(SexDollPornHD) Should Biden Issue Free Sex Dolls to Adult Males?

It’s 2022 and over the past few years, much crazier and more insane things have happened. What would it truly look like if the Biden administration issued free sex dolls to everyone? The closest similar policy has to be the debatable “Obamaphone” era policies of the early 2010s, but let’s take a walk through what exactly the real-world impacts, costs, and even benefits could be. At its most absurd, if everyone had to pay the $1000 tax on the price of one of the hyper-realistic sex dolls, and that cost is tied to preventing the sexual assault of your wife or daughter, would you really NOT pay it?

 

What would government-issued sex dolls look like(if wildly successful)?

It would start like this: George Soros(or another progressive ally) just had another new vision, and the government sociologists had a brilliant inspiration: they would provide every adult male with a free sex doll in an effort to reduce harm and prevent assaults. The idea was met with skepticism at first, but the government was confident that it would be successful.

Lois Griffin's Best Sex Doll Look-alike

They commissioned the best engineers and designers in the country to create the perfect sex dolls, ones that were both realistic and durable, from vendors all over the world. The dolls were made of high-quality materials and were designed to be as lifelike as possible, with realistic skin, hair, and features.

The government distributed the dolls to every adult male in the country, and the results were immediate and staggering. Crime rates plummeted, and the streets were safer than they had ever been before. People were able to fulfill their sexual desires without harming others, and the overall level of happiness in the country increased.

The government’s genius policy had been a resounding success, and they were hailed as heroes for their innovative approach to reducing harm and preventing assaults. The free sex dolls were celebrated as a revolutionary invention that changed the world for the better.

  • Our Favorite Overall!

  • Wide Variety of Customization

  • Super Realistic

  • Most Affordable Pricing

  • Good Customer Service Response Time

  • Discrete Shipping & Payment

  • One of Our Favorites!

  • Very Affordable

  • The MOST Realistic

  • Canadian Company

  • Best Overall Customer Service

  • Discrete Shipping & Payment

  • One of Our Favorites!

  • Good Customizations

  • Highly Realistic

  • GREAT Prices

  • Fast, Helpful Customer Service

  • Discrete Shipping & Payment

What Are The Arguments?

One may argue that providing free sex dolls to adult males could be an effective way for the government to reduce harm and prevent assaults. One could argue that giving individuals access to sex dolls could provide them with a safe and healthy outlet for their sexual desires, reducing the likelihood that they will engage in harmful behaviors such as assault or harassment.

One could also argue that providing free sex dolls could be an innovative and cost-effective solution to reducing harm and preventing assaults. One could compare the cost of providing free sex dolls to the cost of implementing other measures, such as hiring more police officers or providing education and resources to prevent assault.

In addition, one could argue that providing free sex dolls could have a positive impact on the economy and society as a whole. One could argue that the increased demand for sex dolls could create new jobs and stimulate economic growth and that the reduced rates of assault and harm could improve public safety and overall quality of life.

Overall, one could argue that providing free sex dolls to adult males is a practical, effective, and innovative solution to reducing harm and preventing assaults.

Should Biden Issue Free Sex Dolls to Adult Males?

Here Are The Top 30 Benefits of Government-Issued Sex Dolls:

  1. The program could provide access to sexual fulfillment for many adult males who might not have been able to afford it otherwise.
  2. The program could help to reduce harm and prevent sexual assaults by providing a safe and legal outlet for male sexuality.
  3. The program could provide a safety net for individuals who need access to emergency or other support services related to sexual health and well-being.
  4. The program could be relatively cost-effective, compared to other measures for reducing harm and preventing sexual assaults.
  5. The program could have a positive impact on the overall availability and affordability of sex dolls.
  6. The program could help to create job opportunities and economic growth within the sex doll industry.
  7. The program could provide a convenient and user-friendly way for eligible individuals to access sexual fulfillment.
  8. The program could have a positive impact on public safety and overall quality of life.
  9. The program could help to reduce social isolation and improve connections and relationships among eligible individuals.
  10. The program could have a positive impact on the overall perception and awareness of harm and sexual assaults, and the role of sex dolls in addressing these issues.
  11. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of health and well-being among eligible individuals.
  12. The program could help to reduce discrimination and bias in access to sexual fulfillment.
  13. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of education and knowledge about sexual health and well-being among eligible individuals.
  14. The program could help to reduce barriers to employment and other economic opportunities for individuals in the sex doll industry.
  15. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of community engagement and participation among eligible individuals and the sex doll industry.
  16. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing emergency and other support services related to sexual health and well-being.
  17. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of social and political participation among eligible individuals.
  18. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing healthcare and other social services related to sexual health and well-being.
  19. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of cultural and artistic expression related to sexual health and well-being.
  20. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing public transportation and other infrastructure services related to the sex doll industry.
  21. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of environmental awareness and sustainability within the sex doll industry.
  22. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing housing and other basic necessities for individuals in the sex doll industry.
  23. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of public health and safety related to the use of sex dolls.
  24. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing mental health and other support services related to sexual health and well-being.
  25. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of social and emotional well-being among eligible individuals and the sex doll industry.
  26. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing legal and other support services related to sexual health and well-being.
  27. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of community cohesion and solidarity within the sex doll industry.
  28. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing social and community programs related to sexual health and well-being.
  29. The program could have a positive impact on the overall level of civic and political engagement related to the use of sex dolls.
  30. The program could help to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing public and private sector services related to the sex doll industry.

 

And Now, The Top 30 Negative Aspects of Taxpayer-Funded Sex Dolls

  1. The cost of the program, which would likely be funded by taxpayers, could be significant.
  2. There could be reports of fraud and abuse within the program, with some individuals receiving free sex dolls who do not meet the eligibility requirements.
  3. The sex dolls provided through the program could be low-quality and not adequately fulfill the desires of all users.
  4. Some critics could argue that the program is a prime example of government overreach and wasteful spending.
  5. The money being spent on the program could be better used elsewhere, such as on education or healthcare.
  6. The program could create a dependency on free sex dolls, rather than empowering individuals to access and afford their own sexual fulfillment.
  7. The program could have negative impacts on the environment, due to the production and disposal of sex dolls.
  8. The program could perpetuate harmful attitudes and behaviors towards women and sexuality.
  9. The program could create confusion and misunderstanding about the availability and eligibility for free sex dolls, leading to frustration and disappointment for some individuals.
  10. The program could have negative impacts on public perception of adult males and government assistance programs.
  11. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for personal or sensitive purposes, such as privacy and discretion.
  12. The program could create challenges for individuals who have specific preferences or requirements for their sex dolls, such as specific body types or features.
  13. The program could have negative impacts on the overall quality and reliability of sex dolls, due to the influx of new users and potential strain on the industry.
  14. The program could create complications for individuals who need to maintain or repair their sex dolls, such as finding qualified technicians or obtaining replacement parts.
  15. The program could have negative impacts on the overall availability and affordability of sex dolls, due to the costs of the program and potential reductions in competition within the industry.
  16. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for emergency purposes, such as if their doll breaks or malfunctions unexpectedly.
  17. The program could have negative impacts on public health and safety if the sex dolls are not adequately sanitized or maintained.
  18. The program could create challenges for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for educational or research purposes, such as studying human sexuality or robot ethics.
  19. The program could have negative impacts on the overall accessibility and usability of sex dolls, due to the wide range of dolls and capabilities provided through the program.
  20. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for personal connections and relationships, such as if they are in long-distance or non-monogamous relationships.
  21. The program could create difficulties for individuals who have ethical or moral objections to using sex dolls, such as on religious or feminist grounds.
  22. The program could have negative impacts on the overall market and demand for sex dolls, such as reducing the incentive for innovation and development within the industry.
  23. The program could create challenges for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for performance or artistic purposes, such as if they are sex workers or sex educators.
  24. The program could have negative impacts on the overall social and cultural acceptance of sex dolls, such as perpetuating stigma or misunderstanding about their use.
  25. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for physical or psychological therapy, such as if they have disabilities or trauma-related conditions.
  26. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to dispose of their sex dolls responsibly, such as if they no longer want or need them.
  27. The program could have negative impacts on the overall aesthetic and design of sex dolls, such as promoting unrealistic or objectifying standards of beauty.
  28. The program could create challenges for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for reproductive purposes, such as if they are surrogates or sperm donors.
  29. The program could have negative impacts on the overall regulation and oversight of sex dolls, such as if there are safety or quality concerns with the dolls provided through the program.
  30. The program could create difficulties for individuals who need to use their sex dolls for personal growth or self-discovery, such as if they are exploring their sexuality or gender identity.

 

This Isn’t Even The First “Random Product” That The Federal Government Issued For Free

In the early 2010s, the government implemented a program known as the Lifeline Assistance program, which provided eligible low-income individuals with free phones and phone service. The program, which was sometimes referred to as the “Obamaphone” program, was intended to help bridge the digital divide and provide access to communication services for those who might not otherwise be able to afford them.

At the time, the program was hailed as a success. Many people who had previously been unable to afford phone service were able to stay connected with friends, family, and potential employers, and were able to access important resources such as emergency services.

However, the program was not without its drawbacks. The cost of the program, which was funded by a fee on phone service providers, was significant, and some critics argued that the program was being abused by individuals who did not meet the eligibility requirements. Additionally, the phones provided through the program were often basic, low-quality models, and the phone service was limited.

Overall, the “Obamaphone” era was a mixed bag. While the program did provide access to communication services for many low-income individuals, it was not without its challenges and criticisms.

Here Are The Top 30 Worst Aspects of the Obamaphone Era Policies:

  1. The cost of the program, which was funded by a fee on phone service providers, was significant.
  2. There were reports of fraud and abuse within the program, with some individuals receiving free phones and phone service who did not meet the eligibility requirements.
  3. The phones provided through the program were often basic, low-quality models, and the phone service was limited.
  4. Some critics argued that the program was a prime example of government overreach and wasteful spending.
  5. The money being spent on the program could have been better used elsewhere, such as on education or healthcare.
  6. The program did not address the root causes of digital inequality, such as the lack of access to affordable internet service.
  7. The program could have had negative impacts on the phone service industry, such as reducing competition and innovation.
  8. The program did not provide support for individuals who needed more advanced or specialized phone services, such as those with disabilities.
  9. The program may have perpetuated the idea that low-income individuals are not capable of affording their own phone service.
  10. The program did not provide support for individuals who needed other forms of communication technology, such as computers or internet service.
  11. The program may have created a dependency on free phones and phone service, rather than empowering individuals to access and afford their own communication technology.
  12. The program may have had negative impacts on the environment, due to the production and disposal of the free phones.
  13. The program did not provide support for individuals who needed ongoing access to phone service, such as those who are homeless or in unstable housing situations.
  14. The program may have contributed to the proliferation of low-quality, disposable phones, rather than promoting the use of sustainable, high-quality technology.
  15. The program may have created confusion and misunderstanding about the availability and eligibility for free phones and phone service, leading to frustration and disappointment for some individuals.
  16. The program did not provide support for individuals who needed access to other communication technologies, such as email or social media.
  17. The program may have created a false sense of security for some individuals, who relied on their free phone for emergency services but did not have access to other forms of communication or support.
  18. The program may have created difficulties for individuals who needed to transfer their phone number or service to a different provider.
  19. The program may have created challenges for individuals who needed to use their phone for work or other important purposes, but were limited by the quality and capabilities of the free phone.
  20. The program did not provide support for individuals who needed ongoing access to phone service, such as those who are incarcerated or in rehabilitation facilities.
  21. The program may have had negative impacts on public perception of low-income individuals and government assistance programs.
  22. The program may have created difficulties for individuals who needed to use their phones for personal or sensitive purposes, such as making private calls or accessing confidential information.
  23. The program may have created challenges for individuals who needed to use their phones for financial transactions, such as online banking or making payments.
  24. The program may have created complications for individuals who needed to use their phones for travel or navigation, such as accessing maps or directions.
  25. The program may have had negative impacts on the overall availability and affordability of phone service, due to the costs of the program and potential reductions in competition within the industry.
  26. The program may have created difficulties for individuals who needed to use their phones for emergency services, but were unable to due to limited coverage or service interruptions.
  27. The program may have had negative impacts on the overall quality and reliability of phone service, due to the influx of new users and potential strain on the network.
  28. The program may have created challenges for individuals who needed to use their phones for educational or professional purposes, such as accessing online courses or job resources.
  29. The program may have had negative impacts on the overall accessibility and usability of phone services, due to the wide range of devices and capabilities provided through the program.
  30. The program may have created difficulties for individuals who needed to use their phone for personal connections and relationships, such as making and receiving calls or messages from friends and family.

Don’t Forget The Top 30 Benefits the Program Provided for Residents and Citizens Alike

  1. The program provided access to communication services for many low-income individuals who might not have been able to afford them otherwise.
  2. The program helped to bridge the digital divide and improve social and economic opportunities for eligible individuals.
  3. The program provided a safety net for individuals who needed access to emergency services or other important resources.
  4. The program was relatively cost-effective, compared to other measures for reducing digital inequality.
  5. The program had a positive impact on the overall availability and affordability of phone services.
  6. The program may have contributed to job creation and economic growth within the phone service industry.
  7. The program provided a convenient and user-friendly way for eligible individuals to access phone service.
  8. The program may have had a positive impact on public safety and overall quality of life.
  9. The program may have helped to reduce social isolation and improve connections and relationships among eligible individuals.
  10. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall perception and awareness of digital inequality and government assistance programs.
  11. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of health and well-being among eligible individuals.
  12. The program may have helped to reduce discrimination and bias in access to communication services.
  13. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of education and knowledge among eligible individuals.
  14. The program may have helped to reduce barriers to employment and other economic opportunities for eligible individuals.
  15. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of community engagement and participation among eligible individuals.
  16. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing emergency services and other public resources.
  17. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of social and political participation among eligible individuals.
  18. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing healthcare and other social services.
  19. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of cultural and artistic expression among eligible individuals.
  20. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing public transportation and other infrastructure services.
  21. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of environmental awareness and sustainability among eligible individuals.
  22. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing housing and other basic necessities.
  23. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of public health and safety among eligible individuals.
  24. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing mental health and other support services.
  25. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of social and emotional well-being among eligible individuals.
  26. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing legal and other support services.
  27. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of community cohesion and solidarity among eligible individuals.
  28. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing social and community programs.
  29. The program may have had a positive impact on the overall level of civic and political engagement among eligible individuals.
  30. The program may have helped to reduce the overall burden and cost of providing public and private sector services.

 

Should Biden Issue State-Sponsored, Free Sex Dolls for Every Adult Male? 

It is difficult to predict the exact outcome of a scenario like this, but it is unlikely that providing free sex dolls to adult males would be an effective way to reduce harm and prevent assaults. While it is true that some individuals may choose to use sex dolls as an alternative to engaging in harmful behavior, it is also possible that this approach could have unintended consequences. For example, it could potentially normalize the use of sex dolls and lead to a greater demand for them, which could have negative impacts on the economy and society as a whole. Additionally, providing free sex dolls to adult males would not address the root causes of harm and assault, such as lack of education and access to resources, and may even perpetuate harmful attitudes and behaviors. It is important to carefully consider the potential consequences of any policy before implementing it. Leave us a comment if you think this would work well!