Story here.
Editor
David Boonin (Colorado)Advisory Board
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Brown)
Neera Badhwar (Oklahoma)
Francis Beckwith (Baylor)
David Benatar (Cape Town)
Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State)
John Corvino (Wayne State)
Robert George (Princeton)
Lori Gruen (Wesleyan)
Dale Jamieson (NYU)
Christopher Kaczor (Loyola Marymount)
Eva Feder Kittay (Stony Brook)
Eric Mack (Tulane)
Elinor Mason (Edinburgh)
Jan Narveson (Waterloo)
Tommie Shelby (Harvard)
Nancy Sherman (Georgetown)
Saul Smilansky (Haifa)
Bonnie Steinbock (SUNY Albany)
Heather Widdows (Birmingham)Partner Journals
note for contributors
Information about submitting material to What's Wrong? can be found here.search this site
-
follow us on facebook
What's Wrong? 
It seems as though the company generally agreed with the fact that it would be wrong to make a “rape doll” and states that isn’t what has happened and is not what was asked for by the companies consumer base. However, I disagree that such a doll would normalize rape, but perhaps it would make it “easier” to obtain a rape-like response from the doll. We must remember that these dolls are not humans, though they may look like them, and however disturbing this may be to people without psychiatric issues, I believe to ban this type of doll would violate most particularly the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (understanding the article is for UK Policy) in conjunction with the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments which granted the right for women to use birth control in the SCOTUS Griswold v. Connecticut case of 1965. This would also protect the use of sex dolls or sex toys in a private home without regard to how realistic these dolls are or sexually deviant these actions may be. If sex dolls like this were banned, wouldn’t it also entail that any household stimulation of crime of any type must also be banned? (I’m looking at you video-gamers). Unfortunately, no matter how intuitively wrong the allowance of rape dolls would be to any society, the United States Constitution grants that people are protected from governmental intrusion into their homes.
LikeLike
The idea behind rape should of course never be promoted whatsoever. It would be similar to handing out child sex dolls to pedophiles. So a “rape doll” shouldn’t be manufactured. It wouldn’t really normalize rape but instead widespread it within secret in households. But, I do agree with Gianna, the doll is just a doll with human characteristics but also an inanimate object and taking this away would violate the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in conjunction with the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments. Dolls are found in households and not exposed to the public eye. Yes, rape is universally wrong, but it is a market product similar to anything else. Whether dolls catering to illegal lusts like pedophilia or rape would likely reduce or increase attacks on real people can be deduced. Even if the results showed no bias, either way, I’d be in favor of allowing them, for the reason that I believe people can do what they want in private if it doesn’t hurt anyone. Otherwise, you are just imposing your moral prism on other people. I’d add that rape is abhorrent to me personally, but removing references to rape from the Western Canon would leave it quite threadbare. It can also correlate with the idea video games can promote violence (same case scenario). As such these sex robots are no different to any other sex toys that are available.
LikeLike