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.”
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?
It’s a question that will likely never be answered. Is it worse to have a child-like sex doll or a horny pedophile with no legal outlet?
Child sexual abuse has the same elements of rape, in fact some people who have raped children choose the victim not because of sexual attraction, but because the child was an ideal victim. Rape isn’t sex. Child sexual abuse may be about sexual attraction to a degree, but people who go that route aren’t doing so out of horny feelings. Abusers can spend years gaining access to victims, confusing rape and abuse with normal sexual desire is a common mistake, and a big part of excusing rape. Abusers and potential abusers don’t stop because they can act out their desire alone or view related images, but it’s shown repeatedly that therapy is effective.