen Fletcher aka Red Rose](http://www.dmlp.org/threats/united-states-v-fletcher) cases. Contrary to popular belief, it was never ruled that text-only material can’t be obscene; it just became generally unenforced after the adoption of more restrictive tests for obscenity and the explosion in visual porn. > > Heck, one could imagine that a local jury could make a ruling of obscenity against a written porn story because it does have minor characters in the story, if the judge does not instruct them otherwise. But the fact is that the presence of minor characters does NOT make a story _ **per se** _ obscene. The key element is if the fictional no-real-people-harmed-in-the-making piece of work, be it graphics or text, is judged to be _obscene_, it is unprotected and may be penalized. Technically this applies to \*any \*content, but a reasonable person could imagine that if the stories had featured 25 year olds involved in gangbangs and bondage, nobody would have bothered with them – but both those cases involved extreme scenarios AND child characters. Piers Anthony and Steven King may creep you out but their works clear the “Miller Test” for judging on obscenity and they and their editors know where to cut (though Piers started to worry me as time went by). BTW **Doc Cathode** is right, hentai anime/hentai manga is just the overall term for Japanese porn cartoons, animated or printed respectively. It does not nean “kiddie”. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/83 "2018-04-20T00:52:55Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > “Whet” Thanks. > [@Ambivalid](#): > > So let me get this straight. When you say it will be a gateway into molestation, are you saying that having these dolls available will cause people who otherwise would never molest a child to do so? That is some reefer madness stuff right there. And I would argue that most all pedophiles do know it’s wrong to molest children. Some simply do not care. :rolleyes: Um no, obviously not. I’m saying that _some_ pedophiles might find they’re not quite satisfied by said dolls. I still think it’s better not to feed into it in the first place. > [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Seems like with a price tag of several thousand dollars, anyone who would buy such a thing would have to be pretty well past the “experimental” stage. The guy in the OP’s link, for example, had an extensive collection of kiddie porn. There’s no evidence that he actually molested children; but if he didn’t, it’s because he had sufficient control over his impulses despite years of consuming kiddie porn. I find it doubtful that a doll such as this could degrade that self-control in a way that the porn didn’t, but YMMV. He may not be out and out molesting kids, but viewing kiddie porn definitely shows he’s not in control. Once again, it’s NOT “just pictures”. Can we please make that clear? ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/84 "2018-04-20T00:56:42Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Thanks. > > :rolleyes: > > Um no, obviously not. I’m saying that _some_ pedophiles might find they’re not quite satisfied by said dolls. > > He may not be out and out molesting kids, but viewing kiddie porn definitely shows he’s not in control. Once again, it’s NOT “just pictures”. Can we please make that clear? I enjoyed your eyerolls but it seems that that was exactly what you were saying. Weak protestations aside. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/85 "2018-04-20T19:03:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > People who play violent video games seem to have a better handle on aggression. I have my doubts about that. But I suppose you can find figures that prove or disprove that contention. Does anyone have some hard facts on whether legalizing really hard core porn such as sex with animals or children has actually changed the number of instances (I’ll avoid the word crime)? ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/86 "2018-04-20T19:55:03Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > For those arguing against mainstreaming such dolls, is the idea that some pedophiles who otherwise would never make the leap to molestation of children _would_ make that leap if they had access to kiddie sex dolls to use as a stepping stone? Er, no. The general fear is that it might incite pedophiles to act out their desires on a real child. > [@Ambivalid](#): > > Where I think these dolls might be valuable is as a form of “treatment” for non-molesting pedophiles who still struggle with their urges. **It’s not to ward off any potential molestation of children** but rather to make the lives of the pedophiles easier and more functional. So if this doesn’t have any demonstrable effect in decreasing the likelihood of pedophiles taking their urges out on a child, then what would be the point of normalizing the use of such dolls? :dubious: > [@dzeiger](#): > > I think, at least from an American perspective, the burden of proof needs to be on the pro-banning side to show that there is significant statistical correlation that it will escalate to real abuse, more than just “Well, I’m pretty sure someone somewhere will graduate from a doll to an actual child.” So you’d rather take the chance of more children being sexually abused as a result of those dolls because… why? The burden of proof should be on those claiming that pedos relieving themselves with those dolls won’t lead to them feeling emboldened enough to satiate themselves with human children. If there is credible research supporting this notion, only then it is fair to claim that there is no point in banning them. Until then, better to be safe than sorry. > [@dzeiger](#): > > I mean, if you’re really that worried, aren’t there a ton of other things out there that have much more potential impact? How much child abuse comes from religion, can we ban/regulate that first? And if you’re a NRA/2dn Amendment sort of person, I’m not sure how you can accept that a few times a year, some 5-year-old is going to eat Daddy’s pistol, but somehow a sex doll that might possibly encourage a sex predator at some point is unacceptable. Hint: strawmanning and resorting to whataboutism does not give you the upper hand in an argument, ever. This topic isn’t about the effects of religion and gun ownership on children. Stay on topic. > [@Ambivalid](#): > > Agreed. I think a lot of the opposition to the dolls comes from a visceral, emotional reaction of disgust rather than a rational dissection of the details. I think a lot of the support for the dolls comes from try-hard edgelords who so desperately want to prove how forward-thinking and progressive they are. They’ll probably next argue that children are in fact capable of consenting to sex just to show how sophisticated they are. See how making bad faith assumptions about people whose position on a particular subject is in opposition to yours isn’t a nice thing to do? Everyone in this thread has been mature enough to not jump to the conclusion that people in favor of these dolls support pedophilia. Yet you jump to the rather narrow-minded assertion that people who feel otherwise aren’t being rational, even though people have in fact given rational explanations for why they don’t feel child sex dolls should be normalized. You don’t have available research that supports your side of the argument as of now, so it’s also rather presumptuous to assume that only your take is the rational one. > [@BigT](#): > > There have constantly been claims that having simulations of the real thing–in books, photos, movies, video games, etc.–would cause more people to do the bad things. But research seems to indicate otherwise in the situations in which I am aware. Porn seems to decrease the need for sex. People who play violent video games seem to have a better handle on aggression. > > I think it’s highly likely that these dolls would help decrease the number of offenders. Pedophilia is NOT merely an orientation, but a disorder. Pedophiles feel an intense desire to do these things, even if they know it’s wrong. If they had something to help with those urges, it could help. Child porn isn’t acceptable, because it hurts real kids. But dolls like this, and entirely fake stuff? It seems like it would be helpful. > > Barring them getting into the hands of kids just developing their sexuality, there’s basically no chance that a non-pedophile will turn into a pedophile. So you definitely aren’t creating more of them. And most child molesters don’t identify as pedophiles, so you’re not likely to have them getting these dolls. > > I don’t see any sign that guys that get fleshlights or realdolls are more likely to have sex with women. > > I do think it’s just a visceral reaction–one that is evolutionary. But we can’t really create laws based on visceral reactions. That way results in a lot of other things being a problem. We outlaw things we wouldn’t want happening to us. There is research suggesting that over dependence on porn leads to some real world sexual dysfunction and inability to maintain healthy romantic relationships, though. We don’t know for a fact if sexual violence in porn increases the likelihood of its viewers committing rape/assault in the real world, but we shouldn’t overlook the fact that social conditioning is a real thing. You mention books, you do know that propaganda is often disseminated via reading materials, right? Pretending that media doesn’t shape our views of things is just as bad as resorting to the knee jerk approach of blaming a complex social issue on one, singular source. Our thoughts, feelings and inclinations aren’t created in a vacuum. It’s absolutely worth considering that normalizing a taboo even if only symbolically might lead to people acting out that taboo. Also, I’m not sure why it matters that child molesters don’t self-identify as pedophiles. I don’t think they can be trusted to be objective about this view, clearly their actions speak louder than their words. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2018, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/87 "2018-04-20T21:11:36Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > Er, no. The general fear is that it might incite pedophiles to act out their desires on a real child. How is that not exactly what I just said? Saying it might incite pedophiles (pedophiles who otherwise wouldn’t molest children) to take it to the next level is almost verbatim what I just said. I said it would take pedophiles who otherwise would never molest children and turn them into child molesters. ---
**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:** [April 21, 2018, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/88 "2018-04-21T00:42:31Z")
The only real world example that immediately comes to mind is that of Jeffrey Dahmer, who kept a mannequin as a sex toy. He had already murdered and raped by that point so it’s not like the mannequin made him worse, but his grandmother found it and made him get rid of it and perhaps his later crimes might have been delayed or avoided otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/89 "2018-04-21T01:40:39Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > So if this doesn’t have any demonstrable effect in decreasing the likelihood of pedophiles taking their urges out on a child, then what would be the point of normalizing the use of such dolls? :dubious: Because freedom should always be the default. In pretty much every legal and moral system I am aware of, the basic concept is that anything that is not explicitly proscribed is allowed. Good laws/proscriptions should be evidence-based. If something is so damaging to society that there is a need to make it explicitly forbidden, the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to make it forbidden. If someone wants to do something in the privacy of his own home with an item he purchased with his own money, disallowing that activity should require more than just a feeling you have that something bad might happen to someone eventually sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/90 "2018-04-21T03:33:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The only real world example that immediately comes to mind is that of Jeffrey Dahmer, who kept a mannequin as a sex toy. He had already murdered and raped by that point so it’s not like the mannequin made him worse, but his grandmother found it and made him get rid of it and perhaps his later crimes might have been delayed or avoided otherwise. That seems like a stretch to leap to that conclusion (or even suppose it). He had already _raped and murdered_. How in the world would taking his sex mannequin away from him at that point have any effect on his future murdering and raping? I don’t even understand the logic in such thinking. Could you maybe clarify your position a bit? ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/91 "2018-04-21T04:24:54Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > How is that not exactly what I just said? Saying it might incite pedophiles (pedophiles who otherwise wouldn’t molest children) to take it to the next level is almost verbatim what I just said. I said it would take pedophiles who otherwise would never molest children and turn them into child molesters. Sorry, I misread your post and thought you were talking about people who aren’t pedophiles. > [@dzeiger](#): > > Because freedom should always be the default. In pretty much every legal and moral system I am aware of, the basic concept is that anything that is not explicitly proscribed is allowed. > > Good laws/proscriptions should be evidence-based. If something is so damaging to society that there is a need to make it explicitly forbidden, the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to make it forbidden. > > If someone wants to do something in the privacy of his own home with an item he purchased with his own money, disallowing that activity should require more than just a feeling you have that something bad might happen to someone eventually sometime. Cartoon child pornography is banned in the US for largely the same reason one would want to ban child sex dolls. Hell, freakin kinder eggs are banned from the US because the toys within them are presumed to be choking hazards for young children even though one could easily argue against this rationale by pointing out that plenty of toys marketed to children that are sold in the US are just as dangerous. I think it’s safe to assume that not everything forbidden by law has a ton of scientific research to support the ban, nor does it always need to. This notion that freedom should always be the default no matter what should only apply to people’s basic rights and to public access to information; anything more sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/92 "2018-04-21T04:55:56Z")
It’s been shown in several other countries that there is a direct correlation between the legalization of porn (including child porn) and a decrease in sexual assault (including molestation). This fact cannot be ignored and adds to the burden of those opposed to these dolls to show evidence that supports their position. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/93 "2018-04-21T05:02:03Z")
Every time I see this thread, I misread the first word as **“Hannity.”** Does that make me a bad person? ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/94 "2018-04-21T05:18:03Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Every time I see this thread, I misread the first word as **“Hannity.”** > > Does that make me a bad person? You’re like the 20th person to say that. Next time hit Ctrl+F and fill in Hannity for both pages and quote someone who said it earlier…or read the thread…you complete numbskull!!! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/95 "2018-04-21T05:31:11Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > Cartoon child pornography is banned in the US for largely the same reason one would want to ban child sex dolls. :dubious: > **[Child pornography laws in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States)** > > In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between pr > [@](#): > > Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition held that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court stated that “the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children”. It is complicated at the state level though, and state laws can still get the ones using cartoon depictions of minors in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/96 "2018-04-21T05:39:27Z")
> [@Covfefe](#): > > You’re like the 20th person to say that. Next time hit Ctrl+F and fill in Hannity for both pages and quote someone who said it earlier…or read the thread…you complete numbskull!!! That would work if I had Ctrl key on my phone. And the thread wasn’t holding my interest. (I am kinda wondering if the OP had ulterior motives for his choice of the word “Humanity”…) ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/97 "2018-04-21T16:12:56Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > It’s been shown in several other countries that there is a direct correlation between the legalization of porn (including child porn) and a decrease in sexual assault (including molestation). This fact cannot be ignored and adds to the burden of those opposed to these dolls to show evidence that supports their position. But in order to have lots of pictures of children being assaulted, you have to assault lots of children. So that doesn’t make any sense. I have to say I’m _very_ surprised to find out that you think child porn should be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/98 "2018-04-21T16:30:52Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > It’s been shown in several other countries that there is a direct correlation between the legalization of porn (including child porn) and a decrease in sexual assault (including molestation). I’m assuming by “child porn” you’re referring to drawn, or simulated, because if it’s real child porn, (as in, featuring actual, live children), then no, it didn’t cause a decrease. _Real_ child porn SHOULD be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/99 "2018-04-21T21:08:36Z")
> [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > But in order to have lots of pictures of children being assaulted, you have to assault lots of children. So that doesn’t make any sense. > > I have to say I’m _very_ surprised to find out that you think child porn should be legal. I never said i think it should be legal. I said that in places where it has been legalized, sexual assaults have decreased. I simply observed this fact, I didn’t opine at all. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2018, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649/100 "2018-04-21T21:24:05Z")
Except for the simple fact that legalizing child porn does NOT make sexual assaults go down. How the fuck do you think it’s made? :dubious: (And I’d like to see some cites for that, BTW) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanity-hits-new-low-paedophile-sex-dolls/812649.md?page=6)