This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?
The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?
I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.
I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.
Do not try to mud the water by making it a case of general philosophy.
Do not talk about gays/women when pedophilia is discussed, unless you think there’s direct connection between gays/women and pedophiles.
Pedophilia is evil, there’s nothing good about that, no redeeming value, nothing. It should be perceived as such, treated, possibly burnt with fire, not allowed or encouraged in any way. Such an approach does not limit anyone’s rights. It’s saving the rights of those that can’t defend themselves. No rocket physics here.
Im not sure if you are trolling, uneducated, or blind to critical assessment of two sides.
Your last paragraph was the exact viewpoint on the gay community, interracial marriage, hell even marrying different branches of Christianity was viewed the same way for centuries. We developed the same viewpoint to all of it - if it doesn’t harm others, not illegal (masterbation, role-playing and fanitising among two of more adults is legal) and its consenting for both just do it where its not our concern. My wife could dress up as a schoolgirl all she wants (or younger if it was our thing) and it’s perfectly legal and moral until i try stick my dick i ln an actual one.
The difference here is 1, no child can consent (morally, legally or maturity to do so) and 2, AI and sex toys don’t need consent.
There’s nothing trollish, undereducated or blind about opposing the idea of “cutting some slack” to the most twisted and dangerous elements that is trying to invade the society.
On the other hand, an attempt to compare gays/women to pedophiles certainly does warrant raising a brow.
If you’re planning to continue with apples & oranges tactic, you may as well stop now - I won’t waste time on manipulations that are meant to support pedophilia apologetics.
Fuuuuck, what am I doing here. Again, I really am not trying to defend pedophilia, but your stance is just based on being pedantic and arrogant.
“The most evil.” Right. If you think someone having pedophile tendencies is the most evil someone can be or do… you know nothing about the world.
Good discussion, though. I wouldn’t want to be friends with a pedophile, much less being in their shoes. But adults fucking dolls, you know, those made out of plastic and rubber, shouldn’t be regulated by people like you.
Im feeling disgusting defending this as well, but need to remember that working to avoid harm and critically analyzing two sides means thinking through the eyes of the other party. Im just happy ours is a philosophical discussion.
To counter the other person, whats more evil - fucking a kid or a small sex doll dressed as one? If my wife pulled out her old high-school uniform and fucked me its perfectly ok, but when she got it at 15 it wouldn’t be. Fucking a sex doll is ok, but its illegal if they pretend its underage (pretty sure no one keeps one around for 18 years). The arguement is literally do we allow someone to fuck a piece of silicon that resembles a kid in their own home where we would have no idea and couldn’t stop them anyway, or just tell them to “hold it in” until they find another way?
Where is this illegal? And if it’s not illegal everywhere, then do the places in which they make it illegal have real, universal merit to do so?
Of all your arguments, this is the most puzzling all things considered. So, if you fuck a doll of a middle-aged woman that was made 4 years ago, are you committing a crime because the doll is technically 4 years old?
Sorry to first one, typo. Should have been a question, not a statement.
The point with the last is that silicon isn’t a person - you can’t say “this one is ok but this one isnt”.
Ah, sorry. We don’t disagree, then.
If someone fucks a fleshlight, some religious people might see it as immoral, but in the end, they’re just fucking an object.
Give the fleshlight the shape of a doll, and then the same people who didn’t have a problem before, all of a sudden they do. Why? I surely don’t want my fleshlights to look like kids, but I won’t judge anybody who do - and never harms actual kids in any way.
(Can companies make sex dolls that look like Margot Robbie already, please?)
Id like one that looks like a cardio bunny… especially if they can spot me as well. Double bonus.
Y’all seem to have reached an impasse here in the realm of pure morality, so lets try something a little more grounded (and surely less controversial!) Political application. I won’t even slippery slope, I promise.
Lets suppose your favored political party has gained power (however briefly) and is able to push through legislation banning the consumption of any media depicting an immature person in a sexual context, regardless of whether it involved an actual child.
What would enforcement look like? You can’t simply follow the traffickers or CPS reports, as criminals could simply create the media for themselves on a private harddrive (say by drawing a picture or writing erotica) so law enforcement would need some way to investigate any citizen’s home and private spaces for potential contraband.
Do you think that there is a government currently on this planet clear enough of corrupted elements to avoid abusing this power to target their own political enemies?
Good way to move to a more productive area of discussion, but sounds like they just want to block you.
You’re asking me to solve a problem definitely well above my AND your paygrade and you know it. I can provide a few solutions, but they will be neither easy, nor to everyone’s liking. There’s also problem of the diversity of the world - what works for one US’ state, won’t for their neighbor. What may be accepted by one European country, won’t be by their neighbors.
I see no merit in such a discussion, it’s a waste of time.
The question as stated in OP is, in contrast, very straightforward and I’m happy to provide my opinion. Which I did, and am glad to defend.