Man jailed over attempt to import child sex doll

oil&gas said:

But I doubt they contain more
sexual violences than adult pornography.

Click to expand...

I think the idea is that it’s all violent in a sense, since all non-consensual sex is violent, and since children can’t consent to the acts. But I don’t know. Maybe what it depicts is visually violent in a lot of the cases, regardless of victim age.

Sometimes I accidentally come across stuff on Pornhub that seems pretty rapey - always staged - and I have mixed feelings about it. I guess if the ‘victim’ / sub really wants it that way, how can I complain. At the same time, it seems to cross lines that we shouldn’t cross if we’re in any way concerned that seeing something will cause certain people to do something.

dawnlee said:

uh except that child porn involves real children and this is silicone and plastic, victimizing no one.

Click to expand...

It's normalizing it. I'm of the opinion that anyone who exhibits this type of behavior is wired up so wrong they need to be removed from the gene pool.

And I firmly believe it wont end there. People crave real sex. It's a biological need for most.

And their drive precludes ever fulfilling that need.

The view I take on this is it's a slippery slope.

Who's to say that this individual may decide that a child sex doll isn't cutting it and go after an actual child?

SexB said:

The view I take on this is it's a slippery slope.

Who's to say that this individual may decide that a child sex doll isn't cutting it and go after an actual child?

Click to expand...

Who's to say the opposite? A similarly structured question to what you posed can be asked about any activity ever performed by anyone. That's why there needs to be objective (well, as close as it can be) data to support a decision to make something illegal. I have never seen data to suggest that pedophiles who buy child-like sex dolls are more likely to become sex offenders than pedophiles who did not buy them. That doesn't mean that this data will never exist, but making something illegal in a free country is a big step, and without supporting evidence, I don't believe it should be done.

Canadian courts are trying a case related a guy on the east coast who purchased a child love doll from Japan.

It is going on 5 years and is still before the courts.

http://www.thetelegram.com/news/st-johns-sex-doll-case-to-carry-over-into-2018-157283/

Ha! they wanted to ban the public when the doll was exhibited...

http://www.thetelegram.com/news/loc...-courtroom-when-sex-doll-is-exhibited-130157/

I think they were worried what would happen if the doll was called on the stand.

So if the child sex doll is outlawed, what stops a perv from buying any of the toys and dolls sold at Walmart meant for kids, and just using those?

Occasionally said:

So if the child sex doll is outlawed, what stops a perv from buying any of the toys and dolls sold at Walmart meant for kids, and just using those?

Click to expand...

I guess nothing.

But if your home is ever searched, and they find that you’ve somehow installed a Fleshlight in a cabbage patch doll, something tells me a flag will be raised.

The big question is if a guy purchases a doll is he more likely to then move on to a real child or less likely? Clearly the latter is a good reason to allow it, the former is scary.

Don't see how it can be illegal in any sense simply because it's not real. It's thought crime as someone pointed out or judgement of certain behaviors.

Butler1000 said:

If you knowingly use a pimped girl yes you are.

Click to expand...

Well, this guy didn't knowingly molest a real girl, so I'm not sure why that applies.

My argument is, if someone thinks this guy ordering a sex doll is somehow facilitating child abuse, that's very close to the argument that Johns participating in the hobby are facilitating trafficking. Personally, I don't think participating in the hobby, nor purchasing sex dolls is "wrong". I may find what this guy did distasteful if he did indeed buy it for it's child-like features, just as plenty of people find us distasteful for "exploiting" women in their view. Which is why it's important to stand on principle, not an emotional gut reaction.

rhuarc29 said:

Well, this guy didn't knowingly molest a real girl, so I'm not sure why that applies.

My argument is, if someone thinks this guy ordering a sex doll is somehow facilitating child abuse, that's very close to the argument that Johns participating in the hobby are facilitating trafficking. Personally, I don't think participating in the hobby, nor purchasing sex dolls is "wrong". I may find what this guy did distasteful if he did indeed buy it for it's child-like features, just as plenty of people find us distasteful for "exploiting" women in their view. Which is why it's important to stand on principle, not an emotional gut reaction.

Click to expand...

The first argument is BS, the second is iffy. There are a certain group of men who do see women, probably have a good idea they are trafficked and don't care. Suppose we go to the extreme and no man paid a woman for sex, no man kept a person locked up, and nobody exploited another? Trafficking would cease, would it not? There would be no money to be made from smuggling people, some against their will, to other places and then forcing them to pay you back, usually via the sex trade. I don't think most guys are ok with trafficking and if they felt it was the situation, they'd remove themselves and possibly report it. But participation in this industry unfortunately does result on some level in trafficking although I not saying we are directly responsible nor are we accepting it (in most cases).

If a person paints a naked child, is he guilty of making child porn? The answer is no, unless he is using an actual child. Similarly, having sex with a doll, no matter what it looks like and no matter how unsavoury to some, is not illegal. If the doll were in the form of an animal, would the person be charged with bestiality? I don't think so. I think if someone purchases a doll like this, definitely a little due diligence is needed to ensure they aren't using the real thing.

managee said:

Out of curiosity, where did you get the impression I “read a lot of articles about pedophilia” or have any kind of “pedo passion”?

Click to expand...

managee said:

There are a lot of articles on Vice about pedophilia, but I couldn’t find a single one containing the word “harmless.”

Click to expand...

Unless you were creating fiction or exaggeration the truth to prove your point - you had to carefully read a lot of articles about pedo's to note the word 'harmless' was never used. It certainly involves a dedication to the topic I'm unwilling to provide.

For the record (I think this was brought up before) - I was part of a cub scout troop that was victimized by a male pedophile leader. I read in the paper he was once again arrested for molesting boys while he was their hockey coach. If there was any chance this sick creep could have sat in his mother's basement molesting a plastic doll instead of real kids, you would have to be equally as sick to oppose it. (Yes, my personal opinion).

IM469 said:

Unless you were creating fiction or exaggeration the truth to prove your point - you had to carefully read a lot of articles about pedo's to note the word 'harmless' was never used. It certainly involves a dedication to the topic I'm unwilling to provide.

For the record (I think this was brought up before) - I was part of a cub scout troop that was victimized by a male pedophile leader. I read in the paper he was once again arrested for molesting boys while he was their hockey coach. If there was any chance this sick creep could have sat in his mother's basement molesting a plastic doll instead of real kids, you would have to be equally as sick to oppose it. (Yes, my personal opinion).

Click to expand...

This is literallly wrong, or my Google is better than yours.

With the search string I mentioned in #37, Google gave me three hits to articles on Vice, all with the returned “Missing” word (“harmless,” which appears in a lighter text colour in strikethrough next to the bolded word “Missing:”). I didn’t even have to click on the links, except for the one referred to in post #31 by C-M. That one I did click, and ran a quick keyword search.

I wouldn’t ordinarily care to waste time defend myself against the likes of some members of this crowd, but it seemed like such an obviously stupid stretch of a personal attack. Do we all really still use Altavista or Ask Jeeves for our searches? Or have we never noticed the ‘words omitted’ info Google so conveniently provides.

===

In any event, I get the impression this is just another attempt by C-M to drag us down one of his super super legit rabbit holes.

canada-man said:

vice media claims pedos like him are "harmless"

Click to expand...

Whatever

sempel said:

Suppose we go to the extreme and no man paid a woman for sex, no man kept a person locked up, and nobody exploited another? Trafficking would cease, would it not? There would be no money to be made from smuggling people, some against their will, to other places and then forcing them to pay you back, usually via the sex trade. I don't think most guys are ok with trafficking and if they felt it was the situation, they'd remove themselves and possibly report it. But participation in this industry unfortunately does result on some level in trafficking although I not saying we are directly responsible nor are we accepting it (in most cases).

If a person paints a naked child, is he guilty of making child porn? The answer is no, unless he is using an actual child. Similarly, having sex with a doll, no matter what it looks like and no matter how unsavoury to some, is not illegal. If the doll were in the form of an animal, would the person be charged with bestiality? I don't think so. I think if someone purchases a doll like this, definitely a little due diligence is needed to ensure they aren't using the real thing.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.

Ok, so I did some research on The Doll Forum website. I also looked at a dozen sites selling sex dolls. I call bogus on the authorities claiming it is a " child sex doll " No were is anyone calling it a " child " . It appears these dolls are small for 2 purposes. 1) PRICE .... yup , some guys cannot afford 3-4 thousand dollars. The 4'5" dolls are cheaper. 2) the weight. I read on the forums the 5'5" - 5"9" dolls are typically around 90-110 lbs and extreemly hard to move around & position without tearing/ damaging. Over the years manufacturers addressed this complaint by downsizing the doll . A 4'5" doll comes in around 50-60 lbs & guys say way easier to move around & position. These dolls have a booming market in the Asian market & many are made with a Asian body & face ( which looks child like) . I think in the Anglo market there is a total mis-understanding going on here. It would be good for the manufacturers to speak out about their product & the evolution of the product to address customer complaints

Under British Law he was charged with importation of an indecent or obscene article, further three charges related to the possession of child pornography.

In the words of the Magistrate who sentenced him: "The gravimum of your offence is that the child-like doll you imported was intended to enable you to give effect to the sexual fantasies that the images of children were intended to arouse."


If you want a good explanation of what is going on this post by a firm of English Solicitors provides such: https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/childlike-sex-doll-legal-position/

Aardvark154 said:

Under British Law he was charged with importation of an indecent or obscene article, further three charges related to the possession of child pornography.

In the words of the Magistrate who sentenced him: "The gravimum of your offence is that the child-like doll you imported was intended to enable you to give effect to the sexual fantasies that the images of children were intended to arouse."


If you want a good explanation of what is going on this post by a firm of English Solicitors provides such: https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/childlike-sex-doll-legal-position/

Click to expand...

It's a BS charge and it's doubtful he'll get convicted. Every lawyer will argue the same thing - it's not real.

I remember a guy who worked for Canadian Border Services. They are required to confiscate any bestiality porn or any porn where there is violence (so BDSM is illegal from what I gather). So if I buy a doll, some rope, and a whip, I can't tie the doll up and beat the crap out of it (I'm using CBS but I understand this incident took place in Britain) because I will experience the same type of arousal?

If it's real, throw the fucking book. If it's fantasy, no case. I remember an SVU episode where guy liked children so he built a room where he could torture them. He built the room but only fantasized and had never gone the extra step. The rest of the episode was about trying to convict him of something but he hadn't broken any laws.

sempel said:

It's a BS charge and it's doubtful he'll get convicted. Every lawyer will argue the same thing - it's not real.

Click to expand...

Well in the U.K. it wasn't B.S. indeed he was convicted and sentenced to 28 weeks imprisonment for the indecent images offences and 14 weeks imprisonment to be served concurrently for attempting to import the doll.

Also must mention that far from every lawyer was arguing against the law.

Aardvark154 said:

Well in the U.K. it wasn't B.S. indeed he was convicted and sentenced to 28 weeks imprisonment for the indecent images offences and 14 weeks imprisonment to be served concurrently for attempting to import the doll.

Also must mention that far from every lawyer was arguing against the law.

Click to expand...

If I kill a plant and some judge/jury somehow convicts me of murder, let's call it what it is - BS. This sounds like some overzealous prosecutor using laws intended for something different and using them to police something that may be considered offensive but IMO is not illegal. Say this guy built his own doll - is he guilty of a crime?

Just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they are guilty. Plenty of guilty people get off too - you've heard of OJ?

sempel said:

Say this guy built his own [child sex] doll - is he guilty of a crime?

Click to expand...

managee said:

But if your home is ever searched, and they find that you’ve somehow installed a Fleshlight in a cabbage patch doll, something tells me a flag will be raised.

Click to expand...

In the US, no crime is committed. But in Canada, the answer is yes.

From
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.1.html


In this section, child pornography means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or


(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;



(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;


(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or


(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.