FBI investigating individuals asking about child sex dolls

1 Like

If there’s no crime, then there can’t be a warrant for anything, correct? Also, as vendors go, is that one even that great? Legally, without a confidentiality agreement, information is technically free, unfortunately.

  1. It’ll scare away people who need the dolls the most.
  2. It is illegal in a couple of states.
  3. It may become illegal federally in the near future.
  4. Police can harass someone over it. Individuals have gotten fired in the past after their boss learnt of their sexuality.
  5. It is unknown how many vendors do this.

The way I see it, then, is our main fight should be against any act that criminalizes dolls. If there is no indication of a crime, then actual law enforcement cannot do anything direct against it. Also, from what I understand, your employers cannot inquire into your past court cases, if you were found not guilty of them, right? As for vendors, I doubt that vendors who market loli dolls would want to ward off potential customers.

If you appear in the local news, an employer may still be able to look into it and get a bad whiff of something.

Frankly, I don’t want any shenanigans at all with this. No reports to the police. No “concerns”. No investigation. A lot of people likely want to keep their heads down, they don’t want the doll manufacturer ratting them out and putting them at risk. The doll manufacturers need to respect their customers.

If there isn’t a certain level of privacy with this, I don’t see how anyone expects anyone to feel comfortable dealing with it. And it is not as if it is entirely harmless, if you were to ever stumble upon illegal content, someone could say you’re interested in the doll, therefore it must have been done deliberately to the judge and jury. Why would you create a pointless problem for yourself? Why create a risk? What if you moderate such a place where someone might post something and you are the cleaner?

Or the information could be used against you in a creative way in the future. I don’t see how such information floating around could ever be harmless and it can only ever be a liability. And for what? A plastic doll? It wasn’t too long ago when the NYTimes wanted to classify this as a mental disorder which disqualifies you from working in certain fields because they think someone is too “dangerous”.

Again, you aren’t obligated to answer such a question to your employer, if they do ask. In fact, like previous employers writing scathing letters to potential future employers, I believe that you can sue for defamation of character. In the case of doll manufacturers, from what I understand, we have quite a few choices. Ones who have a better reputation should get more business. Obviously, sellers should respect customers, but that’s more of a request than an order. I often respond to that joke about being on an FBI watch list that such a list is private and, if leaked, can be used by you in a lawsuit.

Is it not the equivalent of using your real name to buy loli games?

I don’t buy loli games, that would leave a money trail which would be really bad. A free game might be okay but it might contain a virus.

  1. They may hassle people on the sex offenders registry or people on parole.
  2. The information could be used against someone in another case as proof of their character.

I recently bought Moero Crystal H. I doubt that my employers care, unless I am found playing it on company grounds, outside the break area, which is no longer a valid concern, given that I am working from, due to COVID precautions. Frankly, why would you want to work for someone who judges people, based on the games that they play? When the main human character of the Transformers movies tried to apply for a job, he boasted of meeting Obama. However, his interviewer responded that they were a conservative organization.

Given that, would someone proud of meeting Obama even want to work there? Basically, the same thing. Hold up. Generally speaking, only sexually offending actual people lands one on the registry, right? Dolls and images would fall under obscenity, at worst, which is a different thing from sex offense last time that I checked. Proof of character is circumstantial evidence. Someone can be proven to be an asshole (which I don’t), but an asshole who is not guilty.


Back to 1), anyone who these dolls would be useful for are people who it wouldn’t be available to due to either parole requirements, being on the register, risk other activities which I may not approve of but which I would want them to have more options to not continue to do so.

Back to the point you’re trying to make, I wouldn’t buy anything which might get me into trouble (no images, no dolls, no games) in the first place. Possession and purchasing are very different things. I am not going to leave a trail either. Dolls are way, way out. I’m not going to take risks just for a piece of plastic or pixels on a screen. But, it isn’t really about me here. A doll is a $2K piece of physical contraband. If it is retroactively invalidated by a new bill (don’t expect the Supreme Court to be your friend if it goes that high), it is a $2K piece of waste plastic you will have to destroy and toss in a landfill.

Ask yourself this, if the FBI is making queries as to who is buying the dolls, what other countries are making queries? This might strike a better chord. Fascist Australia sentences individuals to 15 years in prison (child rape is 10) for importing a doll.

1 Like

I’ve always thrown caution into the wind when I’ve bought lolige, or donated to some to Japanese artists who freely draw loli works.

1 Like

These “studies” mentioned by the RealDoll guy are based on junk science papers from Australia’s state criminology sector, which are admittedly unfair and serve only to validate their state’s own viewpoints.
You can read about them here:

It’s even drove local journalists to attempt to repudiate or dispel dissenting opinions.

The more you see these people speak, the more obvious they make it that this is about their own viewpoints, rather than unbiased statement of perceived fact. They’re like the Nazis or the Puritans who marginalized homosexuals.

I generally don’t try to hide my loli stuff, except you know viewing explicit stuff in public or at work, obviously, but that has more to do with obscenity. The way that I see it, the more we skulk in the shadows, the more stuff will get banned with impunity. We have to openly stand up for what we like. Life without desire is already the life of a condemned man.


Yeah, I’m the same. I try to be considerate to those around me, but in the privacy of my room - which nobody can see into - I do whatever.


I’m manic right now, but I don’t want uniformed officers bothering my family. I care more about them than myself here. I can’t do away with some things, and it wouldn’t be practical for me to do so. Some things are indulgences over what I already have, they won’t do much extra for me.

I will campaign for people’s rights to do things without police harassment regardless. It isn’t right to punish people for having wrong thoughts. This isn’t something you do in a democratic country, this is what you do in an Orwellian totalitarian nightmare.