Nobody wants to touch this topic with a ten foot pole, which makes it an inherently interesting topic for me.
These issues need to be discussed rationally and pragmatically by politicians to change laws in order to maximise child safety.
Unfortunately, a great deal of what seems to contribute to child safety is unintuitive and provokes a reactive disgust response.
There was a news article recently about an Australian importing a child-sized sex doll. This is illegal, but it really shouldn’t be.
The evidence seems to suggest adult-sized sex dolls reduce sexual violence, so why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different?
The sad fact is it is political suicide to suggest legalising child-sized sex dolls, even if it was statistically likely to reduce crimes against children.
Topics that people refuse to discuss are often ones where there’s the least logic in how society acts.
Like, the more open society is to talking about religion, the less religious the society tends to be. In ones where people are punished for blasphemy, people naturally either believe or claim to believe the religion completely.
why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least. But, it also seems plausible that someone might be able to satisfy their urges or work through something that way and be less dangerous. It’s the sort of thing that would need scientific study – but good luck getting funding to study it.
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least.
You make a great point, and one which has so much nuance than most people want to consider.
It’s similar to the discussion around lolicon/shotacon (hentai featuring girls/boys). Some people say that it acts as a pressure valve, and others say that it desensitises those which use it.
The nuanced point: to some it acts as a pressure valve, and to a smaller minority, it may desensitise and become a hazard for risk prone individuals.
This is basically true of any population; the subset of risk prone individuals is smaller than the one which rehabilitation efforts will facilitate.
Nobody wants to touch this topic with a ten foot pole, which makes it an inherently interesting topic for me.
These issues need to be discussed rationally and pragmatically by politicians to change laws in order to maximise child safety.
Unfortunately, a great deal of what seems to contribute to child safety is unintuitive and provokes a reactive disgust response.
There was a news article recently about an Australian importing a child-sized sex doll. This is illegal, but it really shouldn’t be.
The evidence seems to suggest adult-sized sex dolls reduce sexual violence, so why would a child-sized sex dolls be any different?
The sad fact is it is political suicide to suggest legalising child-sized sex dolls, even if it was statistically likely to reduce crimes against children.
Topics that people refuse to discuss are often ones where there’s the least logic in how society acts.
Like, the more open society is to talking about religion, the less religious the society tends to be. In ones where people are punished for blasphemy, people naturally either believe or claim to believe the religion completely.
The theory is probably that if someone is used to having sex with a child-like object, then it’s a smaller step to having sex with a child. Maybe that’s true. It seems plausible at least. But, it also seems plausible that someone might be able to satisfy their urges or work through something that way and be less dangerous. It’s the sort of thing that would need scientific study – but good luck getting funding to study it.
Thanks for making half my point :p
You make a great point, and one which has so much nuance than most people want to consider.
It’s similar to the discussion around lolicon/shotacon (hentai featuring girls/boys). Some people say that it acts as a pressure valve, and others say that it desensitises those which use it.
The nuanced point: to some it acts as a pressure valve, and to a smaller minority, it may desensitise and become a hazard for risk prone individuals.
This is basically true of any population; the subset of risk prone individuals is smaller than the one which rehabilitation efforts will facilitate.
It’s also similar to a point that playing violet video games make you a violent criminal. This one was studied as far as I know