The article has a picture of a random and what might be a robot doll that I can't tell if it's made for sexual purposes, that's why I'm not linking to it. Especially if it's a child robot doll.
But I want to address his last few paragraphs here:
Yet one imagines that Lin speaks for most people when he says that this cannot be countenanced. One could say that this is because it is possible that indulging in these appetites in an ostensibly harmless manner will sooner or later encourage pedophiles to seek out the real thing. But I doubt it.
The truth is that all of us at some level or another understand as if by instinct that certain desires are in and of themselves wrong. They should not be acted upon, placated, appeased, or in any sense met halfway. Most of us, one hopes, feel this way about pedophilia and bestiality (how far away are we, I wonder, from dog sex robots?), at the very least. It is the moral duty of people who want to hurt children or animals to banish such desires from their mind, to seek help, to pray — to do whatever it takes to ensure not only that they never carry out their fantasies but that they no longer have them. "Acting upon them" is beside the point; that anyone anywhere is contemplating such things is inherently evil.
Once this truth is acknowledged and it is accepted that certain impulses are immoral not simply because they have potential to lead to others' being harmed but because they are in themselves wicked, it becomes much more difficult to make the usual facile arguments in favor of everything from legalized marijuana to secular liberals' redefinition of marriage. The argument is no longer about abstract "harm" but about those old stalwarts good and evil.
Liberalism is going to need a new toolbox.This part was talking about someone who has made child sex dolls and was claiming that such things can actually cause pedophiles to avoid acting upon it toward real children. Though (and I'm sorry if I misread this) this person goes against this in a way by dictating that it's wrong to have the fantasy itself either out of fear or some other personal reason.
Normally sort of, I would get extremely angry at this and then write a more "salty version" of my response since I'm deeply for the freedom rights of others in the privacy in another home, but however maybe I'll try to be a bit more calm and open about one side and another a lot more.
I do not agree about calling a fantasy itself wrong, but when it comes to a fantasy that not only has an attraction toward children, but including the idea of having sex with one that is not consenting, then it's a very interesting topic. The same goes for wanting to have sex with an animal and wanting the animal to not consent at the same time. The fantasy of those two may contain the attraction but they also contain the fantasy of actually directly hurting another. The second part of each is sufficient to be wrong alone, so no matter what you have or even don't have, if you have any desire or desires to directly cause harm then that can be bad.
That's the part that seems very blurry. I do believe that those who has that kind of fantasy with their sexual identity should get help to have it change. The fantasy of just having sex with young looking people and/or animals though, should (and probably cannot be changed) not change. Why? Because sexual attraction is not about directly having sex with another without consent, as consent and non-consent are separated. It's just that being a pedophile for example toward real children can contain a serious risk because children in the real world doesn't consent. Though, sexual attraction can be used as an alternative toward fictional concepts or half such as an adult acting and dressing up like a child.
When you have a mere attraction alone and wish to act on it by itself, it's very possible that someone with that can actually have the personality of refusal to have sex with real life children because they can know that it is wrong to do so. However, they want to be happy and may prefer masturbation to fictional concepts (e.g. fictional pornographic pictures of children) because those people are not real, and can be different in terms of "consent" inside the fantasy.
The same goes with non-human animals and that one is even more blurry. As a furry, I am actually attractive to four-legged characters but my fantasies usually involve "unrealistic" things involving super intelligence certain creatures and the obvious form of consent. Though we don't fully know if animals in the real world can (and there is some proof of "reverse bestiality" though) consent but my point is I'm trying to make is this: Does it matter? Even if I am slightly attractive to a real-world animal because of my fantasy (similar body parts?), that doesn't mean I will (or even fully want to) act on those animals because they are very different.
Perhaps my personal example is probably not even enough to be someone who is into "bestiality" but I might of heard that several zoosexuals believe that it's wrong to have sex with one but will prefer alternative directions alone. Some could be stuffed animals, some could be costumes, and other safe things. If someone has more personality with real animals, such the increased personalities can still be used for alternative forms of things that are clearly safe.
Because of this, this is basically no different than how being attractive to adults in the real world can be risky. It's possible an adult can not consent, and it's also possible some adults will never consent to even having sex at all. Does this mean that the sexual attraction is "wrong" because it can be used to have sex with those that are currently not consenting and/or those that will never consent?
If it's not because you can easily go toward an adult that can and is currently consenting, then the same must be said for zoosexuals and even the more risky, pedophiles. There are alternatives just like this even if such practice is based on so-called "unrealistic" thoughts.
So to say that it's wrong anyway when it's not directly the same as actually going out in the future to rape someone, then that is like calling every attraction wrong and anything else that is risky (e.g. owning a gun) wrong too. But to say it's wrong to have a fantasy including the fantasy to directly rape an actual being, then I can sort of agree.
Morality
The idea of "not violating another" is not an old meaning. Freedom for all and rights for is not something you can have with any other thing that are considered so-called "moral" or "morals".
If you went in and violated the will of another doing no harm directly, then you have done harm yourself. That's why the moral of equal is a lot more special than it sounds to some.
If you rape a child, you have committed a wrong. If you throw someone to prison for merely masturbating to a fake child, then you have also committed a wrong.
The rule to freedom is that you are free to do whatever as long if it doesn't effect (and/or will 100% effect it later) anyone. So when you go out and dictate that a mere attraction is wrong no matter why you think that, then you are against freedom, and that's wrong.
The moment you are against anything that's by itself victimless and isn't going to create a victim later on 100%, then you clearly don't respect the moral of respecting the lives of other people equally.
I also like to note that a risk is not the same thing as directly happening. All freedom has a risk, and therefor to say that a "sex doll" of any kind is wrong because of a risk, then that's exactly the same as saying "Freedom is wrong" because "Freedom" is supposed to be risky by nature.
Traffic is risky, owning guns is risky, and any other thing that isn't directly violating anyone. It entirely depends on the person.
If you understood my point then thank you. If you have any open suggestions, please leave a comment saying what they are as long if it's not illegal. Respect the law!
No comments:
Post a Comment