Inserting your penis on anything resembling a child that isn't a grown woman that looks like a child is very repulsive.
Inserting your penis on anything resembling a child that isn't a grown woman that looks like a child is very repulsive.
What does this even mean? Sex dolls don't portray any kind of sexual performance, they facilitate it. Sounds to me like he was caught with a video of a demonstration of the act or something like that.after matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor was discovered in an international shipment addressed to Fort Mitchell,
One thing to consider is that these dolls were this guys outlet for his "desires". Now that they've taken it away he may actually act on them and go after real children in the future.
Thank you for that. I needed the mental image of someone having a Go with a literal Buddy doll. >_>
I remember seeing those in Rose's after watching the movie when I was like five and then seeing the actual Buddy Dolls hours later. Freaked me the fuck out.
That said anything that lets them get whatever their urges are without actually harming a child = fine to me. Bottling up and suppression usually is what makes people act out significantly more than engaging in emulation. Its weird to think that the dolls would inspire confidence in an actual kidnapping or some sort of mental manipulation on a child to engage in later. Do wish there was a way to keep track of that kind of purchase, though like someone else said earlier that'd probably get them to not buy it or try to be sneakier. As an example I don't know if anyone would want little Billy to be babysat by someone with a doll. So its this weird middle-ground of not-quite registered sex offender.
I mean in a general sense I agree, but in this guy's case I don't. It looks like they're looking for ANYTHING to lock him up for, so I'm not so sure he'll get the opportunity.
The research on this isn't conclusive as it's a difficult to study it properly. But looking at the statistics there is a correlation between people who enjoy minor-inspired sexual content and enacting their sexual fantasies upon actual children. Some argue using these kinds of objects/content leads to people moving on to the real deal while others say they would have reached that point ragardless of their acces to said content.
Because the fantasy/urge for most of these guys resolves around actual children and not about dolls.
I don't understand why this is illegal. Disturbing for sure, but it's not a real child so...how could it be acts portraying a minor when it's not ACTUALLY a minor?
That's like outlawing toy guns because they look like real guns and get played with to portray real guns and only allowing adults to buy them. That's just stupid.
Disgusting, but harmless. If the outlet is toys, not real children... Seems acceptable.
You know, maybe not the best example, but legalising prostitution with mandatory health checks, taxes, legal brothels, etc., has reduced rapes, IIRC.
It's honestly pretty messed up. But it's a mental illness. Is it better to admit you have the attraction, know it's wrong and find some recourse to address it that doesn't actually harm someone... OR... to never say anything or address it and let the pent up issues reach critical mass to the point they DO do something that causes physical, mental and emotional trauma and damage?
I dislike the idea of a child sex doll... but I'd rather they fuck that. There are some people who know they have the mental illness that causes attraction to children, and they choose to actually take the path of chemical castration rather than risk their disease harming a child.
Logisitically, it's fucked up. But it's a silicone doll. If we make it illegal what would the actually be the repercussions from this? I think they'd be far worse than the doll ultimately.
Well, we put people in jail for having child porn, I don't see how the dolls are different. Unless he leaves them clothed all the time.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
I think it should be legal because it's a victimless crime and relates more to liberty, and I don't think that restricting liberty just because I think something is repulsive is reason enough.
I would also like to add that this is an area that needs more research (e.g. "do these child-like dolls increase or decrease child molestation?" etc). That could change my mind.
Last edited by Dezerte; 2018-09-25 at 04:07 PM.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
they arent doing sexual stuff on real children but on lifeless dolls. Its a good outlet. Look at Japan they have lots of these stuff, but sexual act against children is low compared to England and the US. Anyways there is a documentary about this.
Seems like a thought crime, we constantly think about killing people, yet very few people actually murder, and we consume media in which people are actually killed totally- legally, tv shows movies, the internal thought of doing something illegal does not always translate to real crime, if it was actual pictures that involves harming a real person but a doll is an inaminate object.
No, if it doesn't involve actual children, let them have it.
People are mostly born into pedophilia, allowing them outlets that don't harm children could protect children long term. Imagine having a sexuality that is hated world wide, but you never got to choose.
I guess some of the older people of the homosexual nature could answer that quite well.
I bet the doll was actually a 1000 years old loli.
Do you also get arrested for hentai in the us? Seems fun.