Are child sex dolls unethical?

[Basman]

Here's a fun little moral quandary I encountered recently to chew on. Are child sex dolls immoral. These are about a meter tall sex doll that can appear relatively life like like, some have features like realistic fake skin than can be warmed by internal electronics and voice modules.

Most of you are already like "hell no", but I can't see there directly being an ethical issue inherently with the concept despite how creepy and deeply taboo it is. For one, who's getting hurt her? That is as far as I can see the crux of the issue and people arguing against will justify their attitude by arguing that it does cause harm. Arguments like it normalizes pedophilia (appeal to normativity), various slippery slope arguments. On the hand, arguing for child sex dolls hinges on it not being harmful or potentially preventing harm.

There is however a lack of data to support either side empirically so this debate comes down to ones attitude (doesn't stop governments from banning these dolls).

Honestly, I think the majority of outrage is cultural. Consider than in many medieval and ancient pedophilia wasn't viewed negatively and there didn't existed the distinction between minor and adult like it does today (which arguably doesn't coincide with biology when you consider how common the term "teen is in porn searches). Not making a moral argument here but pointing out cultural bias.

At the end of the day its just a doll, right? These creeps are as a good as dead to gene pool anyway so who cares?

[Leo Gura]

This is the creepiest thing ever.

Imagine someone discovers your cum-soaked child sex doll under your bed.

Edited October 26 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

We need to mass produce them at scale and make them available for a monthly subscription for specific features. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

It’s a decent idea, because it would allow pedophiles to release their sexual urges without hurting real children.

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

it would allow pedophiles to release their sexual urges without hurting real children.

Don't kid yourself.

[Buck Edwards]

Kinda equivalent to child porn. 

There was a woman who was arrested for breastfeeding her child to show it to creepy men and they would pay her to view her breastfeeding. She was arrested on child porn charges. 

Employing/using  anything related to children can be considered child porn. So be careful.

And child pornography charges are quite serious. 

Whether you're masturbating to children's photos or live-looking child sex dolls, it might be considered similar and illegal. 

 

[lostingenosmaze]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is the creepiest thing ever.

I don't know, man, I mean this is kinda creepy too:

On 12/30/2021 at 11:18 AM, Leo Gura said:

For most of human history people have been fucking from the point of sexual maturity, which is like 12-14 years old.

And even younger when you consider that most marriages were arranged and lifespans were low.

Now people will call me a pedophile, but those are just some basic facts of human biology and history.

People take for granted how strong cultural and moral norms are and how much they have shifted over time.

I am not making any prescriptions here.

But debating the morality of pedophilia is a very poor choice of topic for a Spiral Wizard type. You are not going to win that game because it's way too loaded.

It's like: "Hey guys, let me introduce you to stage Yellow, where you develop empathy for pedophiles! Who's eager to join me?!"

But overall what this guy gets right is that reality is Perfection/Love, so hating and criticizing others is a form of stupidity. He doesn't yet comprehend how deep the Love goes. There is literally no difference between a pedophile and a saint. But good luck convincing Vaush and his audience of that.

Debates about morality are stupid because badness simply doesn't exist. It's just a relative survival bias. And this is not understood by people who debate morality.

 

[zurew]

On 2021. 12. 30. at 8:18 PM, Leo Gura said:

For most of human history people have been fucking from the point of sexual maturity, which is like 12-14 years old.

And even younger when you consider that most marriages were arranged and lifespans were low.

Now people will call me a pedophile, but those are just some basic facts of human biology and history.

People take for granted how strong cultural and moral norms are and how much they have shifted over time.

I am not making any prescriptions here.

But debating the morality of pedophilia is a very poor choice of topic for a Spiral Wizard type. You are not going to win that game because it's way too loaded.

It's like: "Hey guys, let me introduce you to stage Yellow, where you develop empathy for pedophiles! Who's eager to join me?!"

But overall what this guy gets right is that reality is Perfection/Love, so hating and criticizing others is a form of stupidity. He doesn't yet comprehend how deep the Love goes. There is literally no difference between a pedophile and a saint. But good luck convincing Vaush and his audience of that.

Debates about morality are stupid because badness simply doesn't exist. It's just a relative survival bias. And this is not understood by people who debate morality.

Most of this would be fine ,if it would only be a critique of absolute morality (establishing or making an argument why absolute / objective morality doesn't exist) , however Leo seem to be saying more than that. 

But regardless whether objective morality is true or not (I am happy to grant that there isn't objective morality) - Whats the issue with making subjective moral arguments? Its not like stage yellow doesn't have any kind of subjective values that it wants to work towards. For example, making society more developed is a subjective value and if one can make a deduction or an empirical argument how constraining pedophiles in certain ways can achieve that goal better compared to not constraining them, then thats a valid argument in the context of that value.

Also when Leo says there is no difference between a pedo and a saint, yeah sure in the context of objective morality,  but that doesn't really respond to the criticism that was made. The criticism is made in the context of subjective morality and there is no claim about objective morality. In other words, the criticism wasn't that pedophilia is bad in the context of objective morality, but that it is bad with respect to certain set of subjective values and goals.

So overall,  Leo's analysis there isn't very sophisticated and doesn't really say anything other than "there is no objective morality" and maybe a claim about a nature of reality, but that also doesn't respond to most  moral arguments since, most of them are about actions and not about the evaluation of the nature of things.

Edited October 26 by zurew

[Nemra]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't kid yourself.

@Leo Gura, then how are they gonna manage their horniness?

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Imagine someone discovers your cum-soaked child sex doll under your bed.

The doll doesn't have to be a child to be creepy.

Edited October 26 by Nemra

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

then how are they gonna manage their horniness?

It isn't clear what kind of effect it would have on them.

The same kind of question came up in the context of child porn,  it isnt clear at all whether it would have a good effect on them or would make them do more harm than good.

Finding out the empirics about this is obviously hardly, since even conducting the experiment is unethical in and of itself (unless maybe if we are talking about AI produced CP).

So basically if we are rigorous about this and don't just want to appeal to our intuitions , then we probably shouldn't make claims about what kind of effect(s) it would produce, cause they are highly speculative.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, lostingenosmaze said:

I don't know, man, I mean this is kinda creepy too:

It's not creepy. It is a claim about the relativity of morality. I often speak about existential matters which transcend human law or ideas of right and wrong.

Pedophilia is a criminal act and that's appropriate given the damage it can do.

Edited October 26 by Leo Gura

[El Zapato]

3 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Kinda equivalent to child porn. 

There was a woman who was arrested for breastfeeding her child to show it to creepy men and they would pay her to view her breastfeeding. She was arrested on child porn charges. 

Employing/using  anything related to children can be considered child porn. So be careful.

And child pornography charges are quite serious. 

Whether you're masturbating to children's photos or live-looking child sex dolls, it might be considered similar and illegal. 

 

I thought you were headed in that direction?  Have we seen a real picture of you?  You are an attractive lady but I'm not sure flaunting it on this media is a productive enterprise.

[Genius100x]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I often speak about existential matters which transcend human law or ideas of right and wrong.

... is a criminal act and that's appropriate given the damage it can do.

It has become too repetitive and boring. Still people get stuck in the same again and again.

It's common sense. 

Edited October 26 by Genius100x

[lostingenosmaze]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Pedophilia is a criminal act and that's appropriate given the damage it can do.

A thought is a criminal act or do you mean child molestation? Have to make a distinction because people keep mixing the two in the other pedophile thread. There do exist people who are into children (pedophilia) who incidentally, one way or another, have not sexually assaulted children.

Edited October 26 by lostingenosmaze

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Kinda equivalent to child porn. 

There was a woman who was arrested for breastfeeding her child to show it to creepy men and they would pay her to view her breastfeeding. She was arrested on child porn charges. 

Employing/using  anything related to children can be considered child porn. So be careful.

And child pornography charges are quite serious. 

Whether you're masturbating to children's photos or live-looking child sex dolls, it might be considered similar and illegal. 

 

Its not equivalent. They are dolls. What you are reacting against is the sexual fantasy of a pedophile. Not explicit consumption of child porn in of itself. I'm playing devil's advocate, but who is getting hurt here?

And yes it is largely illegal to own these dolls as far as I'm aware. I also believe that realistic depictions of children in sexual art is also illegal (there being a distinction between "realistic" and "loli" for instance).

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't kid yourself.

That would be the point of a child sex doll lol.

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Basman said:

They are dolls.

But they aren't female sex dolls. You are talking about child sex dolls if I'm not mistaken. 

[Basman]

1 minute ago, Buck Edwards said:

But they aren't female sex dolls. You are talking about child sex dolls if I'm not mistaken. 

Yes.

[Genius100x]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Its not equivalent. They are dolls. 

Bro it's not about having sex with a child doll. It's about your humanity. What are you being as a human? 

When you do this thing, it shows YOUR level of consciousness. Non living objects don't matter. 

A conscious human would never feel good in such acts. 

Edited October 26 by Genius100x

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Basman said:

Yes.

One way or another its similar to pedophilia because you're simply enacting the same desires pedophiles have, only difference being you're doing it on a child doll instead of a child. I mean that's how it looks. It's just weird anyway. 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, lostingenosmaze said:

A thought is a criminal act or do you mean child molestation?

Criminal thoughts are not illegal.

I don't have any radical views on pedophilia. Whatever the law says is mostly fine by me.

But if you want to discuss the epistemics, the metaphysics of it, that's another matter. There things get radical.

Edited October 26 by Leo Gura