As Botman said. The idea is too subjective. If government ever did manage a database of legal/not I’d cry too much government intervention. Since when should government decide what is legal for anyone to do between the sheets if it doesn’t directly harm another person. That is imposing one’s beliefs on another and I’m pretty sure constitution was supposed to give certain freedoms. If these children were modeled after a real existing child, yes..I’d be outraged a bit concerned especially if it looked like one of my children. But if the models are just anatomically similar…I’m not sure how I feel about that.
While I admit the idea of someone buying certain young sex dolls is a bit weird and I do not understand any fetish that involves an infant. We got to remember that the mind works differently and that just because they fantasize about smaller younger frames doesn’t mean they actually act on it. If they were to act on it I’m glad they took their urge out on the doll and not the real thing. People are concerned it may desensitize people. (Got to say I’ve seen hours of horror and action films, played violent video games as a child, and not a single thing I saw in there is going to make me rape, murder, or steal.
Now I don’t want to sound like I’m promoting child interactions because I’m not. I do not condone those types of interactions. In the end I’m just playing devils advocate. In my opinion,the people that want to ban this stuff might as well be akin to thought police, punishing a crime before the action. Why should they be allowed to push their moral views on someone else sporadically. Sure they think its weird..but is it hurting anybody…no in fact some scientist say it may actually be preventing crimes. In my opinion these are probably the same people that claim pac-man is just as violent as doom, or its guns that make it more likely to be a criminal. Newsflash people, my parents, religion, peers enforced my morals growing up, college expanded upon my tolerance for different mindsets of people as I matured. Its these that create my moral surrounding and compass, not exposure to arbitrary items. If you are capable of child crimes, you were just as capable of it before the doll as after, at least in my opinion.
Finally, 85% owners of those have it have child porn. DUH…is anyone actually surprised by that statistic?
How is that a really an interesting find? (I’m being sarcastic.) Talk about a statistic that sounds great to activists but proves absolutely nothing in actuality. It doesn’t show causality, just a correlation. The notion that they are trying to use it to make it sound like those that purchase dolls go on to pursue child pornography is ludicrous. Of course it looks that way, how many computers of people who bought sex dolls legally did you really search that didn’t involve a warrant. Newsflash, they were probably already under suspicion.
But you really have to turn the statistic around and consider.
Is that proof that owning the dolls opened them up to owning child porn and thus made them a criminal.
Or was the person already a criminal and who had urges for child-porn so they decided to purchase a creepy child doll to help with those urges (again not condoning said weirdness but college taught me to play devil’s advocate). What they should really look at is innocent people who have the doll versus the countless who have child porn who don’t.