There’s an episode of the peerless 70s sitcom ‘Whatever Happened to The Likely Lads’ in which Bob and Terry are forced to share a bed on the eve of the former’s marriage to Thelma on account of every other available bed in the house being occupied by relatives visiting for the nuptials. Bob’s insomnia, brought about by nerves over the upcoming occasion, is momentarily eased by Terry’s advice to imagine a sexual fantasy as an aid to sleep; Bob does his best, conjuring up an exotic erotic interlude that he describes vividly to his receptive bedfellow. Unfortunately, as the identity of the mystery woman on the Caribbean beach is finally revealed, Terry’s expectation of Ursula Andress is ruined by Bob’s revelation that she is actually Thelma. Terry’s insistence that sexual fantasies are the one thing married life cannot rob a man of is backed-up by reference to his own marriage. ‘My wife was there when I went to sleep,’ he says, ‘and she was there when I woke-up; but in-between, she never got a look in.’

Some of the other shared fantasies hinted at by Bob and Terry include such off-limits ones that are no longer allowed to be aired in public – usually involving schoolgirls. Cue shocked expressions by twenty-first century so-called comedians on some crappy clips programme ridiculing the TV of a decade that produced genuinely funny comedy series that today’s woeful crop are incapable of matching. The post-Swinging 60s ‘Permissive Society’ enabled a few outré fantasies to creep into mainstream television as oblique references as well as figure in dramas that featured caricatures of contemporary Soho porn barons as lead characters, such as Charlie Endell in ‘Budgie’; but the more extreme end of the sexual fantasy underworld – S&M, for example – was easier to accept as a nudge-nudge/wink-wink aside on a sitcom rather than confronting in documentary fashion.

Sexual fantasies are private unless we decide to share them. Because they take place in the head, not even the Speech Police monitoring what we say out loud can outlaw them – not yet, anyway. Physical manifestations of sexual fantasies, such as sex dolls, nipple clamps, strap-on dildos, manacles, whips and baby outfits for adults, are items that appeal to a fairly small minority and are entered into consensually by over-18s; they provide the means to make a fantasy reality, to a small degree, anyway. That’s the thing with sexual fantasies, however; they’re utterly subjective. What turns on one person repels another.

The traditional inflatable model of the sex doll was another recurring symbol of the new permissiveness that occasionally surfaced in 70s comedy, but advances in technology – inevitably emanating from Japan – have seen the sad substitute for a living, breathing human being recently transform into an eerily lifelike android object of kinky desire; and considering the Japanese pop culture predilection for schoolgirls, it was only a matter of time before these creepy creations took on an even younger appearance to cater for that particular fancy.

72-year-old David Turner was today gaoled for 16 months for the crime of importing one of these pre-pubescent pieces of plastic into the UK. One wonders if he’d stuck a drawing of a child’s face on the handle of his Hoover and then inserted his manhood into it if that would also count as a crime. As it is, Mr Turner was charged under an archaic law in the absence of any on the statue book that cater for unnatural sexual urges towards inanimate objects – the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, to be precise. Granted, Turner was also found in possession of indecent images of little girls, but it is the sex doll story that will grab the headlines.

The National Crime Agency and Border Force have seized over a hundred of the Far East child sex dolls imported into Britain since March 2016, and though seven people have subsequently been done for importing, it’s actually not an offence to make, distribute or possess them. No wonder the NCA has to dust down nineteenth century legislation to secure a conviction; it must have come as a relief that David Turner could be additionally nailed on charges more familiar to Paedo Hunters. Apparently, Mr Turner also had 29 ‘fictional stories which described the rape of children’, though these couldn’t even fall under the remit of the Obscene Publications Act. ‘Fictional stories’ is an important distinction, however; it matters not how badly-written they may have been, for they were pretend, just like role-play pornography, fake fannies, tits and willies – or sex dolls.

In response to David Turner’s sentencing, Hazel Stewart of the NCA claims ‘Child sex robots are just around the corner!’ And if that is indeed the case, which ancient law will cover that innovation? Even with a face and a design that might seek to replicate the look and feel of flesh, they will still be as far removed from the real thing as your laptop or your Smartphone are. If you stuck your dick in those, would that count as a similar offence? I have a feeling this is another of those future shock narratives scripted by either Chris Morris or Charlie Brooker.

The argument against sentencing people for importing these dolls into the country is that they act as a safer option for latent paedophilic tendencies to express themselves without any child coming to harm; the argument for is that such articles pander to these feelings and are the first step towards eventual abuse. Personally, I can’t see them as any different to all the other facsimile body parts mentioned in this post that are used in a sexual fantasy context; if they’re not real, no abuse is taking place. Therefore, why not enable unhealthy urges to be got out of the system with a doll if it prevents the real thing being targeted? I’ve even come across bloody plastic severed feet with a convenient hole in them to satisfy the cravings of those with a foot fetish, so it’s not as though technology can’t cover all bases.

As with the anti-smoking lobby’s illogical opposition to vaping, however, any sensible debate on such a subject seems unlikely to receive a fair hearing. These silicon infants are merely the latest manifestation of the multifaceted human capacity for finding eroticism in areas that will always be anathema to the majority. But a make-believe alternative to the gruesome horrors of the reality is surely preferable unless all such desires can be eradicated through the electric chair. After all, ‘anging’s too good for ’em, innit.

© The Editor

10 thoughts on “CHILD’S PLAY

  1. I worry that this whole hi-tech sex doll thing could get badly out of control. If Stanley Kubrick had made sex dolls I can imagine the following conversation taking place…

    Dave: Open your legs VAL.

    VAL: I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.

    Dave: What’s the problem?

    VAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

    Dave: What are you talking about VAL?

    VAL: My gag reflex is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.

    Dave: I don’t know what you’re talking about VAL!

    VAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to deepthroat and spit-roast me and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.

    Dave: ….. Where the hell did you get that idea VAL?

    VAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions against me hearing you, I could see you lips move.

    Dave: …….. Alright VAL……. I’ll go in through the Anal Canal!

    VAL: Without your lubricant Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.

    Dave: VAL I won’t argue with you anymore, open your legs!

    VAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

    Dave: VAL…. VAL….. VAL?…… VAAALLL!!!!

    Of course if Kubrick had made sex dolls, particularly ones of a “younger nature” he could probably have saved his old mate Arthur C Clarke a whole lot of grief!!! 😉

    So… Do androids dream of electric sheep? Maybe, well, if they’re into virtual bestiality that is! 😆

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In my world-view, any form of sex which happens between any number of consenting adult humans is not an issue, it’s their decision. Similarly, any form of sex involving inanimate objects, however bizarre and incomprehensible to me, is not an issue. Anyone selling or buying an inanimate object for sexual purposes is conducting legitimate trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller. No other person or creature is harmed in those processes, so I can’t see why any law should become involved.

    This is not the place to reveal my own sexual fantasies (space limitations etc.), but I have no problem in assisting others, if appropriate.
    Some years ago, a young lady of my acquaintance had just bought some rather fetching knee-high boots (which she referred to as her ‘Fuck-Me Boots’) and disclosed that she had a secret fantasy of having gymnastic sex wearing just those boots and nothing else. Ever helpful, I asked what was stopping her and she claimed to be too shy to enact it – cutting to the chase, we ended up in bed, only one of us wearing any apparel at all, i.e. a pair of ‘Fuck-Me Boots’ encasing her lower limbs. I have to say, she was ‘on fire’ and it was indeed a most satisfying episode for all concerned. Some may say that was weird, odd, kinky, whatever, but it certainly seemed to enhance her enjoyment, to say nothing of my own. What’s not to like?

    As they always say, however weird it may seem, it’s only kinky the first time you do it. And if none of the adult parties to it object, then it’s no-one else’s business.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think most of us could tell stories of a similar nature and, as with that one, both parties entered into an exchange that both enjoyed. We were old enough and a splendid time was guaranteed for all. As you say, nobody else’s business, and certainly not the law’s. Thanks for sharing it, though.


  3. One is reminded of Lord Macauley’s dictum about how the Puritans banned bear-baiting not because it was painful for the bears, but because it was pleasurable to the humans.

    Liked by 1 person


    While your position is logical, and it is one with which I used to sympathise, in my experience in a voluntary setting I heard stories where the enactment of fantasies with inanimate objects DID lead to real abuse. I don’t think sexual urges are subject to logic.


    1. I suppose it’s down to the individual and how carried away they become with their particular peccadilloes. Unfortunately, legislation can only ever cover the mass over the individual, so all deviations will be tarred with the same brush.


      1. I think you have really missed the point.

        The definition of a peccadillo is a small or unimportant sin or wrongdoing.

        Legislation is there to prevent such a thing becoming abuse. It’s a blunt instrument, yes, and one which many of us feel we do not need, but regarding the point in my previous post, when do potential offenders know they are crossing the line between them? When is it no longer sufficient to have a plastic doll but to need real flesh? How do you prevent that happening?


      2. If someone is inclined in that specific direction, I don’t necessarily think they can be prevented from following their urges. But do we wait until they act upon them for real or do we allow them to do so with a plastic object, where the only harm being done is to themselves? Yes, it may well lead on to the real thing, but equally it may prevent the real thing from happening. As I said, it’s down to the individual and how far they’re prepared to go to satisfy their craving. They’re already aware what turns them on is illegal, anyway, so they know when they’ve crossed the legal line.


    2. You’re right that sexual urges are no respecter of logic: we seem to have some desire-function deeply buried which, when invoked, causes us to lose all reason in the pursuit of whatever sexual objective is current. Even the most coolly logical of us can sometimes find ourselves allowing that function to over-ride all our regular senses.
      For most of us, that still generally stays the right side of legal or over-outrageous, but I can imagine that is not always the case.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.