Ilovethebomb comments on France bids to suspend Shein over childlike sex dolls

[+] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -14 points 7 months ago (23 children)

If banning sex dolls that look like children is moralism, I'm OK with that.

parent

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 41 points 7 months ago* (22 children)

"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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] RaoulDuke85@piefed.social 12 points 7 months ago

Many people would fuck Ariana Grande and she looks younger then she should.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -22 points 7 months ago* (16 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] timestatic@feddit.org 22 points 7 months ago (4 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] fenrasulfr@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago*

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 point 7 months ago

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -2 points 7 months ago

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (10 children)

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

you're confusing picking your fights with being supportive

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] MirrorGiraffe@piefed.social 1 point 7 months 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -8 points 7 months ago (8 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months 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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

is absolutely disgusting

Why not ban scat fetish then as well?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Scat fetish typically involves grown adults.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 13 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 9 points 7 months ago

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent