"Child sex abuse dolls"


Found this from December 2021. I got nothing to add other than how absurd the term “child sex abuse doll” is. That’s it, that’s all I wanted to say.


Unfortunately these anti-porn organizations have a long history of exploiting the experiences of survivors to push misguided narratives. Really upsetting to see them pretend sexual abuse is the same as someone using a sex toy. Survivors deserve better.


Oh damn, I just stumbled on that article without looking at the website as a whole. Yeah, they’re anti-porn folks: “Join over 30,000 supporters standing against sexploitation.” “Etsy: stop selling incest + child abuse themed merch!” Etc.

Since our launch in 2010, we have achieved a huge number of significant wins: billboards objectifying women have been pulled down, inappropriate clothing for children withdrawn from sale, violent games banned, and other forms of sexualised advertising halted. Major corporations have joined our movement, pledging to reshape their practices for a world free of sexploitation!

This was all possible because thousands of people like you decided to speak out and take action.

Ah yes, congratulations for getting violent games banned! As we’ve seen, doing so has halted violent incidents across America!

…no, wait, it hasn’t actually! Jesus, pat yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, why dontcha?


Ahh yes, I love when men having sex with a piece of plastic or silicone is viewed in the same light as actual CSA.

A CSA survivor

Obvious sarcasm aside, it really does make me think that these people care more about these dolls when they put so much of their focus on that and shutting them down while actual CSA is still far too common. All that, while claiming they are helping and that this will decrease actual CSA. Yeah okay Karen, show me the proof.


Could you imagine the amount of good that could be done if all this energy that went towards nothing went towards actually something? Not even in terms of CSA prevention, just in general. 30,000 people filling in potholes or donating canned food across America would save more lives than whatever anti-sex, anti-porn nonsense these folks are dribbling…


Filling in potholes and hauling food donations requires getting off the sofa and breaking a sweat and spending money. It’s easier to attempt controlling the personal lives of others from behind a keyboard.


The reaction to sex dolls is one of the strongest pieces of evidence I know for the conclusion that what really fuels the entire war against stories, sex dolls, CSAM, and “modeling sites” is not protecting anybody, it is a gut-level, ferocious desire to punish the expression of pedophilic desire. There are survivors’ organizations and ethically concerned pedophiles who are strongly opposed to CSAM but who think FSM are just fine, but that’s a small backwater of thinking compared to the whole of society and their elected legislators. To the public it’s all equally horrible, and to the pedophiles of the dark web it’s all equally just fine.

Sex dolls have one thing that other forms lack. It is left to the imagination in all sorts of images what is actually going on with the viewer’s penis, but with a sex doll it is no longer left to the imagination.

The COPINE scale used in the UK has several levels for classifying CSAM-related imagery. They may no all be crimes, but you can tell that those who write them think that even the first level, the mildest is morally wrong: “Non-erotic and non-sexualized pictures … of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organization of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.” There you have it: a collection of pictures is inappropriate, even if the individual ones are not. But the collection suggests some sort of pedophilic interest – maybe just admiring they are cute, or fueling a romantic longing – makes it wrong.

It’s not too hard to get some sympathy for the gut-level reaction. I don’t know how explicit to be here without needing a trigger warning, but you can imagine sex dolls engineered to offer realistic support to violent fantasies of various kinds. Does the prospect perhaps lead to a strong negative emotional reaction?


One additional thought. I like to think that even among the “pedophiles of the dark web” there is a big distinction for most of them between hands-on abuse and any sort of recording, even if it is of actual abuse. There are some pedophiles who agree that viewing CSAM is wrong but whose lust sometimes leads them to do what is wrong. Many of them still find a large barrier at an act involving an actual child. Their lust would never lead them over that line. I’ve run into quite a number online.

I also like to think (without great evidence) that the mass of the public who hates any expression of pedophilic desire also understands that hands-on abuse is significantly worse.

And of course there is the population who do go over that line, responsible for an enormous amount of anguish.


There is research evidence which backs up your claims.

I have always, and will continue to argue, that prohibitions against CSEM are justified in their exploitation and misuse of a real child and that the demand for such material will undoubtedly contribute to further abuse in order for more to be created.

But there are people who are against it because they view it as ‘immoral’, or because they feel that it may lead potential or at-risk abusers to perpetrate hands-on offenses against children in their lives. There is definitely an inordinate amount of crossover, classified as ‘Mixed Offenders’, but the relationship between their propensity to abuse and their consumption of CSEM is very poorly understood, with many believing it to be a risk factor, while others find this association not a finding of causation or exacerbation of risk, but merely a consequence.

Other studies have found that hands-on offenders typically regress into CSEM consumption and are less likely to perpetrate contact offenses after this fact.

Either way - I tend to lean on the side of caution when real minors are in any way directly implicated, and support the continued and focused prohibition on CSEM.
Dolls, fiction/fantasy and other materials are not risk-supportive, and I believe unlikely to cause or contribute to exploitation.


Absolutely true. Even amongst those who are pro-c or those who view CSAM, there’re still lines many are unwilling to cross. Everybody Has Standards, Even Criminals. There’re plenty of child molesters who still believe that violence (beating, killing, etc.) is wrong, there CSAM producers/consumers who’re genuinely sickened by the likes of Peter Scully. But the gut-reaction towards anything that whiffs of children+sex is automatically assumed to be the worst of the worst. So even one-time abusers get lumped in with serial rapists/killers like Scully, and even those who buy child sex dolls are lumped in with one-time abusers, and those who look at lolicon are lumped in with those who purchase CSDs, and those who only ever fantasize (no art, no toys, nothing) are lumped in with lolicons.

Pedophilia is erroneously associated with people like Scully (a man who, by his own admission, isn’t attracted to children and is just a greedy sadist). Pedophiles and other MAPs are dehumanized and assumed to be sadistic and violent torturers. Most pedophiles couldn’t even imagine hurting somebody; I’d wager even most pro-cs wouldn’t even think of doing what Scully did. We’re all unfairly lumped under a single umbrella. Doing so only makes it harder for everybody. Harder for non-offending MAPs to live comfortably, harder for offenders to get proper therapy, etc.


Exactly! How can anybody say lolicon and/or sex dolls are “gateway drugs” for child molesters when even actual CSAM viewers generally don’t molest children?


In labeling the concern about this boundary to be quite small, I didn’t mean to exclude myself from it. I share the view in its essential aspects. I don’t buy the “demand” argument in today’s world, but that’s a topic for another day, and probably one that has been argued to death already. A moral argument that is divorced from direct harm works better to my way of thinking.

1 Like

To each their own, I suppose, but I prefer the market-harm argument because it’s not necessarily ‘wrong’. Demand does fuel supply, even if that demand isn’t always monetary.

I’ve seen enough criminals on platforms like Twitter and Mastodon spamming links to what are obviously illegal sites with the goal of simply sharing content, and these posts always happen to appear alongside accounts selling content thru Telegram.

These people form genuine social communities around this type of material which I find to be more troubling since that tends to transcend the monetary incentive, and also in-part supports why I hold anti-contact groups like MSC and VirPed in such high regard.

Anti-contact groups’ whole ethos is the antithesis of that, that exploitative aspect, and I genuinely find it inspiring how they build communities around virtue and not selfish indulgence, and also why I see movements geared towards criminalizing harmless outlets to be such a grotesque, uninformed, and misplaced use of energy by the public.


I’ve been seeing tons of CSAM links on ATFBooru and Mastodon/Baraag the past few months. Some days they’re just relentless. Pages and pages of CSAM links in the comments. I imagine these people/bots are a combination of genuine CSAM peddlers tryna sell their inventory and form networks/communities, scammers who want your info so they can hack you and rob you blind, trolls posting CSAM in the hopes of getting the site shut down, and/or feds using CSAM as bait to entice would-be criminals. Regardless, children and teens are caught in the crossfire, their video/audio documented manipulation and abuse used as tools or sold as commodities…

Big respect for this. I never really thought of it this way before. Communities can be formed around anything, so why not a community for something like justice and prevention? Mad respect.

1 Like

If that’s the case, then the admins of the booru ought to consider disabling comments on posts, or making it to where comments are privileged.

I may send a message.

This was a problem on Pixiv but the admins seem to have gotten the hang of it.
It’s all very much artificial, though. This type of behavior was never associated with these types of communities or interests prior to late 2021.


About a year ago, they straight-up purged the comments and temporarily disabled them. After bringing them back, they cracked down harder on the comments. No more sharing your Discord/Telegram/etc., and they’ll go so far as to delete comments that just sound too real. The mods are really good at getting rid of the troublemakers, but they just come in full force sometimes. It’s like a massive game of whackamole, with the moles declaring war and out for blood…


ATFbooru is based off of the framework used for Danbooru, so it wouldn’t be too difficult for a bot to be made, trivial, I’d even argue.

This is definitely unfortunate.


I’ve asked that question. If having sex, a present tense verb, sex being between two people. How is any ‘toy’ really considered a ‘sex’ toy? Should they all be masturbation devices?
Then the question, if a doll has functionality, I guess it could be called a masturbation toy or doll. What is it called if it’s not used for that? Just a substitution/representation for a non-existent person. It’s just art?
How about non-functioning dolls? Aren’t they just life-sized dolls? Or art?
Then the twisted thought is, ‘you could still use the mouth!’
How far do we go when the only argument about anything is whether or not you can put your penis into it?


In some countries, anyone who doesn’t act hostile to the extent that completely abandons the fairness doctrine gets called a sympathizer.

This is an issue. One doesn’t need to be a sympathizer to adhere principles. Still, this is an issue.


Yep, like in the old days of stupid peasants and sanctimonious priests, anyone who questions the “witch” label must also worship the devil.