Banning Child-Like Love Dolls & Fictional Material Has an Opposite Effect

[Aspire6]

This is just something I have consistently seen with a few other MAPs regarding places that are banning any visual depiction (including cartoons) and/or classifying child-like love dolls as "child sexual abuse material" and feel like it's rather commonplace. I do not have any actual "research" to back this up, just opinions and actual experiences from other MAPs. I would love to see actual research on this though, be really curious to see.

Banning these victim-less and harm-free sexual outlets, specifically fictional sexual material and child-like love dolls, only pushes MAPs who otherwise only used those previously legal outlets to now seek out interactions with minors to try and be "legally" sexually fulfilled. This does not mean they would be at risk of making a "contact" offense, just rather seeking to be physically near, work with, or interact frequently with minors in their AoA. I certainly can feel somewhat sexually fulfilled by interacting with minors in my AoA and later fantasizing about them in private.

Governments be sure to pat yourself on the back, you're achieving the opposite of what you desire in the realm of "child protection". Sure you can work to ban these outlets, but you can't ever ban us from existing. That is what happens when you mix personal disgust backed by no research into the laws. Congratulations!

Curious to hear your opinions too on this sort of idea.

[Not Forever]

[...] you're achieving the opposite of what you desire [...]

I think their desire is to exploit a topic that has a lot of hysteria to get votes... if we're talking about states, if we're talking about organizations, we're simply talking about money.

[G@yWad69]

[...] you're achieving the opposite of what you desire [...]

I think their desire is to exploit a topic that has a lot of hysteria to get votes... if we're talking about states, if we're talking about organizations, we're simply talking about money.

And also to throw more people into already overcrowded jails to make more money from funding. Its not about protecting children and it never was. Its about maintaing the status quo and punishing those who deviate from the norm

[G@yWad69]

Its like, having a lil girl doll would be such a great subsitute to real lolis. I was so excited to, getting to dress a girl doll up in cute clothes and accesories, getting to watch tv together, getting to play pretend and have tea parties with her, getting to snuggle her at bed and braid her hair, and of course, getting to scissor and eat her pussy out. I was saving little girl clothes to buy online and everything. I actually felt motivated to put in the work and save up the money. But NOOOOOO, they just HAD to be illegal in my state. Now where will I get cunny from when I want cunny? Porn and sexual imagery of kids? Real little girls? Its like they WANT us to offend just so that they can lock us up, throw away the key, and get more funding from the general public for being “hard on crime” and catching “plastic rapists” dont even get me fucking started on how ai children, literal fucking robots, pixels on a screen, are somehow “abused” and “traumatized” and “groomed”. Its this type of bullshit that radicilazed me into being pro c. If they were reasonable and just stuck to the “its for the children” defense I would have been anti C and on their side. But they got greedy and started claiming “its for the pixels on a screen” “its for the dolls” “its for the robots”. It was never about “the children” and it never will be. They just want to maintain the “innocent/ignorant easily controlled child servant” role that minors are forced into, and giving minors bodily autonomy and the right to choose their partners and how and who they will recieve sexual pleasure from breaks all this.

Imagine this. A young lady of 12 is controlled by her parents, she isnt allowed to explore her devloping sense of identity, she is treated like an inferior “child” despite maturing into a young woman, she is routinely restricted on how she dresses, what she watches, who she hangs out with, even the information she recieves about her OWN BODY for her “protection”(control). She is ignored and dismissed as a spoiled brat who has the terrible evil desire of being seen as a human being, not a mere “child”. To be an equal. Then an older man comes into her life and actually validates her. He validates her desires and opinions. He doesnt control how she dresses, who she hangs out with, what she watches, and actually tells her the info she needs about her growing body and the outside world to which she is a member of. He validates the fact that she is not a mere “child” and a growing young women who needs to be free and independent to be fully functional. He respects her bodily autnomy, including her sexual wants and needs, something that all minors naturally posses that is routinely ignored and shamed out of them for being “innapropriate”. He sees her as an adult, he sees her as an equal. He sees her as a human being to love and relate to, not a “child”.

This completely turns the “power dynamic” that antis are obssessed with. They arent mad at MAPs for “abusing” the power dynamic, they are mad at MAPs for getting rid of the power dynamic that is used to control and abuse minors in the first place, at least in our adultxminor relationships. They are mad at us for seeing children as valid and capable human beings, just ad valid and capable as any other potential romantic or sexual partner, and for that we must be punished, and severely. Anything that even hints at the erasure of the “innocent meek asexual easily corruptedand stupid subservient child” and the “dominant all powerful all ruling adult” is evil for having the audacity of changing the staus quo and validating us and our relationships, and therefore must be severely punished.

[Bookshelf]

It's more than enough proof that the laws aren't made to protect anyone, and that the majority of their arguments are to justify a baseless bigotry.

If this was all about protecting kids because getting touched up is inherently harmful, the only laws they'd be passing would be laws that are designed to prevent just that. The fact that they're criminalizing any and all outlets that simply express MAP sexuality, especially outlets that would give a would-be offender a place to unload without involving any real children, means their intent is to attack what they consider a deviant sexuality— not to protect children. This devalues claims that anything we do is harmful to begin with, as it's evidently coming from a bias position.

[RoosterDance]

I would love to see actual research on this though, be really curious to see.

There was a fairly recent (2022) study done on ownership of child sex dolls. I've yet to read it in full myself, but here you go.