A philosopher named John Danaher examined the issue of mini sex doll as well as robot criminalization from the perspective from legal moralism . This position is that the morality of a particular act or item ought to be sufficient to be an argument for its repression or decriminalization, regardless of the actual harm (or absence of harm) that it inflicts on others. Danaher uses research by Strikwerda to claim that sexual activities using a sex toy or robot is a way to promote and legitimize the practice of sexual violence as a morally unwholesome behavior, due to its apparent non-consensual and power-splitting nature . In another work, Danaher has gone so as to suggest that the possession of cheap sex doll or robots is a sign of an absence of morality as a whole and suggests that one possible outcome of ownership might be its inclusion in registration procedures that are that are currently restricted to those with sexual convictions. Danaher is not the only one discussing child-like dolls as well as robots from this moral standpoint.

 

In a second effort to defend the legalization of distribution and creation of child-like sex toys as well as robots Chatterjee admitted the absence of any personal harm that could be caused by these products. However, she used a theory in relation to "cultural harm" to argue that "permitting a trade in even abstract child sex dolls and robots could be seen as sanctioning and facilitating a public atmosphere that encourages the portrayal of children as sexual objects, and the acceptance and normalization of child abuse". Although this argument is logical sense, it's interesting (and similar to the remainder of the philosophical literature about robots and child sex toys) because it's presented in isolation , and without reference to an opposing viewpoint on the prevention of child sexual assault. Certain professionals in the field of forensic health have claimed that teen sex doll and robots may contribute to helping to prevent child sexual assault (for discussion, refer to ). This suggests that robots and sex doll provide an opportunity to sexually indulge without the need of being a target that can satisfy the fantasies of certain people who have sexual interests in children. Although this possibility is discussed in a few of the philosophical articles mentioned previously, the idea is often dismissed as a mystery, possibly because of a misinterpretation about the nature of sexual desires in philosophers (see ) with no real research-based analysis of its merits that is taking place.

 

It is believed that the Australian Institute of Criminology (which is a division that is part of the Australian Government) commissioned a report written by Rick Brown and Jane Shelling to investigate the possible legal and behavioral implications of the use of dolls for sexual purposes by children [3*3*. The report's authors sought to analyze the evidence available on the use of child sex dolls and suggested suggestions based on this analysis. The specific implications being studied included:

 

Promotion of sexualization of children

 

the degree to which child-like sexual dolls are a sign of an increase in use the material for child sexual exploitation (CSEM);

 

the acceptance of the normalization of child sexual abuse (i.e. the causal connection between sex dolls made by children and sexual assaults committed by contact against children) as well as

 

the possibility that child-like sex dolls may be used to groom sexually children.