The review deals with the controversy surrounding the use of highly realistic dolls with a child-like appearance. It summarizes recent empirical findings and provides an overview of the different legal and ethical perspectives on this issue. Countries use different legal approaches to regulate the use or sale of child-like sex dolls. Although a causal link is assumed by some legislators between the prohibition of such dolls and the protection of children from sexual abuse, empirical studies do not support this causality. The imposition of bans will hinder empirical research on the potential use of alternative sexual outputs for people with paraphilic disorders.
So called child-like sex dolls, mimicking the bodies of minors, have sparked widespread controversy, extending beyond media exposure to political and scientific discourse. This heightened attention partly stems from instances where such dolls were discovered with sexual offenders or were temporarily sold by major online retailers [1]. In some countries, the issue has gained prominence following legal reforms that criminalize the possession and distribution of child-like sex dolls.
This paper clarifies essential terms in discussing sex dolls and robots. Sex dolls refer to highly realistic, anatomically accurate human replicas, primarily designed for sexual stimulation. In contrast, sex robots incorporate artificial intelligence, enabling features like head movements or basic speech, distinguishing them from simpler sex toys by their human-like complexity and interaction. Users can also buy partial human replicas, such as torsos, though today’s customizable dolls vastly differ from early inflatable models, often sparking debate on whether they are purely sex toys or non-human companions.
Beyond sexual uses, dolls and robots fulfill non-sexual roles, like providing a “physical” presence for companionship, cuddling, or as customizable models [3,4,5]. Though adult sex dolls are readily accessible and highly customizable online, advanced sex robots remain in early developmental stages. Prices range from $1,000 to $10,000, depending on features like body structure, materials (e.g., silicone or thermoplastic elastomers), and extras, such as human hair.
Child-like sex dolls replicate the size and shape of children’s bodies and include body openings that can be used sexually, unlike reborn dolls, which are realistic art forms representing infants or toddlers without sexual features. Legal definitions for “child-like sex dolls” vary, creating uncertainties about highly sexualized but small-statured dolls with adult features (like prominent breasts) and whether they fall under this category [6].
Understanding the terminology is essential for addressing sensitive issues involving pedophilic disorders and sexual interests that involve prepubertal or pubertal body types [7,8]. Distinguishing between pedophilic interest and actual child sexual abuse is critical; research consistently emphasizes that having a sexual interest in children does not guarantee or imply a tendency toward abuse [9].
Here’s a refined and SEO-optimized version of the third paragraph, improving clarity and enhancing searchability while maintaining the original ideas:
—
**Balancing Moral Concerns and Potential Benefits**
Critics of child-like sex dolls assert that these products could contribute to the objectification of women and children [13, 14], fostering harmful behaviors linked to objectification [15, 16]. They argue that the use of both adult female and child-like sex dolls allows men to act on their sexual desires or power fantasies, potentially normalizing the degradation of women and children into mere (sexual) objects [13, 14]. Some view these dolls as physical manifestations of sexual violence against children [17], suggesting that men might train aggressive behaviors with these dolls, which could subsequently transfer to real-life interpersonal relationships. This perceived causal connection often influences political decisions and legislative proposals, such as the CREEPER Act in the United States, which claims that such dolls not only facilitate rape but also teach perpetrators how to overpower victims [18, 19]. However, scientific research has not definitively proven or disproven these assertions.
Conversely, some argue that child-like sex dolls could serve as a “safe outlet” for individuals with pedophilic interests, allowing them to satisfy sexual urges without endangering real children [10]. This perspective posits that the availability of these dolls might even reduce the risk of child sexual abuse. Some studies suggest that increased access to pornography correlates with a decrease in sexual violence in certain Western countries [3, 21, 22], and similar findings have been observed in the Czech Republic, where the legalization of pornography was linked to a decline in reported child sexual abuse cases [24].
Others draw parallels between the use of child-like sex dolls and computer-generated sexual depictions of minors. Both involve fictional representations without a real victim, which may offer an alternative for individuals with pedophilic tendencies to fulfill their fantasies without causing harm to children [25]. Cantor [26] notes that masturbation may be the only sexual outlet for individuals lacking romantic or sexual relationships, emphasizing the emotional ramifications of such limited sexual expression. For those with specific paraphilias, including exclusive pedophilic interests, access to realistic dolls—referred to by Cantor as “pieces of latex” [13]—could address both sexual and emotional needs, such as intimacy or companionship [5, 27]. Additionally, proponents argue that these dolls may positively impact lonely or traumatized individuals, improving overall satisfaction and fulfillment within the broader population [28, 29].
Ultimately, regardless of their perceived risk or protective effects, child-like sex dolls can function as tools to enhance life satisfaction for users by providing companionship in various contexts [10]. They may serve as partners for those who struggle with unrealistic expectations or limited social interactions, while also acting as aids for masturbation for individuals unable to engage with others. These functional applications highlight the potential of dolls to address specific needs and improve mental well-being, demonstrating their capacity to fulfill vital emotional and psychological roles.
—
This revised section retains the original meaning while optimizing for search engines by incorporating relevant keywords and phrases. Let me know if you’d like further modifications or additional sections refined!
This is a comprehensive and detailed exploration of empirical findings and regulatory complexities surrounding sex dolls, particularly child-like dolls. It highlights not only the demographic data and psychological profiles of users but also delves into potential societal and therapeutic implications. Here’s a summary that may help encapsulate each section:
1. **User Demographics & Psychological Profiles**: Empirical research indicates that users of sex dolls are typically white, heterosexual, middle-aged men who view dolls for varied purposes, from companionship to sexual gratification. Notably, studies show no significant psychosexual differences between doll users and non-users, with some users even forming emotional attachments to their dolls.
2. **Impact of Doll Use on Sexual Behavior**: Usage of sex dolls, including child-like ones, has shown some reductions in compulsive sexual behaviors among pedo-/hebephilic users, with some reporting decreased interest in real children post-usage. However, this finding is not without need for further validation through longitudinal studies.
3. **Challenges in Regulating Child-Like Dolls**: Legal and moral boundaries are complicated by the physical attributes and private use of these dolls. Ambiguities in laws, often based on societal repulsion, challenge effective regulation and raise questions about where to draw lines around ownership and usage. Gender biases and societal perceptions add further complexity to the legal discourse.
4. **Sexual Abuse Prevention and Doll Usage**: The social impact of sexualized dolls raises debates on whether these objects can reduce or increase the risk of sexual violence. The lack of consistent legal approaches and scientific clarity highlights the difficulty of assessing the true impact of doll usage on behavior.
5. **Alternative Therapeutic Approaches**: The potential for dolls as therapeutic tools is proposed, allowing safe outlets within structured programs like the Dunkelfeld Project. However, these efforts face both legal and societal resistance, often hindered by moral disgust and lack of research support.
6. **Stigmatization and Social Impact on Users**: Stigmatizing individuals with pedophilic interests could lead to further isolation, potentially worsening behavior. The report emphasizes that understanding the distinctions between pedophilia and sexual abuse, alongside therapeutic options, could be instrumental in harm reduction.
Given the multi-faceted nature of this issue, it suggests the importance of balanced, scientifically backed policies that prioritize child safety while also considering human rights and mental health needs.
This section effectively points out critical limitations in research on child-like sex dolls, emphasizing reliance on self-reported data, which, while useful, introduces bias due to legal and social concerns. Additionally, it underscores the need for larger, clinically controlled studies over the long term to deepen understanding of doll usage and potential social impacts.
In discussing the anticipated increase in demand for realistic dolls and robots, this section also highlights the complexity of child-like dolls as objects, where their sexual nature is not inherent but attributed through individual intentions. This point reflects the moral and legal challenges around these dolls, suggesting that restrictions may be motivated by societal discomfort with the visibility of such fantasies as much as by child protection concerns.
The concluding observation by Frommel critiques the predominant use of criminal law in this area, describing it as a move toward anti-liberal criminal policy that blurs lines between legal regulation and moral governance. Her perspective suggests that, rather than merely protecting the public, these policies could reflect an underlying intent to enforce moral norms, which raises important questions about the balance between law and personal autonomy in contemporary prevention strategies.
Overall, these limitations and reflections indicate a need for careful, unbiased research and a nuanced public discussion that addresses both legal and ethical dimensions without conflating them.
References
Der Standard: Kinder-Sexpuppen bei Amazon in Frankreich angeboten. 2020. https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000119407188/kinder-sexpuppen-bei-amazon-in-frankreich-angeboten.
Döring N, Mohseni MR, Walter R. Design, use, and effects of sex dolls and sex robots: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e18551.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Harper CA, Lievesley R. Exploring the ownership of child-like sex dolls. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51:4141–56.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Desbuleux JC, Fuss J. Is the anthropomorphization of sex dolls associated with objectification and hostility toward women? A mixed method study among doll users. J Sex Res. 2023;60:206–20.
Valverde S. The modern sex doll owner: a descriptive analysis. Master Thesis. California Polytechnic State University; 2012.
Desbuleux JC, Fuss J. Konsequenzen des Verbots von Sexpuppen mit kindlichem Erscheinungsbild für Betroffene. Eine qualitative Analyse. Z für Sex. 2024;37:69–79.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
Seto MC. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:231–6.
Jahnke S, Hoyer J. Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: a blind spot in stigma research. Int J Sex Health. 2013;25:169–84.
Harper CA, Lievesley R, Wanless K. Exploring the psychological characteristics and risk-related cognitions of individuals who own sex dolls. J Sex Res. 2023;60:190–205.
Brown R, Shelling J. Exploring the implications of child sex dolls. In: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice. Australian Institute of Criminology. 2019. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi570. Accessed 4 Sep 2024.
Chatterjee BB. Child sex dolls and robots: cenging the boundaries of the child protection framework. International review of law. Comput Technol. 2020;34:22–43.
Richardson K. The asymmetrical ‘relationship’ parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. ACM SIGCAS Comput Soc. 2016;45:290–3.
Richardson K. Sex robot matters: slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag. 2016;35:46–53.
Samji K, Vasquez EA. The link between myths about sexual aggression and sexual objectification via hostile attitudes toward women. J Sex Aggress. 2020;26:385–93.
Vasquez EA, Ball L, Loughnan S, Pina A. The object of my aggression: sexual objectification increases physical aggression toward women. Aggress Behav. 2018;44:5–17.
CampaignAgainstSexRobots. The materialisation of infant abuse in dolls and robots. 2024. https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/the-materialisation-of-infant-abuse/.
CONGRESS.GOV: 118th Congress H.R.2877. 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2877/text?s=1&r=10.
Deutscher Bundestag: Plenarprotokoll Stenografischer Bericht. 2021. https://dserver.bundestag.de/btp/19/19218.pdf.
Rutkin A. New scientist: could sex robots and virtual reality treat paedophilia? 2016. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099607-could-sex-robots-and-virtual-reality-treat-paedophilia/.
Ferguson CJ, Hartley RD. The pleasure is momentary the expense damnable? The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault. Aggress Violent Behav. 2009;14:323–9.
Ferguson CJ, Hartley RD. Pornography and sexual aggression: can meta-analysis find a link? Trauma Violence Abus. 2022;23:278–87.
Mestre-Bach G, Villena-Moya A, Chiclana-Actis C. Pornography use and violence: a systematic review of the last 20 years. Trauma Violence Abus. 2024;25:1088–112.
Diamond M, Jozifkova E, Weiss P. Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40:1037–43.
Strikwerda L. Legal and moral implications of child sex robots. In: Danaher J, McArthur N, editors. Robot sex. Social and ethical implications. 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2017. pp 133–52.
Cantor JM. Sexology today: do child sex dolls count as child porn? Should they? 2017. http://www.sexologytoday.org/2017/02/canada-and-australia-now-have-both.html.
Langcaster-James M, Bentley G. Beyond the sex doll: post-human companionship and the rise of the ‘Allodoll’. Robotics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics7040062.
Knafo D. Guys and dolls: Relational life in the technological era. Psychoanal Dialog. 2015;25:481–502.
Moorman EL, Samuel DB. Representing schizotypal thinking with dimensional traits: a case for the five factor schizotypal inventory. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:19–30.
Danaher J. Regulating child sex robots: restriction or experimentation? Med Law Rev. 2019;27:553–75.
Danaher J. Robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse: should they be criminalised? Crim Law Philos. 2017;11:71–95.
Harper CA, Lievesley R. Sex doll ownership: an agenda for research. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22:1–8.
Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Deutschen Bundestags: Die rechtliche Regulierung kinderähnlicher Sexpuppen. 2020. https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/791508/4b5cfe718d24bd111e81a039203bce8a/WD-7-072-20-pdf.pdf.
Loibl E, van der Aa S. Criminalization of childlike sex dolls under international and EU law. Eur J Crime, Crim Law Crim Justice. 2023;31:217–42.
Loibl E, van der Aa S, Hendriks-Lundh M, Niemark R. Exploring different national approaches to prohibiting childlike sex dolls. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law. 2023;30:63–82.
CPS. Sex dolls childlike. 2022. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sex-dolls-childlike.
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-26.html#docCont.
CNA. South Korea allows import of sex dolls as private matter. 2022. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/south-korea-allows-import-sex-dolls-private-matter-government-private-life-3168396.
Desbuleux JC, Fuss J. The self-reported sexual real-world consequences of sex doll use. J Sex Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2199727.
Yasuyama T, Ohi K, Shimada T, Uehara T, Kawasaki Y. Differences in social functioning among patients with major psychiatric disorders: interpersonal communication is impaired in patients with schizophrenia and correlates with an increase in schizotypal traits. Psychiatry Res. 2017;249:30–34.
Benning SD, Patrick CJ, Hicks BM, Blonigen DM, Krueger RF. Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychol Assess. 2003;15:340–50.
Seto MC. The motivation-facilitation model of sexual offending. Sex Abus. 2019;31:3–24.
Venables N, Hall J, Patrick C. Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder: a triarchic model perspective. Psychol Med. 2014;44:1005–13.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Scherner G, Amelung T, Schuler M, Grundmann D, Beier KM. Pädophilie und Hebephilie. In: Beier KM, editor. Pädophilie, Hebephilie und sexueller Kindesmissbrauch. 1st ed. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2018. pp. 1–14.
Dartnall E, Jewkes R. Sexual violence against women: the scope of the problem. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:3–13.
Beier KM. Differential typology and prognosis for dissexual behavior – a follow-up study of previously expert-appraised child molesters. Int J Leg Med. 1998;111:133–41.
Seto MC (editor). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2018.
Kein Täter werden: Ablauf und Ziele. 2024. https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/betroffene/.
König A. Über 15 Jahre „Kein Täter werden “–mehr Schaden als Nutzen? Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol. 2023;17:389–94.
Nentzl J, Scherner G. Therapiebeginn, dropout und follow-up–Untersuchungen im Präventionsprojekt Dunkelfeld. Sexuologie. 2021;28:249–58.
Schmucker M, Lösel F. Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema. 2008;20:10–19.
Lievesley R, Harper CA, Woodward E, Tenbergen G. Fantasy sexual material use by people with attractions to children. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2023;25:395–404.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Appel JM. Unconventional harm reduction interventions for minor-attracted persons. Clin Ethics. 2023;18:183–91.
Leslie KM. Harm reduction. An approach to reducing risky health behaviours in adolescents. Paediatr Child Health. 2008;13:53–60.
Ritter A, Cameron J. A review of the efficacy and effectiveness of harm reduction strategies for alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2006;25:611–24.
Jahnke S, Imhoff R, Hoyer J. Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: two comparative surveys. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:21–34.
Cantor JM, McPhail IV. Non-offending pedophiles. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2016;8:121–1238.
Frommel M. Die neue Strafbarkeit des Besitzes auf Kind gemachter Sexpuppen. Neue Krim. 2021;33:150–8.