I'm talking (mostly) out of my ass here, but it's probably because calling them "child sex dolls" might be seen to normalize the concept of sex with children. Since AI child porn is illegal, makes sense that a child sex doll is, too.

edit: Looks like there's a thing in Australian law where they are legally considered sexual abuse material.

It's being over the top in the way it's saying "sexualizing childeren = bad," but at the same time, yes, it is bad. So, eh. It does give the article a sort of strongly PC coded vibe. I'm sure it was written by a leftist the right would call woke. Take what you will from it, despite the language used, the article is still sound.

With manufacturing becoming more decentralized it's only a matter of time before people can print their own.

It'll probably be used as a reason to license and monitor 3D printers.

Don't get me started on paedo bait anime.

I used to help moderate a porn app, had to leave for my own sanity. Got hard to tell if I was blocking legit perverts or people so isolated and brain rotted they forgot what an adult woman was supposed to look like. Too much darkness either way.

My first two weeks of lemmy were spent stomping out the little girl anime and furry porn. I would never admit to using this site in IRL. Imagine someone checking it out on my recommendation.

"So, uh, what's your favorite part of lemmy? The little girls kissing or the humanoid wolves with giant dongs?"

people actually look at those posts?

God, giving capitalism a financial incentive to advertise pedophilia is a new nightmare to me now, thanks

I really don't understand what you are saying. I was in fact looking to open a discussion on a personal freedom angle. But the specific topic here was just what got me thinking about it. "A guy with a megaphone". I really have no idea what that is referring to.

I did suggest that all sex toy type products could maybe be required to have some dimension that clearly marks the item as representing an adult. That would be my suggestion. But I am still curious where people draw the line on personal freedom vs something that isn't proven to be harmful. Drugs and such are another good example. Should people be allowed to do whatever dtugs they want, as long as they don't drive or something. Alcohol actually follows that example. Guns do to. Lots of ways to frame the debate.

This feels a lot like the "violent video games cause violence" argument, but because it's about child abuse, people don't want to defend it.

Are there actually any studies supporting your comment? I briefly looked and couldn't find anything.

See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it's just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?

That was not regulations...

There was no fines...

That was "concerned individuals" lobbying the payment processors, and the processes going along with it and then trying to force steam.

Like, I don't know if you're arguing for "free market justice" or just don't understand what that was all about...