Not to get all Emily Latella on you but…
Scandinavian experts are urging the use of child-like sex dolls in a bid to stop pedophiles from abusing real life children. The Sexpo Foundation in Finland wants the disgusting dummies to be made available to pedophiles following a reported boom in imports in neighboring Norway. http://moonbattery.com/?p=82094
The philosophy here seems to be, give them what they want, and perhaps they will be happy. If pedophiles are busy banging child sex dolls, they will be too tired or busy to target real kids. Talk to any cop, psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor that deals with sexual deviants and they will point out the fallacy of this theory. Many offenders start out not knowing what they want.
Many criminals start out not knowing what they want. They may start out window peeping until that gets old. Others may seek out opportunities to wag their wee-wee at women. Some, not all, escalate when the thrill wears off. It is not uncommon for serial rapists to refine their techniques and their targeting as they evolve.
I would suspect that pedophiles who “groom” children for sex would tire quickly of a doll. I could see them employing the surrogate in their recruitment efforts. I have no doubt that some opportunists will jump on the bandwagon and decide that this idea has merit.
I checked Texas Law, and there is no prohibition against possession of a sex doll of any purported age as long as the doll is intended for self-abuse and not for commercial purposes. To be illegal (e) and (f) must apply. The other hitch is that while the penal code refers to Image repeatedly, it is not defined. That’s okay, the dictionary definition of image: a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
But there are two hurdles that cannot be surmounted. The Texas obscenity law defines material: (2) means anything tangible that is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound, or in any other manner, but does not include an actual three-dimensional obscene device. The second hurdle is that by construction seems to focus on children as participants rather as the model for a device.
Here is the applicable Texas Law:
(7) “Obscene device” means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.
Sec. 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony.
(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or
(2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.
(h) The punishment for an offense under Subsection (a) or (c) is increased to the punishment for a felony of the second degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that obscene material that is the subject of the offense visually depicts activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B) engaged in by:
(1) a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made;
(2) an image that to a reasonable person would be virtually indistinguishable from the image of a child younger than 18 years of age; or
(3) an image created, adapted, or modified to be the image of an identifiable child.
(i) In this section, “identifiable child” means a person, recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature:
(1) who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(2) whose image as a person younger than 18 years of age was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction.
(j) An attorney representing the state who seeks an increase in punishment under Subsection (h)(3) is not required to prove the actual identity of an identifiable child.
I have no doubt that some opportunists will try to exploit the Texas law and wrap themselves in the whole gay rights and trans mantle. I guess I’m out of step with the times; I thought it was one’s duty to fight evil not embrace it. What’s next German Shepards and Sheep?