• Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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, therefore, a waste of time and public money.

      • Cypher@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Why do you think it is unenforceable? Australia already enforces a ban on these dolls and arrests anyone attempting to import them.

        • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          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.

          • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        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.

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • timestatic@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • fenrasulfr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Doesn’t France already ban depictions of characters that look like minors in sexual situations and also depiction of rape and sexual violence.

          • workerONE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            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

            • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Out of curiosity, does that include cherubs or is religious iconography exempt?

          • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            With something like this, a judgement call would ultimately need to be made, yes. That’s how a lot of law enforcement works.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          lol they’re not arguing against because it’s a pointless measure

          you’re confusing picking your fights with being supportive

          • Mirror Giraffe@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

          • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

                • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  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?

                  • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    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.

            • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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