Forum: Author Hangout

Not to challenge that, but more as fyi, for example a search for "living dolls" would yield multiple videos where one (usually more or less clothed) girl repeatedly poses another girl who doesn't overtly interact in any way and demonstrates remarkable athleticism by holding the exact pose until repositioned, and likely may get stripped sometime in the process.

Now, of course that's a rather nonsensical show for certain viewership's satisfaction and I'm currently unaware of any story where anything similar would be described, but if there was, the tag might seem attractive for misuse.

for example a search for "living dolls" would yield multiple videos

Perhaps they would also feature 4 British University students flatting together along with a wonderfully voiced middle aged Cliff Richard?

I recall a bit outside Ripley's Believe It or Not (I think on Hollywood Blvd. but I may be mistaken about that), they had a guy on a sort of display stand, done up with extremely pale make-up, very artificial looking.

He did an incredibly convincing job of being an automata, repitive arm motions, looking left then right then back without focusing on anything. That is until there was a crowd built up waiting to be let in. And then he stepped down off the stand and everyone nearby just about jumped out of their skin.

I know, and watched, Caesars Palace change 'statues' several years ago in Las Vegas.

2) does it apply to undoubtedly living people

a possible d) which I have in outline or construction only: (Wo)men in a series of progressions become more 'doll like' in numerous ways as listed in no particular order;

1) 'rights' They no longer have 'human' rights and instead have the much reduced level of 'doll' rights.

2) 'features' They structurally have the 'features' of a doll i.e. small feet or dis-proportionally large breasts or heads etc.

3) 'construction' or ability at the whim of the 'owner' to be 'modified' this is different to 'features' but also not. It is in fact 'how' features are executed or made / re-made. such as swap-able limbs or perhaps plastic like flesh or genetically 'printed' parts for biological 'equivalence'.

4) 'mind' Ability or inability to think. Perhaps 'bimbo-a-facation' or inability to refuse a command or even a request. Or to have very simple thought patterns including 'innocence' etc.

5) 'abilities' Such as extreme flexibility or super-human metabolisms either high or low. Reliance on electricity instead of conventional food.

6) 'agelessness' to be able to be made to be 'any*' age, whilst still fitting in with the 14 y/o rule. To either age very quickly or slowly, again fitting in with the a fore mentioned rule, even reversing age.

This not an exhaustive list but it does cover the main permutations I have notes on. Feel free to add to it or perhaps take inspiration from it. If you can't guess the 'universe' I make reference to is 'Dolls'. It won't be written anytime 'soon'. I need to get back in touch with my aide who is helping me come up with the 'rules' for this universe.

I tried a few spellings but couldn't find Wynnona Earp, though I'm pretty sure I've seen it mentioned here before.

I've not read it. But, I'm not claiming patent on the idea. In fact it might be interesting to see how others run with the premise.

I tried a few spellings but couldn't find Wynnona Earp

It's a TV show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynonna_Earp_(TV_series)

6) 'agelessness' to be able to be made to be 'any*' age, whilst still fitting in with the 14 y/o rule. To either age very quickly or slowly, again fitting in with the a fore mentioned rule, even reversing age.

Need to be careful with that one. There has been some real life arrest for some people ordering sex dolls with the susposed appearance of under fourteen. I can't imagine the law not extending that 'logic' to written stories.

be 'any*' age, whilst still fitting in with the 14 y/o rule.

that's why I included the star and made mention of the rule. but yes that is somewhere that 'grey' areas can and will get you in strife

Need to be careful with that one. There has been some real life arrest for some people ordering sex dolls with the susposed appearance of under fourteen. I can't imagine the law not extending that 'logic' to written stories.

Where? Since SCOTUS explcitly refused to extend the first amendment exception created for child pornography beyond actual images of actual children after the US Congress tried to ban "virtual" child pornography, I doubt that such arrests would be legal in the US.

https://www.wate.com/news/agents-arrest-antioch-man-accused-of-collecting-childlike-sex-dolls/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkb5e7/childlike-sex-doll-child-abuse-crime-australia

First one is in Tennessee

Second is in Australia

ETA: One is in the US, the other not. The US centric view and courts does not apply to many SOL readers.

The US centric view and courts does not apply to many SOL readers.

I am well aware of that. The Tennessee case is unlikely to survive an appeal.

It may not survive appeal, but that will be a pyrrhic victory at best.
He'll still be out legal fees, and likely his job in the end.

It may not survive appeal, but that will be a pyrrhic victory at best.
He'll still be out legal fees, and likely his job in the end.

True.

Those laws make no sense to me. Someone with that predilection buys an inanimate object to address it, then get arrested for it?
I would think it would be a better choice than the person taking action with a live human.
The doll isn't going to have its life destroyed, but the child certainly would.

Those laws make no sense to me. Someone with that predilection buys an inanimate object to address it, then get arrested for it?

I agree.

Worse, a psychology professor got stomped on because he tried to do research on people who have an attraction to minors (but never act on it).

People refused to accept that someone could have a sexual attraction to minors without acting on it.

The professor was publicly condemned for trying to normalize the sexual abuse of minors. When that wasn't at all what he did. If I remember correctly he was eventually forced to resign over this.

Unfortunately the general public sees things like this as encouraging the sexual abuse of minors rather than giving someone attracted to minors an outlet that doesn't involve actually abusing actual minors.

How can anyone who is attracted to minors seek treatment under these conditions? Attempting to seek treatment before they abuse a child is treated as equivalent to confessing to being a child abuser.

The law is an ass.

In this case the law is a herd of rabid asses.

While this sounds logical, it's not likely to work. I'm not aware of any specific research into this, but I can provide an example of a similar situation.

Back in the '90s some therapists backed a form of anger-management therapy in which patients would be encouraged to hit an inanimate object, usually a pillow, to "let out" their anger. In the short term it seemed to work. A person was angry, hit a pillow a few times, then felt calmer.

When studies looked at these patients over the long term they found that there people became more violent and more likely to use violence sooner. The person was basically being taught that when they felt angry, hitting something would make them feel better.

The same applies in situations with fetishes and other behaviours which present a danger to others or interfere with the patient's ability to live a normal life. Exposing the person to more of that thing makes the behaviour worse. The goal of therapy is to find the underlying cause of the issue and redirect the patient's desires in a more acceptable direction.

Or, worst case scenario, convince the person that engaging in the behaviour is in their own worst interest regardless of their feeling in the matter.

This is what often happens with domestic abusers. No amount of therapy can change a fundamental belief that violence is appropriate in a relationship, so instead repeat abusers are taken through a logical argument that boils down to "if you don't want to spend the rest of your life in prison, don't hit anyone, regardless of how you feel".

[Source: Recent minor in psychology. Clinical psych wasn't my focus, but I did take several classes in this.]

A lot depends on jurisdiction and what else is going on. In the US, child protection laws only apply in situations where an actual, real child is at risk. These laws do not apply when dealing with purely fictional children, such as stories or cartoons, or with theoretical children.

However, there are other laws in many jurisdictions that may look like child protection laws. For example, if a jurisdiction has a local ordinance against sex toys in general, but it's never really enforced (for obvious reasons), an underage appearing toy could cross a moral threshold for the local DA. Most jurisdictions also have poorly defined "obscenity laws".

It's also worth noting that there have been some highly publicized cases where what was actually going on was different from how things were generally reported. For example, there was one case reported years ago about an erotica author arrested for travelling across state lines with a thumb drive containing stories about underage girls. It wasn't about the stories, though; he was arrested because he was on probation for other offences.