this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
316 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
82830 readers
3191 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"that look like children" is not enforceable. Are you requiring a minimum height? A minimum number of ageing features? A certain breast size? What about cartoon/anime stylized products?
But the core issue is that this literally won't solve anything and it's, therefore, a waste of time and public money.
Why do you think it is unenforceable? Australia already enforces a ban on these dolls and arrests anyone attempting to import them.
I believe they meant it wasn't easy to consistently enforce, for the reasons they mention.
Australia might be doing this, but it doesn't change that it's all arbitrary and impossible to prove in court outside of the "best judgement" call argument, which is by definition inconsistent.
That, and the fact they're playing tag with people trying to sell it, which are breaking down these dolls into parts and selling them separately. And what for? In the end it's just an object which sales ban won't solve any real issues.
If it was for free, I'd consider supporting it. But it has a cost, it's subjective (to some extent), and has no tangible benefit other than making some people feel good about themselves.
Many people would fuck Ariana Grande and she looks younger then she should.
Anime stuff is crazy. What amounts to young girls with huge tits in a lot of cases. All kinds of products like bedding or pillows feature them, and of course there’s porn of it, and as far as I can tell it doesn’t get treated any different than a niche weird porn. Somehow these are fine, but sex dolls aren’t? I’m not advocating for one or the other, but it seems like if we call one “bad”, the other should be too.
If you read the title of the article, it would seem this is absolutely enforceable.
Also, of course Lemmy is arguing in favour of child sex dolls, I'd expect nothing less.
Ofc you frame it that way. Most people on here are just against banning things where there's A, no victims and B, no real way to determine age. You'd have to ban drawings the same way if the characters appear childlike. How is this enforceable. By the opinion of whoever is looking over something? The article specifically mentions weight and size but I don't think thats sufficient in itself.
Doesn't France already ban depictions of characters that look like minors in sexual situations and also depiction of rape and sexual violence.
In the US obscene drawings of underage characters in sexual situations is illegal under the Protect act "Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct"
Some states explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography
Out of curiosity, does that include cherubs or is religious iconography exempt?
With something like this, a judgement call would ultimately need to be made, yes. That's how a lot of law enforcement works.
lol they're not arguing against because it's a pointless measure
you're confusing picking your fights with being supportive
If children sex dolls are readily available it risks normalizing the concept of sex with children. Both for potential pedophiles as well as children who browse shein, might get the impression that adults having sex with children is a thing.
It absolutely has a point, the point being manufacturing and selling sex toys that look like children is absolutely disgusting.
And picking your battles doesn't typically mean arguing against the law being passed on the Internet.
Why not ban scat fetish then as well?
Scat fetish typically involves grown adults.
Having sex with a doll also only involves grown adults.
You justified the ban with it being disgusting so I repeat the question: Why not ban scat fetish then as well?
Adults doing weird things with other adults is fine with me.
Adults having sex with something intended to represent a child? Hell no. Selling these things is the thin end of the wedge in my view.
Adult men having sex with adult women is fine with me.
Adult men having sex with another men? Hell no. Engaging in that is the thin end of the wedge in my view.
Why is this not a valid reason to ban homosexuality but it's good enough to ban sex dolls?
I have far better things to do with my time than explain why depicting sex with children is a bad thing to a stranger on the Internet.
You seem to have plenty of time for moral grandstanding, but the second someone asks you to make a coherent argument, time's suddenly up.
"Disgusting, you're probably a pedophile, I don't care that there's no victim, it's obvious so I don't need to explain it" has been your entire contribution so far. If you don't care about trying to change anyone's mind, then I don't know what you're even doing here besides just making noise.
ah, the point is that it's disgusting, thanks for confirming the emptiness of the argument
next time I'm before an unflushed toilet I'll call the authorities