Thank you. I am not alone.
May I use the cite I provided in a thread about 4 years ago (both links still work):
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”.
Thanks.
: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.
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.
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)?
Er, no. The general fear is that it might incite pedophiles to act out their desires on a real child.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sorry, I misread your post and thought you were talking about people who aren’t pedophiles.
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.
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.
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!!!
:dubious:
It is complicated at the state level though, and state laws can still get the ones using cartoon depictions of minors in trouble.
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”…)
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’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.
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.
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)