Japanese Child Doll

Child Sex Dolls – Worth A Trial, Or Simply Vile?

Group 13



In modern society, public safety and the safeguarding of children are of utmost priority. This has led to the exploration of the NHS using innovative treatments for the psychiatric disorder of paedophilia. Studies show that 2% of the UK population has strong paedophilic tendencies and the effectiveness of current treatment methods has been questioned.

Child sex dolls have been proposed as a new treatment for paedophiles, so that their urges may be fulfilled without harm to real children.

We’ve Got to Do Something

In order to debate the ethical dilemma deriving from such treatment, the following questions must be considered; is it acceptable to manufacture child sex dolls? Do they prevent harm to children? Should Government regulatory measures be put in place to control production? What is a child sex doll and what is not? Is this more effective than current treatments and what evidence exists to support this?

Duty ethics states that “an action is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule… independent of the consequences of that action” and would hence argue that the production of child sex dolls is acceptable, as long as they are manufactured with the intention of preventing harm to children. However, with the safety of vulnerable young children at stake, many would argue that this is a short-sighted and dangerous approach to take. Medical professionals have warned that these dolls may have a “reinforcing effect” on paedophiles and encourage them to go on to harm real children.

Others have contradicted this argument, suggesting that it may help patients control their urges, similar to giving heavily regulated methadone to a heroin user. This alludes to the point that if the child dolls are to be manufactured, they should be regulated appropriately.

A utilitarian point of view reinforces the concept that if the production of dolls leads to less harm to society, their manufacture should be permitted. Nevertheless, the issue still remains that there is insufficient research evidence to validate how effective the treatment could be, prompting it to be a treatment that must be further explored.

It could be argued that it is does not make a paedophile unethical for possessing these urges, so long as they are not acted upon. These dolls could potentially assist patients in coping with their disorder and help ease what may be an already painful existence. Care ethics recognises the vulnerability of others and uses empathy to determine good and bad decisions. This would indicate that a paedophile is not in breach of the care ethics framework, as long as they remain dormant.

The freedom principle states that everyone is free, upon the condition that they do not deny or hinder the pleasure of others. If the treatment provides a release to paedophiles and harm is not given unto others, the principle implies that the treatment should be provided. However, the lack of valid data, whether they actually work and whether they prevent paedophiles from harming real children, remains the key issue.

Japanese Child Doll's FaceDevelopment of dolls would require government regulation, with an exploration into additional treatment aspects such as compulsory counselling. By considering this, along with the position of the manufacture of child sex dolls within certain ethical frameworks, the benefit of treatment for stakeholders becomes ignorant to dismiss.

You Kant do that!

Following Kantian based duty ethics, the intentions of the manufacturer becomes the sole moral measurement. Whilst a manufacturer may claim that their intentions are to prevent harm to children, for the good of society, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the manufacturers marketing strategy and their true intentions. What may be an honest declaration of good intentions, may also be an intentional PR strategy to normalise the use of such robots. This in turn, provides further complexity to the issue of child sex dolls, and hence the government cannot rely on this ethical framework to approve of their manufacture.

The feelings of society are another metric of the morality of a course of action. Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality, but that feelings are responsible, stating that ‘Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions’.

Reader comments on articles revealing public perceptions on the issue include: “What the hell are people thinking… it will make it worse” and “It’s obviously pretty damn creepy”. These comments and the negative article tone indicate that such dolls provide people with a feeling of discomfort and unease, and hence it becomes clear that the initial feelings should, using Hume’s argument, induce the ban on the production of sex robots by parliament.

Viewing the issue from a bioethics standpoint, the four major principles of health care ethics can be used as a moral guide for the course of action. These four principles include autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. Sex dolls on the market can be expensive, with dolls costing over £2000. Child sex dolls may also come at a large expense, and hence such treatment may be unaffordable for some members of society if not provided by universal free healthcare. The concept of justice dictates that new or experimental treatments must be distributed equally amongst all in society, and hence the treatment would be ethically unjust.

Whilst a utilitarian argument indicates that these dolls may provide an overall benefit to society by reducing harm on children, the idea of beneficence states that a treatment must be implemented for the benefit of the patient. Although the effectiveness of the treatment upon preventing harm to children is yet to be foreseen, it can be argued that the primary goal of the treatment is to benefit others and not a method of treating the patient themselves. Thus, two of the four principles have been ignored, and the use of child sex robots as a treatment for the psychiatric disorder is, by these principles, unethical.

The unreliable duty based ethical framework, the reaction of the public and the disregard for two principles of bioethics, indicate that a ban on the manufacture of these dolls should be implemented and their proposal for use as treatment disregarded.

42 thoughts on “Child Sex Dolls – Worth A Trial, Or Simply Vile?

  1. Technology has invaded almost every aspect of our lives, and instinctively when I saw this article I thought there comes a point where a line must be drawn in order to hold onto our dignity and our humanity and this idea is absurd but upon reading I have realised it is an interesting topic which maybe deserves more consideration.

    The issue of pedophilia needs to be addressed, and permitting the manufacture of child sex dolls in order to provide an outlet for these urges is not and approach I would feel ethically comfortable with at all. And I would understand the outrage and disgust associated with the notion. However, we should perhaps trust the science and wait for solid evidence to be collected to see if this really could help before disregarding it altogether?

    Consider another situation.
    If I had given up smoking because I knew it was bad for my health, it was perceived as wrong in a way, and I really wanted to never give in to the urge to smoke again.

    Allowing myself an e-cigarette might be considered a good approach to solving the problem. I could give into the urge to smoke without the toxic impact on my lungs. There is debate around e-cigs but the NHS figures indicate that an estimated 2.9 million adults in he UK use e-cigarettes and of these, 1.5 million people have completely stopped smoking cigarettes.

    Technology could pave the way to a ‘lesser of two evils’ scenario that helps with problem and should be given fair trial.

    1. I think your analogy to smoking is an interesting one. But surely a physical addiction and mental illness cannot be thought of in the same way?

      1. That is a very good point, perhaps that is where the analogy might break down. A better analogy may have been to an alcoholic. There is no physical addiction to the alcohol and they are very aware of the fact that their addiction is destroying themselves and their families around them, but the mental addiction is too great and they still drink.

        I think the main point I was attempting to make was that sometimes people can know all the facts and still make the wrong decision. That education isn’t always the answer. I don’t personally agree with Plato when he said that all evil derives from ignorance, I believe there are always too many factors contributing to an individuals moral actions to think that education will always solve a problem.

  2. There were a number of questions raised in me when reading your article.
    The first is how do we define sexual intercourse? My answer is that it is a physical experience shared between two (or more) consenting adults. (And it feels odd writing that sentence as your lecturer.) The defining word there, for me, is consent.

    The second question is how do we define paedophilia? Is it an illness? If it is then shouldn’t we treat it? If 2% of the UK population has strong tendencies then that is about 1.2 million people (0.02 x 60m), surely too large a number to ignore.

    It is a good article but one I find very difficult to comment on objectively. I think that is because as a father of fantastic ten year old girl my instinct is to automatically revile and push away this topic. Paedophilia is something that I can’t understand and, moreover, something I just don’t want to understand.

    Yet up 1.2 million people may have this condition in the UK. It’s perhaps reassuring that many of these people don’t commit actual crime.

    So the question then becomes what is the most effective treatment. Yesterday’s BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43715680) suggests that child sex dolls aren’t seen as effective forms of treatment. So perhaps the argument is to prohibit their use.

    This is an emotive topic, which you’ve handled very well. Well done. I hope you get more comments, but suspect that a number of readers (like me initially) would hesitate to comment.

  3. I see the points behind both sides of this but in my opinion this is a bad idea. For such a controversial issue, this would only be justifiable if there were sound economics or logic behind it.

    In terms of economics, the cost of these dolls at £2000 each will also incur a high charge of regulation. The NHS is already under pressure without the cost of producing, maintaining, and distributing these dolls while making sure they are used responsibly.

    In terms of logic, there will never be a consensus on this issue so it seems more sensible to use traditional methods such as counselling to treat (potential) paedophiles.

    This is a difficult issue to discuss, and kudos for tackling it because it is interesting. However, I can imagine many people being afraid to do so due to its controversy.

  4. This was a really interesting read, on a topic that can be pretty uncomfortable to broach. You applied different philosophical schools of thought really well, and I have to agree with your final conclusion that we shouldn’t implement child sex dolls on the NHS, and they should be banned in the UK. However this is an area that definitely warrants further research as it offers some potential contribution to solving the evidently pretty pervasive issue of paedophilia and derivatively, child sexual abuse.

    I was shocked to read that such a massive number of people in the UK have strong tendencies, though I assume that the vast majority of these are dormant or they also have other ‘interests’ (as inappropriate as that term is in this context). I do agree that the use of such dolls run the risk of desensitizing paedophiles and normalising sexual behaviour involving or regarding children. Stacey Dooley touches on this in her documentary ‘Young sex for sale’ where she speaks to a self-confessed paedophile who uses a child sex doll. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04t0h2b

    However, I do worry that the focus in the media on whether child sex dolls should be available or not runs the risk of encouraging a bit of virtue-signalling, morally outraged displays of revulsion, particularly on social media and tabloid websites, at the cost of perhaps obscuring wider issues around how much access to support (both informal and clinical) is actually currently afforded to paedophiles who are non-offending and trying to remain that way. This article covered this topic pretty sensitively so kudos for that.

    It seems to me prudent to work on the systems we do have in place and the resources available to reduce offense rates and protect children rather than implement a new and costly intervention, which we don’t have enough evidence to justify. If child sex dolls were to be used as part of a study, I think they should be extremely tightly controlled and I don’t think they should be available for the general public in the UK.

    Here are some other sources on this theme which I have found interesting with regards to the morality of sex and perversion:

  5. Not only would I favour the inclusion of these dolls in the NHS. I think it would be one of the few things that the leftist mess of an organisation has ever gotten right. My hatred of universal healthcare is trumped only by my need to protect the beautiful children of this great country.

    My concerns however are twofold. Firstly, there needs to be both male and female child sex dolls partly because the government needs to help tackle homophobia and also more pragmatically because in my experience when a paedophile wants a boy, a girl just won’t do.

    Secondly, there needs to be a range of ages for these dolls. Though I agree we must always protect the youngest, there are a lot of very attractive 12-15 year olds that also need our protection. In my own conversations with these children I’ve known them to be strongly for paedophiles using dolls and “f***ing off you nonce[s]”

  6. This article successfully applies a number of ethical frameworks which I believe adds value to the work, however there is definitely room for more analysis within each framework which I felt wasn’t fully achieved here.

    The topic is disturbing but it is understandable why it was chosen as it is important to understand these troubling ethical issues which unfortunately do occur in out society. Perhaps you could have gone into more depth on the other treatments available which may be more ‘ethical’ and less graphic in their nature.

  7. I am quite torn by this issue. Clearly the peversion of pedophillia is not a choice and it would be awful to be burdened with those thoughts. It is the choice into acting on those thoughts that makes the abuser take the step from victim to monster. I agree that anything that could prevent this step is a good thing however i am unsure as to whether or not allowing dolls would help or hinder this situation

  8. In my opinion this article is well informed with it consideration of modern morality as having an accumulative basis.
    I am of the opinion that it would be only the case that these potentially dangerous sex dolls could become circulated if the notion of morality is considered to have a sole righteous informer; such as the suggested utilitarian or Kantian reasoned prevention of harm arguments. As such a restrictive outlook would never allow consideration of the full picture or full potential dangerous consequences. For example, it through a recognition of the feelings (or Hume based ethics) alongside reason and utilitarianism that real sense of morality is created. This helps me understand the sensitive issue of paedophilia and why these dolls evoke such a wrong feeling within me, despite the fact it they’re may be reasoned proof they are helping many people, or indeed benefit a larger proportion of society than they harm.
    In this sense, I truly admire the holistic approach of the article.

  9. I believe that the use of child sex dolls would be wrong and could risk normalising paedophilia. Educating people about the devastating impact of paedophilia could serve as a deterrent and more appropriate solution.

    1. I’m sorry but I fail to see how education is the proper means to help prevent paedophilia. Many paedophiles know what they are feeling is wrong, but can’t control their urges. How is education going to help them?

    2. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction but you are normal for responding in this way.

      However, I would argue that most paedophiles already understand the impacts of child molestation. Dormant paedophiles choose not to act on their urges based on this understanding; active paedophiles are able to filter out this knowledge and act without empathy.

      Numerous psychologists agree that paedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than learned behaviour, so how would education quell the boy-lust of a romping paedophile?

    3. I agree with you, that there is a clear and distinct risk that these dolls could potentially normalise paedophilia and should become a focal-point of ongoing research. With regards to educating people about the devastating impact of their actions, an analogy can be made between paedophiles and addicts. For example, we were all taught the dangers of smoking in school but many of my friends and people I know still smoke. However, the addiction to nicotine makes it very difficult to quit. Whilst many paedophiles may be aware that their actions are wrong, the mental condition is what is heavily influencing their judgement.

      A question I would like to pose is, if further research was conducted and it was found that the use of such dolls heavily reduced child related sex crime rate, would you still be against the production and use of these dolls?

  10. Really interesting article covering both sides of the ethical debate. At first, the thought of paedophiles being given a child sex doll seems completely out of order and could promote more of the behaviours the child sex doll is aiming to reduce. By using the child sex doll the person may be conditioning the brain to think that actually, the urges they have are normal and may want to take it to the next level. Within the article, the comparison to methadone being given to heroin users is a difficult one to use as many people addicted to heroin then just get addicted to methadone which isn’t healthy for the individual and doesn’t stop the addiction, just passes it on to another addiction.

    Other alternatives must be used before this becomes a reality because if the government condones this behaviour and child sex dolls, then there could be a lot of negative implications after.

  11. This is a very thought-provoking topic, and many interesting points were touched upon within this article.

    Personally, I believe that as a society, we should be doing everything we can to tackle the problem of paedophilia. The real problem is the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of the sex dolls, and without medical trials investigating the long-term effects of the dolls it would be ludicrous to allow the free use of the dolls, because of the risk that it might encourage paedophiles to harm children.

    1. I agree that we should be doing something to tackle the problem of peadophilia. But I struggle to see child dolls as a solution the chance of a reinforcing effect is to high to be ignored. I think as with any mental problem that counselling a medication is the best approach to helping these people.

      1. But what if counselling is not enough? Surely we should be doing everything we can to tackle such a sensitive issue. Even it comes at the price of controversy

        1. I think, as was touched upon in the article, it is difficult to determine what the overall effect of these dolls will be. So in a sense, you are both right. If they do have a reinforcing effect they should be avoided, and if they do help then we should be doing everything we can to implement them.

    2. Do you potentially feel that more research should be done into how effective the treatment could be for potential paedophiles, and this research potentially used to promote the use of these dolls results were encouraging?

      Do you agree with a Deontological view, that as a rule, the replication of a Childs form for such uses will always be morally wrong? Or do you have a more utilitarian outlook on the issue, and that if these dolls help the paedophile and eliminate harm to their potential victims that this would be morally just?

  12. Personally I’m disgusted by this issue. I think your idea about ‘helping’ paedophiles is alarming as I don’t think any kind of help should be given to those vile people. The thought of sex dolls designed to imitate children sickens me, and anyone who would even think about using one should be locked away.

    The NSPCC’s head of policy has publicly condemned the use and sale of these dolls and we should heed warnings from important people on this matter: https://sputniknews.com/society/201804121063488053-amazon-child-sex-dolls/

    We should be taking no risks in this issue, and be thinking of the poor, vulnerable children at all costs.

    1. Surely by taking this approach, we should protect vulnerable children by helping to treat paedophiles, which will in turn prevent child abuse. Through condemnation and by ignoring, the problem is only going to get worse.

    2. Looking at the situation from a different angle, if the use of these dolls is researched and it is found that it eliminates child related sex crimes and it does protect children, would you still hold the moral view that they are objectively wrong?

      Whilst the NSPCC’s head of policy may be well informed about the issue, they may still be projecting their own views on the issue. There is a lack of extensive research on the subject. Could this mean that they are not well enough informed to form a valid opinion?

  13. Personally, I believe the use of child sex dolls should be prohibited as it only encourages the paedophile to further carry out their actions. I also believe that child sex dolls are immoral because they represent the children of our society as something they should not be represented for. However, on one hand I do believe that there needs to be more research in to child sex dolls and how they may impact the statistics of child harm.

    1. I think ‘research’ into child sex dolls will be extremely difficult. If these child sex dolls do cause more harm and encourage paedophiles, then surely in ‘researching’ we are encouraging a paedophile and this would cause harm to real children?

  14. Even after reading well balanced article I still think this is a terrible idea.

    The idea originated from a convicted peadophile Thomas O’Carroll- who had set up an organisation for peadophiles in the 70s – their main aim was to have the age of consent lowered. Two sides to this – Should we take his advice on what he thinks will work as he’s the one with the illness. But when would we ever take a criminals advice on how things should be done better? Difficult to have clear definition whether he and other pedophiles are criminals or patients as I’d take a patients advice one what makes them feel better but I wouldn’t take a serious criminals advice about anything.

    I think child sex dolls normalizes the problem. It’s as if manufacturers have found a “gap in the market” and are just catering to a weird sex fetish – when actually this is a really serious crime that has horrendous effects on lives.

    With every illness not 1 treatment will suit all – which is why a money should be invested into treatment for this issue of course. But the individuals this treatment doesn’t work and actually makes them have more urges I think reduces the “lesser of 2 evils” argument as potentially more lives could be effected.

    Invest more money into therapy we know about and have already to make them better- rehabilitation, counselling, even chemical castration.

  15. This is a very well balanced article, and whilst acknowledging the potential benefits in helping prevent paedophilia, I agree with your conclusion that a ban on the manufacture of these dolls should be implemented and their proposal for use as treatment be disregarded.

    I think however that there may be difficulties in imposing a ban as it may be hard to define what a child sex doll actually is. Does it class as a sex doll if the manufacturer intended them to look like children? Or do the intentions of the manufacturer not matter and someone has to judge what a child sex doll looks like? Since adult sex dolls are legal (at the moment), a manufacturer could claim that a child sex doll bought by a paedophile was intended as an adult sex doll, and therefore sold legally.

    Overall I think this is a very balanced argument and I agree with your conclusion. Sadly, I feel that even if these dolls were to be banned, there will be many further complications and loopholes which will make these measures difficult to enforce.

  16. I was staggered to read in this article that 2% of the UK population has strong paedophilic tendencies. I believe the general consensus of hate and condemnation of society as a whole, as can be seen in the comment section of this article, is completely the wrong way to tackle paedophilia. I believe we must try and empathise with these type of people who must have an already pained existence.

    These dolls can help paedophiles who refuse to act on their urges and harm real children. If as many as one in 50 people have these urges, there must be more treatments out there available to help these people deal with their urges, without them turning to child abuse

  17. For me this is a very thought provoking article. It takes a topic and part of society which is in my periphery and pulls it directly in front of me so I can’t ignore it.
    I think given the numbers (2% of the population in the UK), it is important to address the problem and try to stop these thoughts, feelings and impulse of paedophilia in those affected. But I do not think child sex dolls are the answer. Surely allowing people who may have these ideas to explore those feelings and go through with an act of sexual activity (even if it isn’t ‘intercourse’ by a dictionary definition) will only exacerbate the problem? And allowing the use of child sex dolls may even encourage people who had not had feelings of paedophilia to experiment with a new experience. Yes, this is an infinitely better alternative to a paedophile committing an act of sexual abuse, but it is not addressing the true problem, i.e. stopping those thoughts and impulses in the first place.
    A well written, vivifying blog on a difficult subject matter.

  18. I think in general, its safe to say that the majority of the population would not be open to the idea of treating paedophilia as an illness however from an objective point of view it could be classed as a mental illness among other things. The problem should be treated as a significant proportion of the population suffer from this and many more may not feel comfortable to speak up about it. That being said, I think production of child sex dolls is an extreme measure without knowing the extent of the sufferer’s problem. I think a discrete system of sufferer’s coming forward and talking about it should be implemented first before such a drastic measure is considered.

    Each ethical theory is explored in this article and as expected, the topic does not have a definitive answer as to what should be done. The article allows the reader to make up their own mind by laying out all the facts.

  19. I think for the sex robots to be of use then the paedophiles need to first be found. Paedophilia is usually not diagnosed until an act upon a child has been committed. What triggers someone to commit this crime? I am sure there are people out there who have sexual urges towards children but suppress them without committing a crime. Maybe if these sex robots were available to the public it may cause one of these underground paedophiles to want to go for the real thing? However, if these robots were to be available to buy anonymously then people may buy these to self treat their urges without harm to others. Who knows?

    I think more research needs to be done in an unbiased way to check the effectiveness of such devices before they can be considered for therapy.

    Very good, balanced argument which has caused food for thought. Well done!

  20. I personally am torn by the issue. My instinct would be against the production and use of child sex dolls, as in my opinion, they could cause more negative impacts than positive. However I do also see the potential positive side in that they could help contain the paedophilic urges of some people, under strict control might I add. However, there could also be the risk of these dolls getting in the wrong hands and causing more issues within society and potentially normalising it for some certain individuals.
    Furthermore, my initial view was confusion as to why they would be created in the first place as it is a very disturbing subject. I personally believe the negative impacts of introducing these dolls to treat people, outweigh the positive impacts.

  21. This is really well written article. This ethical debate is very interesting. Ultimately a company will be paid to develop and manufacture these ‘toys’ and will aim to mimic children as closely as possible. A condition to purchasing/being issued one of these after counselling could be that the user must declare themselves discreetly as ‘high-risk’ to children and as such could be monitored more closely by authorities- making children safer and acting as a deterrent to the outlined ‘re-enforcing effect’ of wanted to abuse real children. This would allow them to satisfy their urges without breaking the law or hurting real children and would mean only those genuinely struggling with this issue would be prepared to ‘surrender’ themselves only allowing those that genuinely would benefit from this to use a doll. We have a moral right to protect children by identifying people to the authorities that pose a risk and also a moral right to help those deal with their problems also.

  22. Really interesting read, raising some great points and handling a very controversial issue in a sensitive and balanced way.

    As most will have been brought up in cultures condemning pedophilia and anything to do with it, it can be easy to forget that it is a mental disorder causing suffering and pain to many, as you have pointed out. It should not be a topic which is ignored and pushed to the back of our minds because it makes us feel uncomfortable, but instead should be given the attention it deserves. It has been shown time and time again that rehabilitation over punishment is necessary to get real beneficial results to society, and if this could be a tool used to help, surely it should be investigated? These types of sensitive and possibly dangerous tools, however, must be used with due caution, under heavy regulation and control. The only way such a product should be used is if after strong and reliable research it has been proven to be effective, and even if so it must still be regulated. You have said research has so far shown them not to be effective, and in accordance, I believe therefore they should not be used.

    At the end of the day, such products could be a valuable tool in helping those struggling with mental disorders, however, they should never be available to the general public, as they could encourage acts which have near universally been deemed wrong.

  23. I think, although there is an obvious yuck factor to this debate, it is a very important point of discussion.

    However, before even thinking about the use of these dolls as a solution, I think it is important to understand what makes a paedophile have these urges, and more importantly, what makes them act on these urges?

    I recently read an article on the matter that said that paedophiles are much more likely to reoffend than those who have never offended. This suggests that the use of these child sex dolls would have a negative, reinforcing effect, and increase the likeliness of harm to a human child.

    In another article, it said that “conventional” means of treatment for paedophilia have very low success rates, with CBT sometimes not being helpful at all. Even chemical castration is not definitive way of keeping children out of harms way.

    So, I think something needs to be done about the way we look at paedophilia and our understanding on what makes such people offend. But this isn’t it. It is far too risky and I don’t think the wider public would ever be able to accept it as a solution.

  24. 100% agree with your group’s conclusion. Although from a few ethical standpoints child sex dolls help to ‘cure’ patients, increasing the reliance on these dolls will open the door to worsening to stigma, by poisoning their minds when looking at children rather than getting rid of it. In the worse case, it might even increase the urge of committing pedophilic crimes.

  25. Although I can see the logic of these ‘machines’, I am unconvinced as to whether it will have a positive effect on these patients. However if cases are rescued as a result, I cannot see the use of them being protested against.

  26. This article is both a thought-provoking read and slightly unsettling. Both sides have been clearly researched and evidenced thoroughly. The intention to manufacture a product that would help paedophiles suppress their harmful urges is supposedly beneficial to society. However, a product that appears to be what a paedophile wants without actually being the real thing is a fairly dangerous game. If you listen to many statements given by known paedophiles about their offending, you will often hear comments relating to the forbidden nature of their offences. The manufacturing of these dolls, in my opinion, would be unlikely to be enough to stop child abuse of this nature and for some, even normalise and reinforce it.

  27. It’s quite difficult to say. I think it probably would help the paedophiles who know they have a problem and don’t want to act on it with a real child. However, I think that for a lot of those who actually would act on their urges, sex dolls may increase their tendencies and make them feel it is more normal.
    No can can know the exact numbers from either group though, as most probably don’t tell anyone, whether it be they act on it or not. So it can’t be determined whether the benefits of helping some would outweigh the problems of increasing the tendencies of others.
    There’s no way to really know without actually trying it, but in my opinion this is too much of a risk and shouldn’t be done.

Leave a Reply