So people are once again debating whether inanimate "underage sex-dolls" should remain outlawed or be legalized.

This debate arrives again, in the face of whether it should be promoted as a helpful thing (to prevent actual abuse) or presents a further negative liability to society. I believe that is a fair concern which finally makes it a legit debate beyond reactionary responses.

Well, 13-year-old me once got creative with my dungarees and socks and a pillow wrapped in a shirt to create a highly reverenced Stacy of my junior grade.

But, well, early raging hormones ought to deserve a pass in all such regards, except those non-secular religious disappointments.

For others who are older? Sometimes much older? After the hormones have cooled a bit as the wisdom is supposed to gather a little more?

Yeah, that becomes a little weird. By they way, there have already been dudes obsessed with nailing dolls of "adult" women. Then there is the gung-ho futurist guy, who loves the arrival of adult "robot" women for his own amorous reasons.

Is any of this normal? Does any of it lead to continued fruition of the species?

No! Hell no!

But what do you really want? How does forcing people who shall never procreate anyway, to suffer... due to nobody who can bear a child wanting to mate with them... create something better?

Have you no mercy? Do they deserve no relief? No quarter?

I speak as someone who finds the desire for inanimate objects to be a strange and sad interest (and is often even an outright preference), as something which ought never actually be promoted (like many other current things shouldn't, yet totally ARE promoted), but also are not deserving of legal persecution where there is no crime against another human being.

There are SOOO many more pressing issues at stake these days than prosecuting those who ravage latex while they imagine real so-called abuse. Just keep 'em on the doll. No?

I think it actually, ridiculously, all comes down to how realistic-looking the object of humping is. So many get upset only when something looks too real. This makes zero sense regarding objects which in the end, are all equally inanimate. Just as one can point to a toilet and declare "Art!", one can point to a starchy pair of dungarees and a pillow wrapped in a shirt and declare "Stacy!" How real is too real? That's what this stupid argument is about.

(Btw, Stacy was really super hot. Nothing could ever come close.)

I don't get the intense emotional opinions on this one. Open to different viewpoints, however.







• ( https link ) What say you?
[Anonymouse]