IS POSSESSION OF A CHILD-LIKE SEX DOLL ILLEGAL?

A sex doll (also love doll or blowup doll) is a type of sex toy in the size and shape of a sexual partner for aid in masturbation. The sex doll may consist of an entire body with face, or just a head, pelvis or other partial body, with the accessories (vagina, anus, mouth, penis) used for sexual stimulation.                                                    

There is a man in Michigan who calls himself “Davecat” who lives with three sex dolls representing his wife and two mistresses. Which one does he prefer over the others?  Hey! I am not going to touch that answer with a ten foot barge pole.

There is a long history in the United States of regulating, and even criminalizing, various sexual practices and various kinds of sex toys. The courts are split on their decisions and have been for many years. Federal Constitutional laws and state statute laws diverge on this issue.

Quite frankly, I don’t see why possession of sex dolls in the shape and size of a woman over 17 years of age should be illegal.  A former Canadian prime minister announced years ago that "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." Prime minister Trudeau went on to say "What's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code."

It seems to me that if a man or a woman chooses to pretend that they are  they are having sex and they are doing it with a sex doll, they are having sex with a sex doll in the privacy of their bedroom, then the State can stay out of their bedroom also. The Canadian Criminal Code does not have a law forbidding the possession of  or the sexual use so a sex doll. 

But is being in possession of a sex doll that resembles a child illegal in Canada?  The answer is yes.

Canada's Criminal Code defines child pornography as "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means" that shows a person who is, or depicted as being, under 18 years old as being engaged inexplicit sexual activity. 

One of the great legislative challenges of history, from the Hittite abominations to the regulation of internet porn, has been anticipating the latent evils unleashed by man’s ingenuity.

Now, child sex dolls—robots engineered to warm to the human touch and disturbingly lifelike in their prepubescent features—are being marketed to pedophiles. Made overseas, they’re increasingly prevalent in the United States. Child-like sex dolls are illegal in the United Kingdom and also in Canada.  

A case heard in New Found land in Canada in May 2019, dealt with the issue of a man being in possession of a sex doll that was the size, shape and appearance of a child.

Kenneth Harrisson, 54, ordered the doll from Japan in 2013. , but it was intercepted on its way to his St. John's home. He was arrested when he took possession of a package that contained a child sex doll.

Harrisson had subsequently faced charges of possessing child pornography, mailing obscene matter, and two charges under the federal Customs Act of smuggling and possession of prohibited goods. 

The judge hearing this unusual child pornography trial said that his verdict would hinge on whether or not the accused knew that the sex doll he ordered online was to resemble a child. 

Cases like this kind of case are difficult to prove since the prosecutor has to prove what was in the mind of the accused when he ordered a sex doll.

Crown prosecutors argued that the doll is a three-dimensional form of child and questioned Harrisson's testimony that he did not order it to have sex with the doll.  

Harrisson's lawyer cast doubt on the reliability of the Japanese website Harrisson ordered the product from, and argued there's no way to know what size of doll his client meant to order. 

I am sure that could be determined if the prosecutor got a copy of the email message Harrison sent to Japan.

Harrisson said he did a Google search of the term "sex doll" and said he chose the photo that showed the most "male-like" face to resemble his son who would have been around age twenty-five in 2013.  What was sent to him was a doll that was definitely that of a small child.

Harrisson had testified that he did not intend to have sex with the doll and that he had ordered it for companionship to replace his son, who died as an infant.   Prosecutor Bill Howse pointed out that Harrisson had testified that the child he lost was a six-month boy. 

Harrisson had said he chose to buy a sex doll for its lifelike qualities and said he intended to dress the doll in male clothing.   

The provincial court judge told the prosecution team.  "For your case to succeed you have to satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew what he was ordering and he knew what he was getting, and that it was ( a form of) child pornography."

The prosecution team disputed Harrisson's testimony, saying the intercepted doll and the price Harrisson said he paid best resembled dolls marketed as children on the website, and those products fit the definition of child pornography.  

Crown prosecutor Dana Sullivan argued that Harrisson ordered a deluxe set with makeup and other accessories, suggesting intent to have sex with it.  hat is pure speculation.

Forensic psychiatrist, Peter Collins testified that the doll seized by the Canada Border Services Agency was the size of a child. He said it met the definition of child pornography and that such items appeal to a"pedophiliac subculture." 

That is non disputable but is it proof that Harrison wanted to have sex with the sex doll that looked like a small child? 

Harrison’s lawyer pointed out that the intercepted sex doll was never fully assembled, casting doubt over whether Harrisson had really ordered a child-sized doll.  

I am not convinced that such an argument is pertinent to this case.

He also pointed to Harrisson's testimony that he reached the page through Google and thought he was buying an adult doll marketed as "Carol."  

I thought he ordered a doll that looked like his six month old baby that died.  He said the doll’s face was what appealed to him, and the fact that the doll was kneeling in a sexual position did not factor into his decision. Harrisson said the idea to search the term “male sex doll” did not cross his mind.

Crown attorney Bill Howse said that  Harrisson’s explanation that he ordered a female sex doll as a male companion to replace his son “doesn’t make any sense” and asked him to explain his reasoning.

Harrison replied, “I did not order a sex doll of a childlike nature,” Harrisson said. “The purpose I intended it for was to replace my deceased son, period.”

This case brings up some issues on the limitation of freedom of expression.  For example, the laws of Japan are very different from the laws of Canada and very different from the laws of the United States.  It should be kept in mind when shopping online.

This complicated case had been working its way through court for years by raising the issue of what constitutes child pornography if no real child was involved and in this particular case, the sex toy could be used by a pedophile but there was no evidence that Harrison is a pedophile.

I am not going to accuse this man of purchasing the doll for any reason other than what he claimed ws his motive.

The judge ruled that there was no real evidence that Harrison’s  motive was anything other than what he said in his testimony Subsequently he was acquitted.

In my opinion, I believe that the judge probably wasn’t absolutely sure what the real truth of Harrison’s testimony was but when a judge is faced with that dilemma. he has to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.