What's your opinion on people buying sex dolls that look like children?

What's your opinion on people buying sex dolls that look like children?

Should they be banned?

Should the government be allowed to track purchasers of these types of products to conduct further investigations on their hard drives to see if they hold child pornography?

Should vigilante justice be allowed in certain circumstances?

youtube.com/watch?v=S2oitplwzn8

youtube.com/watch?v=7tLEG-EaZwE

Other urls found in this thread:

services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/FSD2943/PIP/cbF2943e.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why should they be illegal? What crime is being committed by producing, owning, or using a child like sex doll?

Real pedophilia of any kind should be banned outright but if it's a toy or a drawing that's fine

As long as what you're doing isn't hurting anyone else it should be legal

The argument can be made that by allowing such products, only further perpetuates the idea that sex with minors is ok.

What if these are only gateway products into pushing people on to the right thing? Say porn for example?

I don't see it as a legal issue.

Morally, making child sex dolls is a bit fucked up, and buying them and using them is fucked up.

But if its saving an actual child from being abused, I guess that might be ok

i don't get why white ppl are so into that shit, maybe its bcuz the jews ??
i barely hear about pedophiles in my country.

Illustrated or animated child porn was made illegal because it was impossible to tell if the image was completely original, referenced from an actual image, or a modified image. Not because it perpetuated pedo culture.
It's pretty easy to tell that a doll isn't a real person.

Who fucking cares about dolls. Dolls aren't real kids. As long as it keeps the pedos away from my daughter I'm all for it.

No but they should be laced with lethal amounts of polonium.

Self-snitching. Allow it.

The dolls are sometimes molded from children.

>Who cares about pictures? Pictures aren't actual kids. As long as it keeps the pedos away from my daughter I'm all for it.

>As long as it keeps the pedos away from my daughter I'm all for it.
Killing pedos keeps them from your daughters. Permanently.

No child sex dolls. No pedos.

Just kill people for having different thoughts than you?

Degenerate thoughts, yes.

This train of thought runs parallel to "more porn perpetuates and increase sexual assault" but in reality the causality in inversed.

I'd argue pedo-dolls would not perpetuate sexual misconduct but rather lesson the frequency of those acts.

Would you rather pedos fuck a young looking sex doll, or an actual child?

That should answer your question

So after you arbitrarily decide what these degenerate thought are, you have the right to kill someone for it?

the idea is that if people have those toys they will not atack children.

Forbid then and more children will be raped and possible killed

the blood is in your hands

No, you kill them if they have been convicted for acting out said thoughts.

Child rapists shouldn't be let out since they almost always rape another child.

What stops them from pursuing the actual thing once the doll wears out? These dolls were mean as practice tools.

I'd like to see research over whether it makes them more or less likely to then go and rape a child.

the fact that they can just buy another one?
if you forbid then and they wear out they will go after children, if not they will just buy another one

What stops you from raping women?

>was made illegal
Fucking when?

user how many guys with sexdolls do you think ever got laid?

Weird, but they are not hurting anyone so I don't really care.

>arbitrarily
Pedophilia classified as degeneracy is hardly arbitrary. It's the norm.

Like how thieving/burgling/robbery are degeneracy, whether it's justified or not. And rape.

You're right, pictures aren't actual kids. People aren't having sex with those kids over again every time someone looks at the picture. Meanwhile you can go watch videos of children's heads being blown off and its legal.

Hookers.

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

Its degenerate and disgusting; it's totally subhuman and promotes degenerate behavior.

>stinson hunter
Stinson Hunter is a fucking mong

>Should they be gassed?

Yes.

You idea makes more sense than the other guy's.
Someone who is a pedophile isn't necessarily a child rapist, so you shouldn't kill someone just for wanting to have sex with a child.
Then the matter of killing them comes up. The U.S. already destroys a convicted child rapist's life. They can hardly get a job, they can't live in nice areas where there are schools, they can't get a visa to leave the country, and since their information is public, they need to worry about people trying to lynch them.

They should probably be encouraged because most pedos will be fine fucking a fake kid and imagining its real and it will stop them from trying to fuck actual kids.

Fuck off shill.

They should be lynched.

All of them.

Kek.
Don't know if you're jesting but we and the muzzies are kings in pedophilia. Whitey has to get by with pictures and drawings but our people actually fucking rapes little kids. I can get over the drug thing and decapitations but it really kills me knowing that.

But just thinking about it commiting these acts is punishable by death?
I guess it might as well be since it doesn't concern your pure mind.

The problem is every sexual relationship between a child and adult is called rape, which is idiotic.

No victim, no crime

>The argument can be made that by allowing such products, only further perpetuates the idea that sex with minors is ok.
That would be a strawman argument / slippery slope fallacy.

Also, areas which ban porn for example, have higher rape stats. If people could fuck a child sex doll, that might actually keep them from molesting a child.

I assume its a case by case issue. If it looks like real cp it'll be illegal.

>only further perpetuates the idea that sex with minors is ok.

the idea of sex with minors is not the biggest problem. It's the acting out of that idea in the form of real life contact with children or the production of real child porn.

I'm sure every guy has caught himself looking at an clearly underage girl at least a few times. Yet it never goes past that being your average guy is not a pervert looking fuck a 13 year old.

fantasy should not be a crime when it involves inanimate or 100% fake created items. No real person is being exploited. It's why I've always had an issue with those claiming fake or drawn child porn is still "child porn". It's just not, same for these weird ass pedo dolls.

I still don't want those sort of people who are into that stuff around kids. Yet if they want to pound a kid looking doll or fap to a random Flipper ep of under age Jessica Alba it's fine. I don't view that as a crime.

there's no reason to ban anything if it can't be factually linked to a real harm

the only reason to ban sex dolls would be real, factual evidence correlating (and ideally showing a casual link between) doll usage and criminal pedophilia

being a pedophile is not a crime, because we do not have thought-crime, and before Sup Forumstards bitch about this they should reflect that the exact same legal logic applies to racism, etc. and is the entire reason this board has not been shut down by the thought police

[Citation Needed]

Furthermore, it isn't a strawman because the argument doesn't misrepresent another argument, and it isn't a slippery slope because it is a possible conclusion based off what we know about porn

You think children can consent? No they can't. Therefore it is always rape. Damn pedo!

Child Pornography is illegal because it is seen as conducive to the creation of child pornography.

I.e, by witnessing it you are creating a market and therefore encouraging its further creation.

There is no valid reason as to why it would be banned in relation to dolls/drawn. It's not hurting anyone in either its creation or consumption.

There is a very clear line, and so the "slippery slope" shit cannot be applied.

Of course they can, only not legally. They can consent to every other pleasurable act, why not mutual sexual pleasure? Studies suggest sexual sex between children and adults isn't inherently harmful.

Anti-pedo laws are to protect children not convict pedos

every sexual relationship between a child and adult is rape

Nice irrational dogma.

When my vidéo card dies I don't go out and play CoD irl

the relationship between a child an an adult is categorically coercive because of the difference in power. this is also why children can't vote

>implying children are capable of handling the emotional baggage that always comes with sex

Fuck, not even 20+ year old virgins on this fucking site can comprehend the emotional baggage behind sex. Young children who have sex ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS end up psychologically fucked later in life and its no mystery why.

Japan is doing just fine

This is a huge and irrational assumption. Take tickling for example, this is not a required activity where coercion or a sense of duty is required, such as chores, cleaning yourself, schoolwork, etc, but a pleasurable activity. If a child is experiencing displeasure and says stop, most adults will stop. Your assumption here is that pedophiles are all sociopaths or sadomasochists, which is silly, and that children don't have the desire to pleasure adults as well.

ultimately i don't need to persuade you because my perspective has won at every level of society, and because at a certain level of acceptance arguments (e.g. that it is coercive, that children cannot understand the context or long-term consequences, etc.) become social facts, no matter how firmly you insist you don't accept them. it is always possible to say you don't accept an argument, so it's hardly discerning or courageous to do so. you should be asking yourself why virtually everyone doesn't agree with your position. something something brainwashing i guess, or maybe you need to accept a reality that's inconvenient for you

> Young children who have sex ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS end up psychologically fucked later in life and its no mystery why.
But this is false. Rind et al. shows that most children/adolescents who consented to sex were not fucked up. The problem is coercion and rape, and you're doing a disservice to everyone involved with your moralistic assumptions which come close to circular reasoning.

yes but they should have a mechanism built inside the vagina/ass that castrates the user

Want my evidence that shows that young children who have sex always end up fucked up?

Look at literally any female cosplayer ever. Browse /cgl/ for 5 minutes. Almost every single one of them had sexual experiences as young children and theyre all fucking maniacs.

The ideas of sex, attraction, lust, desire, etc do demonstrable damage when introduced to children when they're young.

>it's automatically abusive because of the difference in power

You do realize that this is a very recent perspective on things, and that it is due to feminist rhetoric, right? This is the exact same reasoning Dworkin et al. used to demonize male sexuality. "Men hold the power in society, so all heterosexual sex is rape!"

I made an argument showing how it does not have to be coercive, and look up Rind et al. and the followup study to it to see how it doesn't have to lead to long term harm either. You're defending your positions now with the weight of society on your side instead of reason, which means you have a dogmatic belief and are uninterested in reason and solving problems. The rest of your post is hokey bullshit. Try making an argument.

At least one concrete example would be nice

>Your assumption here is that pedophiles are all sociopaths or sadomasochists,

Then why do all pedophiles display signs of sociopathy and sadomasochism when psychologically examined?

>inb4 some vast conspiracy amongst legislators and doctors and psychologists against the dindunuffin pedophiles

I don't accept anecdotal evidence. If you can find some studies which assumed a possibility of consent or coercion, etc, for criteria in their data and seemed to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to accept it.

...

I don't mind Trump but he better not touch my loli.

tickling has no long-term consequences. sex has long-term consequences, some factual (e.g. society will look on it a certain way and it will have certain consequences -- whether or not you think this is just they are factual consequences for the child), some more subjective, i.e. emotional consequences

most people understand immediately why there might be emotional consequences. a failure to understand that is a catastrophic failure of your understanding of other people's emotions and yes, is sociopathic in the classical sense. it's possible there may not be emotional consequences but that absence of knowing is precisely why consent is required and requires certain conditions that the child cannot possibly possess (e.g. life experience and an equitable relationship between the partners)

i'm sure you've heard these things a million times and continuously reject them. i'll repeat that rejecting arguments is something you can do forever and is not particularly hard to do.

>These dolls were mean as practice tools
> practice tools.

Yes. I have killed thousands of avatars in GTA V. Millions are doing the same, in real life, right now.

I do this because I cannot separate fiction from real life.

Aren't they 300yo witches/vampires or so?

Do you know this from first hand experience you fucking pedo?

>Then why do all pedophiles display signs of sociopathy and sadomasochism when psychologically examined?
You'll have to provide evidence of that. I'll have to assume most people will not willingly go and admit to being a pedophiles and sit down for a psychological examination. So, I think the results are most likely heavily skewed and don't actually determine anything about "all pedophiles" at all.

Children are far easier to coerce and abuse than adults, are they not?

Legalizing pedophilic relationships would make it tremendously easy for abusive coercive people to abuse and coerce children, would it not?

Tell me, what possible benefits would legalizing pedophilic relationships offer to society that would outweigh this tremendous risk? Is it really worth it to satisfy the fantasies of a few basement dwelling neckbeards?

Their ages are:

11, 11, and 11. Depending on the season that was context from possibly 10

As long as they aren't physically abusing/stalking children, distributing child pornography, harming children in any way, who the fuck cares?

1) Establishment (((psychologists))) invented pedophilla as a disorder.

pedophilia (n.)
1900, from Greek pais (genitive paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving" see -phile). First attested in an abstract of a report by Krafft-Ebing.

2) Age of Consent laws are TOTALLY arbitrary, by place and time. It is all political opinion.

>the relationship between a child an an adult is categorically coercive because of the difference in power.
> coercive because of the difference in power.

That is news to women:

Woman are drawn to men taller and more powerful than them. In fact, short and weak men repulse women.

Breast feeding is rape.

I'd rather a pedophile have a doll locked in his basement than an actual child, but I'd also prefer him being raped in a jail cell than living as a civilian

But do you ever question why a power imbalance and an absence of life experience could lead to harm? Why is it necessary for an experience that was at the time perceived as positive, to later be reconceptualized into a traumatic event? It is more likely that this is due to cultural factors, like sexuality being seen as a "corrupting" influence, rather than it being due to an inborn mechanism which causes retroactive trauma.

If sexual pleasure was inherently harmful to children (even mentally harmful) then why are they able to feel it? Analogies to sugar and hard-drugs don't work here, since these are not natural substances and sexual pleasure has been around since before we were even humans.

"not an argument" is a high school debate club retreat akin to asking "why?" over and over again. you understand exactly why i think what i think, i've stated it very clearly and it's a very mainstream argument. if the only argument you will accept is a logical A->B->C argument, then you can always reject anything because all arguments descend from axioms and axiomatic systems cannot prove themselves, this is very basic formal logic. there will always be some axiomatic statements like "sex without consent is rape" and "consent is not possible when one party has immense power over the other," and if you flippantly refuse those statements then you can't be persuaded of anything. that's normal, but don't mistake it for you being especially rational, it's not hard to reject an axiom. but if you reject most axioms that other people accept then maybe they will think you are a sociopath

>tickling has no long-term consequences.
The tickling argument was not about consequences, it was about coercion, but since sex does not necessarily lead to long term consequences, the argument is not too dissimilar.

> sex has long-term consequences, some factual (e.g. society will look on it a certain way and it will have certain consequences -- whether or not you think this is just they are factual consequences for the child), some more subjective, i.e. emotional consequences
Ok? The studies I am mentioning appear to show many if not most children who consented to sex did not have these consequences in any significant way.

> a failure to understand that is a catastrophic failure of your understanding of other people's emotions and yes, is sociopathic in the classical sense.
You're assuming sex alone is somehow sociopathic, and selecting out pedophiles on purpose because of a preconceived bias against them. In reality, nearly every aspect of childhood has long-ranging emotional consequences. Consensual sexual activity, if it is harmful at all, is far less damaging than being yelled at or being let down by your parents.

The argument about knowing and an equitable relationship are silly. Since sex is not inherently harmful it does not require any special attention unless coercion or rape are assumed.

>m sure you've heard these things a million times and continuously reject them. i'll repeat that rejecting arguments is something you can do forever and is not particularly hard to do.
Why are you arguing then? You don't appear to have any interest in changing your mind based on reason and evidence. You have a dogmatic belief.

Made Peadosexuality Legal Again.

>Legalizing pedophilic relationships would make it tremendously easy for abusive coercive people to abuse and coerce children, would it not?
In what way? Legalizing would also come with normalization is some tangible form. We could educate people how not to coerce children. Rape would still be illegal.

Do you think the law as it stands actually prevents rape of children? No, it covers it up, because children are taught to be ashamed of sex and don't come forward.

>Tell me, what possible benefits would legalizing pedophilic relationships offer to society that would outweigh this tremendous risk? Is it really worth it to satisfy the fantasies of a few basement dwelling neckbeards?
Its not just a few people, its a significant portion of mankind. And the benefits would be ceasing the massive taboo which would allow kids not to be taught retroactively that what they experiences is terrible and they should be ashamed and hurt forever.

uh yeah

dont think very highly of that frankly

freedom.. liberty.. if we're gonna draw a line at fucking DMT and mushrooms I say we shluld definitely draw a fucking line here as well

and no, a child sex doll wont stop them molesting children because the motive isn't the physical form, it's some deep dark evil shit

the entire harm exists in how the child and society might understand the event. some of the harms are emotional, i.e. they exist in the child (for whatever reasons), others are factual in that they're imposed on the child by society (whether or not that is just).

if you are arguing that a radically different society would raise children in such a way that sex is not a problem, well, that's hypothetical and more importantly very different from the present reality. in the present reality the harm is quite plausible. people believe that it is sufficiently plausible such that it touches on the human rights of the child, such that some kind of intervention is necessary to protect the child's rights. that is where the argument stops, and honestly that's sufficient.

if you want to attack that argument then in my opinion the most logical way is to show that there IS no possibility of harm, which i think you will have a lot of trouble doing given that we are indundated with case studies of harmful child rape. if you want to argue that there OUGHT to be no harm, well, that's teleological and ultimately has very little to do with the present

>and if you flippantly refuse those statements then you can't be persuaded of anything.
I didn't flippantly refuse them, I rationally refuted them. If you want to make a counter-argument, be my guest. Relying on the opinions of the majority is not rational. Your axiomatic system also once supported things such as slavery.

There are lines all societies must draw and child rape is well beyond where ours should be. Nobody is interested in your relativistic rationalizations.

t. child rape victim

A good question.

services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/FSD2943/PIP/cbF2943e.pdf

Looking at page 270, we can see that over 40% of 'victims' of 'child sexual abuse' describe their experiences as positive, with over a quarter stating they were 'very positive'. In Susan Clancy's book 'The Trauma Myth' (Clancy was forced to leave her research position at Harvard and go work in Nicaragua after publishing this book), it is concluded that the majority of 'victims' were willing participants at the time, and that they often later feel harmed due to feeling like they are abnormal, and feeling guilt for having participated in their own 'abuse'.

So the current laws and social hysteria appear to amplify or even create harm. What we need to do is calm down, and be able to talk about this rationally. After that, we can consider making the laws more flexible, if we are able to do it without lessening protection against actual abuse.

"Islam is a religion of peace" could also be an axiomatic statement. Should that not be challenged by empirical observations and rational arguments? Some axiomatic 'truths' are unwarranted.

You are refusing to engage in rational arguments made against your positions. You think imposing your moralistic philosophy and ideas onto children is justified because of how society thinks, even though its harmful. You are also throwing out your own opinions and then when you can't make a case further you say the argument stops there. You should just admit you don't want to actually use reason here.

>the human rights of the child
Such as willfully engaging in a basic biological function for pleasure?

>which i think you will have a lot of trouble doing given that we are indundated with case studies of harmful child rape
I gave you a study which had consent as a criteria. Most studies are useless because they don't differentiate between rape, coercion and consent, your belief that all sex between adults and children is rape is circular reasoning that doesn't let you take in new ideas and data.

>In reality, nearly every aspect of childhood has long-ranging emotional consequences.
yes, and it's clear to everyone that there's a competing bi-optimization between the rights of the child and the rights of the parent to raise their child as they see fit. a bi-optimization problem can never be satisfied, so we have to make a judgement about when it's appropriate for the law to intervene, and this will always take the form of society imposing a certain way of raising the child on the parents, just as society imposes a certain evaluation of the sex act, and of every action taken towards the child to determine whether or not to intervene. you're being judged, this is normal. broadly, society does not agree with you that yelling is more harmful than rape, and has intervened

>Why are you arguing then? You don't appear to have any interest in changing your mind based on reason and evidence. You have a dogmatic belief.
i've put a lot of information on your screen and i would be happy if it persuaded you. the fact that it did not does not put me in bad faith, my reasoning has been very straightforward and followed directly from fairly bland and widely held beliefs. the fact that you reject those axioms does not make them dogmas. all formal logic is axiomatic. what do you believe? questioning a rational over and over just makes you a ghost

this could go back and forth forever for reasons i've already stated, so what i will mention is that i don't read studies in domains in which i am not an expert, because in the domain in which i am an expert (which is STEM, i won't be more specific) i know that at least 80% of studies are poisoned and deceptive garbage despite peer review, and i can't imagine it's any better in the social sciences.

some people find it persuasive to vomit up a paper so i won't tell you not to do it, but if you're seeking truth and you're not a field expert who is capable of evaluating methods, etc. then it's almost certainly foolhardy

>Should that not be challenged by empirical observations and rational arguments?
absolutely it should. that is what i am trying to say -- you have a great burden ahead of you if you want to prove this. telling me what i believe is wrong is very easy and does not make you uniquely rational, anyone can do it. vomiting up a study in a field in which neither of us is a domain expert is hardly much work, i can find several papers to support both positions in about 2 minutes on google scholar.

the actual burden that is ahead of you is to craft an affirmative argument in favor of your position that will be widely held as persuasive. that will be very difficult, so difficult that i think you will find it impossible. turning this around on me and saying that i'm the irrational one for having a perspective that is widely held to be true is 100% pure projection of your own situation. the burden is quite clearly on you and i don't think you can make an argument that other people will accept, i think all you can do is tell other people their beliefs are wrong. that's easy

>a bi-optimization problem can never be satisfied, so we have to make a judgement about when it's appropriate for the law to intervene
And I'm arguing, through logical positions and with evidence, that intervening against consensual sex is not good. You're engaging in a complex argument about bi-optimization to defend basic use of reason against your positions. This should tell you your basic positions are irrational.

>broadly, society does not agree with you that yelling is more harmful than rape, and has intervened
And you try to make that into a defense, which doesn't work. If laws aren't based on reason and instead ideology and public opinion, they can be changed along with public opinion. From your position, immoral laws would've never change. Slavery would still be extant.

"All sex between kids and adult is rape" is not a logical position, despite how much you insist it is, its a use of circular reasoning and irrational. It does not permit the inflow of new evidence and reason.
>all formal logic is axiomatic
And yet you can't see you're stuck inside of circular reasoning?

You're trying to engage in a debate about the nature of logic to get away from the fact that your arguments in and of themselves are poor and irrational.

The paper I linked concerns a survey of over 11.000 children/young teens in Finland (6th-9th graders). You don't need to be a researcher or a psychologist to understand these data, as it is simply what the minors themselves reported. And which kind of argument do I need to craft? I believe I've already made a strong case for the current legal and cultural climate often amplifies or creates harm. The natural consequence of this is that we reconsider these things. I am not advocating for a "free for all" where it's acceptable for adults to hit on elementary schoolers, but for social norms and laws which allow for more nuance.

Mexico is not sending us their best people, I can tell you that.

What's your opinion on people buying sex dolls that look like children?

Should they be banned?

Should the government be allowed to track purchasers of these types of products to conduct further investigations on their hard drives to see if they hold child pornography?

Should vigilante justice be allowed in certain circumstances?

i'm trying to engage in a debate about the nature of logic to get away from the old trick where someone demands "evidence" of belief, and as "evidence" of his own belief links some random paper that neither of us is qualified to evaluate, let alone the meta-position of the whole body of research. i can't provide you evidence to that standard because i'm not a social researcher in this domain, and frankly you can't meet that standard either and it's tiresome you pretend otherwise. from my experience in other research domains, i'm confident that if we were both experts we would be having a conceptually similar conversation about epistemology, methodology, conclusions, etc.

ultimately a consensus emerges -- even in science, in which research goes through peer review and still manages to produce conflicting results. in this particular case the consensus that has emerged is quite clear. if you want to overturn that consensus then you need a very potent argument. what i am trying to tell you is that questioning my rationality and adherence to "dogma" is not a potent argument, it is a trivial argument that can be made in every case, as is googling up a study. you are trying to hold me to a standard i can't realistically meet, and you're projecting your own situation, in which the real standard is persuasion and i've already met it. you're the one who lacks an argument that persuades others

>tfw you love 2D loli