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
France bids to suspend Shein over childlike sex dolls
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Beep@lemmus.org to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-19/france-probes-shein-over-childlike-sex-dolls/106458990
Comments
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
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.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
You’re putting a disturbing amount of effort into advocating for childlike sex dolls, or cartoon CP.
ulterno@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
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.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
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.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Disgusting for sure but thats a really bad argument to make something illegal. It’s the same rhetoric used to ban queer sexualities.
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.
That’s the main justification for banning homosexuality as well.
fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
zach@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
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
dustyData@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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 media or not.
RaoulDuke85@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
They said same sex marriage would lead to bestiality
Feyd@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Does the research support this argument though? (Spoiler: it doesn’t)
ulterno@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
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.
AnotherUsername@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
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.
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
This is ‘videogsmes cause school shootings’ logic. There are better arguments than this.
Kowowow@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Hey if nothing else it gives you a decent idea of who to watch
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
[deleted]fluxx@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
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.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Sex dolls are pedophile training tools, they only increase their desires to rape kids.
Furbag@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So I can see you’ve done zero research into psychosis and it’s trajectory.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If banning sex dolls that look like children is moralism, I’m OK with that.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“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 a waste of time and public money.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
ICastFist@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Are bad dragon sex toys normalizing bestiality?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I don’t think they’re bots, and that concerns me.
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Ngl any reason to block shein is good.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Probably the more based take I’ve read here.
kinship@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
You don’t believe in the free market? What would Milton Fridman think?
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sex dolls resembling weapons is where I draw the line.
Ok the kid ones are bad too.
MIDItheKID@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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?
felbane@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“Now everyone can get fucked by the 2nd amendment!”
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Surprisingly many people in support of childlike sex dolls here.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
in support of childlike sex dollsin opposition to making feel-good legislation without evidence-based policiesIlovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If 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.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
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.
L3s@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
People can’t be civil, locking.
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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 seeing it apllied.
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?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
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.
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I mean, if it is illegal its obviously not being enforced
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Next…do the US Republican party.
AnotherUsername@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Jesus fucking wept that’s gross
h54@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Isn’t their slogan “shop like a billionaire?”. This tracks.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
💀
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Billionaires rape real children.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
and it finally makes sense, because I don’t think the average billionaire spends money on garbage as much as their average customer
Wilco@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Dammit … I hate it because iys true. ::upvotes::
sheogorath@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Baseball, huh?