People can’t be civil, locking.
Next…do the US Republican party.
Isn’t their slogan “shop like a billionaire?”. This tracks.
Billionaires rape real children.
Dammit … I hate it because iys true. ::upvotes::
💀
I know Temu uses that slogan. Are they owned by the same people? Would make sense, if so.
Baseball, huh?
and it finally makes sense, because I don’t think the average billionaire spends money on garbage as much as their average customer
Jesus fucking wept that’s gross
I don’t understand this. They’re dolls, they aren’t alive. Why people would care? This may be controversial, but I’d rather have a pedophile fucking a doll than raping a child
They are making these legislations to steer people’s focus away from the real CSA.
Remember. CSAM is just the symptom. CSA being the actual cause.
It’s a moral panic - pure and simple. The same reason some countries want to ban cartoon/animated pictures where the fictional character looks too young. I guess the underlying assumption there is that it’ll increase the number of people offending towards real children but I don’t think there’s any evidence to back that up.
If it was up to me, the criteria would be whether an actual person is being hurt directly or as a consequence of. That would include real violence, real pictures and possibly also GenAI stuff if it’s trained on real content.
Reduction in real pictures being distributed is not a real indicator of reduction in CSA and CSE either.
A simple anecdote to show it:
How many pictures of Epstein with children are in distribution? How many for his clients?
vs the actual lives he and his gang destroyed.The small timers are easier to catch and cull with traditional policing and internet restrictions/surveillance is going to do nothing to them in the face of what it will do to absolutely everyone else.
As far as the company in the post goes, better of letting them sell in your country, so you can easily put their customers on a watchlist, rather than be unknown until they start harming real people.
You’re putting a disturbing amount of effort into advocating for childlike sex dolls, or cartoon CP.
This is a horrible take. What if providing access to these dolls actually decreases the likelihood that a buyer will offend against a real child? Would you be against the sale of said dolls then?
If it’s lifelike, I can understand it, because that’s where I also draw the line when it comes to drawings and the likes.
In theory this is non-harmful. In practice this is part of a fantasy escalation ladder that leads bad places. Your actions are led by your thoughts, and you are the thoughts you feed. In reality it’s a good thing to not feed thoughts of abusing children.
I’d note that I’d be similarly uncomfortable with people buying hyper-realistic dolls to practice amateur torture on, but I’m ok with people buying silicone dolls to practice tattoo art and wound stitching on. The difference being intent, which is a line I’m equally unhappy with the government drawing. Someone slicing up a slab of silicone shaped like a baby because they have a desperate desire to hurt babies that they are actively feeding into is bad. Someone practicing stitching up silicone babies after injuries because they always wanted to be a doctor and never got the chance is healthier and fine. It’s the “what are you feeding with this action?” Problem of governance.
This is ‘videogsmes cause school shootings’ logic. There are better arguments than this.
Exactly. Same with faux bait stuff. I personally think it’s gross so I don’t consume it, but if everyone is a consenting adult and it stops people from consuming real CSAM I can’t really support banning it.
But the problem many people have with stuff like that is they assume the people consuming it will go on to do it to real people, which is the same argument they tried to use against violent video games.
A less obvious problem with AIGen CSAM is that the sheer volume of it could make it nearly impossible to track down actual cases of abused children. I am not particularly morally concerned with someone generating it — I don’t think it directly harms any child and I’m not entirely convinced it harms the consumer. And if those were the only considerations, I’d say have at it (subject to further research because I don’t think it is conclusive that it is harmless to the consumer, either).
But if it means law enforcement agencies have to give up prosecuting pedo rings of actual abusers because they can’t tell which images among the thousands are real, well that is real harm to real victims and that is enough to ban it.
Generated CSAM is banned. For the same reason, something like this should follow.
The case for banning simulated CSAM produced with GenAI is that if the training data contains actual CSAM then it would be directly contributing to real children being hurt. Obviously generating those pictures doesn’t further cause physical harm to anyone but someone has to already have been harmed in the past for that training data to exist in the first place.
This however is not true with cartoons for example nor does it apply to sex dolls either.
It wouldn’t compel me to hurt people, but I definitely get more into kinks the more time I spend with them (to a point). Violence in media has never had a noticeable effect on me though.
Society would probably actually benefit from a non political purely objective science-based commission to review published data, make recommendations for new studies, and come up with an evidence-based recommendation to governments about whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
I haven’t deep dived on this so maybe it’s already well known among sociologists/psych pathologists. But the key is a trusted science-based policy. We did it for violent video games and found no correlation. Not at all obvious to me if that also holds for pederasty.
Yeah I know, the trusted scientific commission is not going to happen
whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
It could but I doubt that it would. Pedophiles don’t rape children - rapists do. Being both is rare. Having been born with attraction to children doesn’t mean they automatically also lack a moral compas and self-control. Most of them know it’s wrong and never offend. The vast majority of people in prison for child sexual abuse aren’t pedophiles but just good old rapists. Kids simply make an easy target.
Most reformed pedophiles also get reformed before offense, so…
Kids simply make an easy target.
This is the most relevant point I have seen to the current scene, so far.
Also, boarding schools.
aren’t paedophiles? yes your honour, i fucked that kid but i didn’t like it
Pedophilia doesn’t describe behaviour but attraction. If a rapist is not exlusively attracted to children then they’re by definition not a pedophile. I’m well aware that in everyday language that word is used interchangeably with child molester but those terms are not synonymous.
agree with all of that except the exclusive bit, i’m going to go with the wikipedia definition
a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children
which presents a problem for my point, doesn’t it. if you are attracted to children, but not primarily, what are you? a semipaedo? if you only ever told one lie, it doesn’t make you a liar. that is acceptable, even obvious to me. but you only fucked one kid so you’re not a paedophile? i can’t get my head round that
Yeah that’s a thing. CSA can happen as part of bullying, for example, or someone forced into it by a partner or because of circumstances like drug addiction or poverty.
In Hungary, there was a case, where a father who raped his daughter as punishment used that defense.
i tried to look up the case but only get loads of results for fritzl
what age was his daughter? was he popping viagras and crying ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?’ i would previously have thought that being able to maintain a boner long enough to rape your own daughter (assuming prepubescent) makes you a paedophile. but having just read the ‘primary or exclusive’ bit of the definition i don’t know what to make of it
Sex dolls are pedophile training tools, they only increase their desires to rape kids. But, blowup sex dolls have been a thing forever and legal.
Slippery Slope Fallacy. It’s the same thing as saying Doom and Grand Theft Auto train school shooters, or marijuana is a gateway drug to hard substances.
This is not me defending paedophiles, I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic here. Nothing says that having access to these dolls increases the likelihood of them carrying out their desires on a real child, or that by not having access they would never take that step regardless.
https://people.com/man-jailed-risk-children-discovery-secret-sound-attic-11904272
The people interested in these dolls are serious risks to society.
I would rather see every single one of them locked up than let a single child be harmed.
I feel like this is the exact argument made against playing violent video games, especially having lived through the 90s.
I’d rather see if there’s any actual data supporting the assessment.
I believe the last time something like this came up, the argument was raised that it normalizes the behavior and leads to escalation, i.e. “they’re just illustrations” “it’s just a doll” to “I’m just taking photos” or “it’s just touching”, this time against actual victims
They said same sex marriage would lead to bestiality
Fake kids to real kids is very different than some crazy fucko thinking same-sex marriage would lead to fucking animals. Are you for real?
Slippery slope fallacy. We know that consumption of real CSAM might increase frustration and lead to pursuit of real crimes. However, we don’t have the same level of evidence for illustrations or sex dolls. It’s a massive blind side in the scientific literature. It’s very hard to study.
Despite this, the number one risk factor still remains unsupervised access to minors. Regardless of whether the abuser consumes abuse media or not.
Does the research support this argument though? (Spoiler: it doesn’t)
To my knowledge, there is very little research at all - the programs that would look into whether this might protect or endanger children struggle to get funded, because it’s icky.
And anyone looking into it immediately gets labeled as defending abusers.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Calm down dude, not everyone expressing an opinion is automatically a pedo. I also get enraged to a thought of a child getting hurt, but don’t lose your brain. Like you could have argued that the doll is not where a pedo would stop, it would encourage him to move on, or that a doll like that existing is normalizing pedophilia, but instead you raged out. Censoring exchange of opinion does the opposite of preventing pedophilia. Instead, I’d be interested in a study that would explore whether having dolls/cartoons etc would do anything to decrease the number of child molestation in any meaningful way. If not - I’m on board for banning stuff like this. This argument against banning dolls, though not being particularly strong, does express some logic. Your comment actually does more harm than good by jumping the gun so hard, IMO.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Hey if nothing else it gives you a decent idea of who to watch
So I can see you’ve done zero research into psychosis and it’s trajectory.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and personally I’m happy with childlike sex dolls being on the other side of that line same with AI generated CSAM, there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.
there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.
That’s the main justification for banning homosexuality as well.
While true, adults can consent, children cannot.
Not a single person here is advocating for having sex with kids.
Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with homosexuality?
You seriously need to take a good look at your life dude.
Are you seriously going to dodge every single hole people have poked in your flawed reasoning by redirecting attention to the person themselves - questioning their moral purity or hidden motives? Because that’s literally all you’ve done here so far.
Disgusting for sure but thats a really bad argument to make something illegal. It’s the same rhetoric used to ban queer sexualities.
The generative ai is often based on real stuff and regularly ends up being deepfakes of real people who are affected, thats not victimless.
Some disgusting things are quite legal. And have real victims.
I’m not sure why you would focus on illegalizing something disgusting that’s victimless.
“there are worse things that are legal” is a pretty terrible argument.
Sex dolls resembling weapons is where I draw the line.
Ok the kid ones are bad too.
I read the entire article looking for this and couldn’t find anything and I’m so confused. Did they mean to say “Selling weapons and sex dolls resembling children”?
Or are we literally talking about Desert Eagle Fleshlights?
Edit: I just realized that “Selling weapons and sex dolls resembling children” is equally as confusing. The weapons resemble children? A Glock 9mm-year-old
“Now everyone can get fucked by the 2nd amendment!”
Worst situation to yell “I’m shooting my load”
I don’t think that banning this kind of product will solve the fact that there are people with a disorder. So what’s the point? Moralism?
It will solve it being normalized. And F-off to the pedophile apologist bots rising in these threads saying it doesn’t so far that it’s been brought up.
Are bad dragon sex toys normalizing bestiality?
Yes, before long there will be people basing their entire identity on wanting to be fucked by drago… Oh wait
Comparing raping minors as kink play and think that’s how you validate pedophiles, you’re the fucking problem.
Did you maybe respond to the wrong comment? I was just making a joke about a user here “dragonfucker” or smt, with pronouns drag/dragself. Idk if they’re still active, I blocked em ages ago
rape of minors is not kink play. You will never ever convince me otherwise. Youre manipulation tactics are sad. Go Rotate and be angry about it forever.
No manipulation tactics from me, just a valid equivalence of unusual sex toys
Besides, it’s clear you’re the rotating angry bean here, buddy. I mean, look at how much time you’re spending going feral on every comment in this thread, calling everyone who’s not throwing angry “YOURE PEDO” comments a pedophile bot.
It’ll never be normalized because it’s fucking weird, whether that’s legal or not. And you can stop calling anyone with a different opinion a bot, it makes you sound like one.
It’s not weird. Its not normalizing a kink. It’s violence. It’s raping minors. Stop downplaying it. And yes, there are bots. And I frankly do not give a shit what you think of me for pointing it out. I think I’ll continue to live a perfectly happy life without your approval over à fucking comment that triggered you online into the worst hill to get distracted by and go after during a discussion about normalizing raping minors. It doesn’t compare to the disappointment I have for you. I’m sure we will both live but at least I’ll sleep better knowing my dispppintment was a bit more high value energy than ‘dur, don’t insults the bots’ shit you’re here wasting time and energy doing.
I saw your comments in other threads, and you don’t sound happy at all, but whatever. Have a nice life.
It’ll never be normalized
Woody Allen, Sleeper, 1973, dinner party scene
Note: Woody Allen is Jewish. The film was released 25 years after the Holocaust.
Is this for shock value? Or you are implying that an agenda was being sold?
I don’t think they’re bots, and that concerns me.
Nope there is a huge amount of bots because lemmy had an engagement problem so people had the bright idea to fake it till it makes it. But then they realized faking it IS making it.
If banning sex dolls that look like children is moralism, I’m OK with that.
“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.
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.
Many people would fuck Ariana Grande and she looks younger then she should.
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.
is absolutely disgusting
Why not ban scat fetish then as well?
Scat fetish typically involves grown adults.
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
Ngl any reason to block shein is good.
You don’t believe in the free market? What would Milton Fridman think?
The issue is that the free market is abusing people where regulations are spotty at best to sell at low prices where work regulations are way higher and kill the local market. I believe if a company doesn’t follow local regulations it shouldn’t be available there at all.
I agree and sadly the U.S.A. did not. They followed Milton Friedman bogus claims and will pay the price
Probably the more based take I’ve read here.
The one reason this weirds me out (without having seen these dolls tbf) is that it was decided something sex-related is too childlike and that somehow makes it illegal apparently? Like, what legal basis is there for it? I have never heard about any law prohibiting ‘too childlike’ appearance, let alone seen it applied.
I mean, have these people seen what’s going on in some (not to say many) anime? There are characters being explicitly sexualized, while being canonically underage. How is one thing okay and the other isn’t?
Neither are, and animated materiel depicting children in a sexual way is illegal in many places.
It’s actually pretty consistent with the laws in many countries, animated child porn and child sex dolls are vile, and anyone arguing against that should be put on a list.
I mean, if it is illegal its obviously not being enforced
Surprisingly many people in support of childlike sex dolls here.
in support of childlike sex dollsin opposition to making feel-good legislation without evidence-based policiesIf I had kids, I wouldn’t leave half the people in this thread alone with them.
Demanding someone prove this is bad is just… Something else.
I hope you just wouldn’t leave your kids around strangers at all. They could do a lot of damaging things, like talk about how god “exists.”
I think if they want to ban this they should ban images of killing, right? I think Call of Duty does more damage.
(To be clear: I don’t want one of these dolls)
It’s all kinda weird to me but once someone goes the route of sex dolls I’m not sure why what it looks like matters. It’s all just rubber holes to put your dick in. What if it looks like a horse? Or has a dildo shaped like a dog penis? Bestiality is just as illegal and non-consensual.
I just don’t know where or why I should draw a line. I don’t support it. I don’t defend it. I just slowly back out of the room shaking my head.
I guess I will say this, though — I’ve engaged in a lot of kink and done a lot of things in play I would never do in real life. I’ve done rape play, strangulation, and cutting among other things… none of those are things I have a secret desire to do for real. But I do enjoy them in the context of play. I enjoy novel forms of intimacy with a consenting partner.
If I can do those things without harboring a secret desire to rape and murder, it stands to reason people could fuck a rubber hole that looks like a child for reasons other wanting to do it for real.
