EU commission wants EU-wide ban of child sex dolls

This is from a proposal the EU commission published today (press release).

Among other things, the commission wants to extend the definition of CSAM to include not just realistic images, but also “reproductions or representations of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes”.

Research has shown that limiting the dissemination of child sexual abuse material is
not only crucial to avoid the re-victimisation linked to the circulation of images and
videos of the abuse but is also essential as a form of offender-side prevention, as
accessing child sexual abuse material is often the first step towards hands-on abuse,
regardless of whether it depicts real or simply realistic abuse and exploitation. The
ongoing development of artificial intelligence applications capable of creating realistic
images that are indistinguishable from real images, the number of so-called ‘deep-
fake’ images and videos depicting child sexual abuse is expected to grow
exponentially in the coming years. In addition, the development of augmented,
extended and virtual reality settings making use of avatars including sensory feedback,
e.g. through devices providing a perception of touch are not fully covered by the existing
definition. The inclusion of an explicit reference to ‘reproductions and
representations’ should ensure that the definition of child sexual abuse material covers
these and future technological developments in a sufficiently technology-neutral and
hence future-proof way.

They don’t mention child dolls explicitly, but the way I see it, it would definitely fall under this definition.

1 Like

Feels more like they’re talking about virtual sex

I have seen talks about EU bans of child dolls, but they’re very early stages and there’s not much consensus afaik

Also if they go by the more literal interpretation that a child needs to be an actual person

I dunno, it hasn’t passed yet
There’s a lot of good points, but also a lot of stuff that leaves me perplexed

Not criminalizing children is good
Treating all CSAM consumers like future predators is not

Granted consuming CSAM itself is wrong since it violates the child’s rights
“It allows such behaviour to be exercised on artificial representations of real or imaginary children”
When wondering what the intent behind something is, look to lobbyists with similar language. Another sketchy fly by night outfit.

It’s absurd that politicians still operate under the assumption that CSAM consumers=potential predators

CSAM needs to be fought obviously, but to protect the right of image and privacy of the children depicted

Then again they also operate under the assumption that porn is a health hazard, where are the porn lobbies when you need them?

Aside from lolicon, there’s all sort of stuff online: ryona and guro are a thing and they revolve around torture


They claim that there’s evidence but have nothing to cite.

I don’t understand why no one just explains that since hitting a doll with a hammer does not endorse or promote hitting people with a hammer, how someone handles a doll does not inherently reflect one’s values or intentions towards living beings.


“extended reality implications” sounds like Minority Report.


It’s far worse than if she just made it up.

Her “source” is a sketchy think of the children outfit which drew a “correlation” between someone viewing child porn and talking to children (which they treated identically to someone abusing them). Even that “correlation” came with issues, such as questions seemingly designed to reach a particular conclusion. Nor was the question “did someone view child porn” but “did someone view child porn OR violent content” in an attempt to inflate statistics.

Nor did there appear to be a minimum age requirement for responding. Awfully hasty in making those conclusions, weren’t they?

You have to think too, why cherry pick this dodgy source, and in particular, only this dodgy source.

1 Like