France’s consumer watchdog has reported the Asian fast fashion giant Shein to authorities for selling “sex dolls with a childlike appearance” on its website.
The Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) said the online description and categorisation of the dolls “makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content”.
Shein later told the BBC: “The products in question were immediately delisted as soon as we became aware of these serious issues.”
The danger is in sexualizing children, it’s not a normally occurring part of human sexuality, and if people can sexualize children easily that can lead to sexual abuse of actual children, and that’s always harmful, seems like a 2=2 type of thing to say, but it is. Anyway, modern psychology shows that therapy for people who do sexualize children, who haven’t actually abused any children in any way, are unlikely to ever abuse children, so the doll or child sex abuse images, or other ‘outlets’ of sexual behavior aren’t shown to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, but therapy does. They don’t need sex dolls, they need therapy. And then maybe a healthy sex life with an adult.
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?