Child sex dolls.

[Bogan]

Things are a bit slow on Political Animal at the moment. This topic should stir you lot up.

Today's news item reports that NSW Police have arrested and charged a man from the Riverina district with importing a child sex doll.

Details about the case remain sketchy, especially the age group of the doll. Recently in the USA, a man was arrested for possessing a child sex doll that was a baby, which seemed to indicate a sexual preference that is indicative of outright serious mental instability.

But the usual standard for prosecution is that for a crime to occur, first there must be a victim. One could argue that a person exhibiting a preference for sex with children by owning a child sex doll is a danger to the community, and therefore should be prosecuted anyway. But that presupposes guilt before the act. In Christian culture, temptation is not a sin. Many people have odd sexual preferences but may never act upon them because of the Crimes Act or social disapproval. That does not mean that they should be publically humiliated or even prosecuted for having what the majority consider unacceptable sexual tastes.

Similarly, just because some people do have strange sexual preferences, the usual standard of tacit acceptance by an enlightened public, is that whatever adults do in their own bedrooms, (provided that children or even animals are not involved) is their own business and not the state's.

While arguments which support the prosecution of people for the possession of banned items, (ie a machine gun) are valid, there is no reason to believe that a man who just happens to have a sexual preference with minors must automatically be a danger to children if he possesses a child sex doll. The man in question may have lived a long blameless life and never had any intention of harming or molesting any child. His possession of a child sex doll was for him, a harmless way of fulfilling his innermost fantasies without harming anyone.

Thoughts please.

[Texan]

I don't know if it should be against the law, but that freak will never be allowed near my family.

[billy the kid]

I could probably draw a parallel to the charge of "house breaking implements in possession"which
is laid if an offender is apprehended in the middle of the night about to break into premises...
If he was driving round the street during the day he isn't committing a crime if those implements
are in his car..but apprehend him at night etc...different story...
I don't think the creep with the sex doll has committed a crime, but I certainly wouldn't be
buying him a beer any time soon, nor would I take my eyes off my kids if he lived nearby....

[Black Orchid]

But the usual standard for prosecution is that for a crime to occur, first there must be a victim. One could argue that a person exhibiting a preference for sex with children by owning a child sex doll is a danger to the community, and therefore should be prosecuted anyway. But that presupposes guilt before the act. In Christian culture, temptation is not a sin. Many people have odd sexual preferences but may never act upon them because of the Crimes Act or social disapproval. That does not mean that they should be publically humiliated or even prosecuted for having what the majority consider unacceptable sexual tastes.

Presupposing guilt before the act would be plausible if he was found with sexual pictures of children but being in possession of a child sex doll puts him clearly in the 'action' category.

I doubt he could be prosecuted but he should certainly be on a watch list and such lists should be readily available to the public at large.

Similarly, just because some people do have strange sexual preferences, the usual standard of tacit acceptance by an enlightened public, is that whatever adults do in their own bedrooms, (provided that children or even animals are not involved) is their own business and not the state's.

Agreed and I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes but his isn't about consenting adults or animals.

While arguments which support the prosecution of people for the possession of banned items, (ie a machine gun) are valid, there is no reason to believe that a man who just happens to have a sexual preference with minors must automatically be a danger to children if he possesses a child sex doll. The man in question may have lived a long blameless life and never had any intention of harming or molesting any child. His possession of a child sex doll was for him, a harmless way of fulfilling his innermost fantasies without harming anyone.

Being in possession of a child sex doll clearly puts him in the danger category imo. As I said, if he just had pictures the argument could be used that he is suppressing his urges and could pose no danger but having the doll to action his fetishes makes his intent to act stronger than his will to suppress and that makes him a danger to society.

[Bogan]

Billy the Kid wrote

I could probably draw a parallel to the charge of "house breaking implements in possession"which
is laid if an offender is apprehended in the middle of the night about to break into premises...
If he was driving round the street during the day he isn't committing a crime if those implements
are in his car..but apprehend him at night etc...different story...

I don't think that is a correct metaphor. The only reason why a person would carry house breaking equipment is because he intends to break into houses, not to act out his fantasies by breaking into his own. But a sex doll can be seen as a way to satisfy sexual urges without the need for a partner, child, minor, or adult. It does not automatically mean that the person who has sexual proclivities towards children or minors has any intent to fulfil his perversions with real children or minors.

Billy the kid wrote

I don't think the creep with the sex doll has committed a crime, but I certainly wouldn't be
buying him a beer any time soon, nor would I take my eyes off my kids if he lived nearby....

I don't think he committed a crime either. There was no victim. And whereas I might find his behaviour reprehensible, I also think that homosexuality, bondage, and sado- Masochistic sex is reprehensible too. I would prefer to keep my distance from any person who engages in any of these acts. But I don't think that any of these sexual perversions should be illegal, if done between consenting adults or sex dolls. There is no victim.

[Texan]

I don't know if it should be against the law, but that freak will never be allowed near my family.

That goes for the creepy realistic adult sex dolls also. That goes beyond imagination into lala land and they are a sexual predator waiting to happen. I don't think you can charge them with a crime, but I wouldn't let a sex doll owner anywhere near my wife, kids, grandkids........ They wouldn't be in my social circles. Of course, it's not like they have public sex doll registries, so we may not know about it. Sometimes you can tell by their behavior.

I've known the former owner of my company since I was about 8 years old. He has a cousin, Jim, who always followed him at his business ventures and was a nice enough guy. I've also known this guy since I was about 8 years old. When I was old enough I grew up playing basketball with them every week with my father. Jim wasn't very competent, but his cousin took care of him and gave him jobs that he could handle. I was in St Louis with Jim for work and we were eating at a diner. He got all googly eyed over our waitress. She looked to be about 50 and wasn't ugly but wasn't anybody incredibly attractive. He was a newlywed at the time and I thought it was odd that he would act this way. A couple of years later, Jim was busted for molesting his 2 step granddaughters. Jim is in prison now. My former boss cut him off from all support and he'll probably die in prison. My point is, you never really know who you are around.

[Bogan]

Black Orchid wrote

Presupposing guilt before the act would be plausible if he was found with sexual pictures of children but being in possession of a child sex doll puts him clearly in the 'action' category.

Possessing child pornography is considered illegal because there is a victim. It is presumed in law that the child or minor had no choice but to go along with what the adults had planned for them. And even if they did so willingly, as children or minors, they are considered innocent of a crime by virtue of the fact that they were too young to make an informed decision, and they may very well regret their youthful indiscretions in later life, and consider themselves exploited.

Black Orchid wrote

I doubt he could be prosecuted but he should certainly be on a watch list and such lists should be readily available to the public at large

He is being prosecuted. Would you put people on watch lists who engage in bondage behaviour and sado masochism with other adults or adult sex dolls? If not, why not?

Black orchid wrote

Being in possession of a child sex doll clearly puts him in the danger category imo.

Being in possession of bondage and sado masochistic paraphernalia would put people who own such sex toys in the danger category as well. At least in my mind. Bondage pornography and equipment especially. The FBI has investigated abduction/bondage murders where the perpetrator was found to be acting out the lurid stories he had read in bondage magazines, in which the finest restraint equipment was advertised.

Black Orchid quote.

As I said, if he just had pictures the argument could be used that he is suppressing his urges and could pose no danger but having the doll to action his fetishes makes his intent to act stronger than his will to suppress and that makes him a danger to society.

Why would not a sex doll help him suppress and control his urges? He gets what he wants without hurting anybody. Hitler invented the idea of blow up sex dolls. That was because for many of his millions of young soldiers, they had been many years without any contact with females at all. His own generals warned him that unless some way was found to satisfy their boys natural sexual urges, all the boys in the Wehrmacht would start freaking out with each other.

[sprintcyclist]

I don't know if it should be against the law, but that freak will never be allowed near my family.

That goes for the creepy realistic adult sex dolls also. That goes beyond imagination into lala land and they are a sexual predator waiting to happen. I don't think you can charge them with a crime, but I wouldn't let a sex doll owner anywhere near my wife, kids, grandkids........ They wouldn't be in my social circles. Of course, it's not like they have public sex doll registries, so we may not know about it. Sometimes you can tell by their behavior.

I've known the former owner of my company since I was about 8 years old. He has a cousin, Jim, who always followed him at his business ventures and was a nice enough guy. I've also known this guy since I was about 8 years old. When I was old enough I grew up playing basketball with them every week with my father. Jim wasn't very competent, but his cousin took care of him and gave him jobs that he could handle. I was in St Louis with Jim for work and we were eating at a diner. He got all googly eyed over our waitress. She looked to be about 50 and wasn't ugly but wasn't anybody incredibly attractive. He was a newlywed at the time and I thought it was odd that he would act this way. A couple of years later, Jim was busted for molesting his 2 step granddaughters. Jim is in prison now. My former boss cut him off from all support and he'll probably die in prison. My point is, you never really know who you are around.

True, it is hard to really know who you are dealing with.
People of this ilk (or other obsession) are always 'hiding', 'planning' and 'thinking'. So they have all the answers and normal responses ready.
Junkies can hide their habit quite well for a very long time.

I am glad he will probably die in prison

[sprintcyclist]

................ Hitler invented the idea of blow up sex dolls. That was because for many of his millions of young soldiers, they had been many years without any contact with females at all. His own generals warned him that unless some way was found to satisfy their boys natural sexual urges, all the boys in the Wehrmacht would start freaking out with each other. ................

Make love not war

[Black Orchid]

He is being prosecuted. Would you put people on watch lists who engage in bondage behaviour and sado masochism with other adults or adult sex dolls? If not, why not?

No! Because of the the key word "adults".

Being in possession of bondage and sado masochistic paraphernalia would put people who own such sex toys in the danger category as well. At least in my mind. Bondage pornography and equipment especially. The FBI has investigated abduction/bondage murders where the perpetrator was found to be acting out the lurid stories he had read in bondage magazines, in which the finest restraint equipment was advertised.

Again you are talking about adults with adults and not children. Although there may be isolated cases, the majority of people who engage in bondage do so with others of like and consenting minds. Not all paedophiles act on their sexual interest of children but a great many more do than those who might watch a bondage video and then go out on a murder spree.

Why would not a sex doll help him suppress and control his urges? He gets what he wants without hurting anybody. Hitler invented the idea of blow up sex dolls. That was because for many of his millions of young soldiers, they had been many years without any contact with females at all. His own generals warned him that unless some way was found to satisfy their boys natural sexual urges, all the boys in the Wehrmacht would start freaking out with each other.

Yet again you are talking adult on adult. I couldn't care less if someone has an adult sex doll they use to satiate their urges and desires. The line is drawn for me at CHILDREN!

Gravitation from the visual to the physical is a progression not a regression//suppression.