How likely is overturning the doll ban?

As many know Germany has banned CLSDs this year. Following this ban a group of MAPs and Dollshop owners said that they will file a constitutional complaint.

However, since the old gov. is still in charge they are holding it back, because it surely makes more sense with an entirely new group of politicians.

The new gov. seems to be much more open about anything really, and just 40 minutes ago the ministry positions were made public aka. what party is going to get what ministry (three parties are in the new gov.).

And I think the most important ministry, the ministry of justice, is now in the hands of the liberals. They were one of the only parties to be against the ban, since they want an evidence-based approach and not symbolic politics. This also is backed by the fact that they also got the “ministry of research & education”. So, this surely is beneficial.

A few things to be aware: filing a constitutional complaint is difficult, because it requires someone who is affected (preferably a MAP who had to destroy his doll) to go public and that every other legal option was already used. ALSO, they can just simply decline your complaint since there is no legal obligation to process any complaints.

What would be a consequence should the complaint work? Well, it would be a huge success. It might affect realistic fictional material as well, since both animations and dolls are currently not scientfically proven to cause harm. So, if the Federal Constitutional Court aggrees that a ban without proof is against the following paragraphs:

Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Article 2
[Personal freedoms]
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law. (Problem here is “moral law”, see it as obscenity laws like in the USA - subjective bullshit)
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.

Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

Then there is a good chance. Especially “human dignity” and “insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order” seem to be restricted here.

Last good thing this court did was legalize commercial/assisted suicide, so they certainly are more neutral than other christian countries.

2 Likes

@terminus pinging you since this is your type of question.

Good luck with that. Even though child sex dolls are legal in the USA, that doesn’t stop small minded government busybodies from attempting to seize them.

1 Like

couple of things here

  1. All constituional rights in germany are coming from Article 1 eg. if There are any attacks on your right you will automatically link Art 1 However referring to Art 1 GG Directly is problematic as any right or similar is given by subsequent Articles.

  2. In order to clear Art5 (freedom of Art) you need to clear a pretty high burden. (you need to be art) To be art you need to not simply recreate a thing that exists. Dolls however tend to recreate the abstract Idea of a human. Eg. It won´t clear that burden. (there are more Problems here tldr Freedom of art likely doesn´t apply)

  3. The “moral law” is universally no longer thought to apply However your right on Article 2 can also be limited by law. We are talking about a law here. On the other hand there are a lot of other rights (that are not stated in the constitution) that are essentially relaying on Art 2.

One example is the right to sexual self-determination. This human right as given by the Declaration of Sexual rights does apply in Germany and is directly conclude from Art2 GG.

Quote
“Sexual freedom as sexual self-determination includes the freedom of each individual to express all their sexual possibilities. However, this excludes all forms of sexual coercion, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse at any time and in any life situation.”

further more

“This includes the right to individual choices and behaviors in our intimate lives, as long as they do not interfere with the sexual rights of others.”

It is now easy to argue that the ban on sex dolls does interfere with this right. Now we have two times the same right argued against each other. The direct right of the Maps (and others) that want to own such a doll and the indirect right of a child inferred by the claim that these dolls make abuse more likely. Rather this comparison does go in favor of the maps or not depends on what the court sees as more likely. It is important to note, and likely helpful, that in the public expert hearing by the Bundestag all but 1 Expert opposed this ban. Makeing it more likely to be successful

However the vastly more difficult challenge to clear is the first stage to even have the claim be accepted.

1 Like

Society’s acceptance of child-like sex dolls will be contingent on whether or not the focus is on harm caused to children, or preferential offense to the subject matter.

I personally believe they’re acceptable, and MAPs only need help if they’re at risk of committing a hands-on sexual offense or consuming CP/CSEM, as both of those crimes involve actual child victims.

3 Likes

Just wanted to add that dolls cannot be a precursor to abusing children. No where in a cautious and thoughtful enough mind is the utterance, “I have this doll. I am now ready to move on to abusing real people.”

People have, can, and will abuse other people regardless of the existence of alternatives. Punching bags allow anger to be directed onto an object, leaving zero reason to go punch random people. Some people will still do it anyway. Some people don’t. Logically, there is zero reason that an ill-minded person would waste money on a doll or a punching bag at all when they can just go directly assault a person instead. Logically, it does not make sense to blame the doll or punching bag for being the decoy that they deserve to be.

Dolls are more of a precaution for the mindful, rather than a precursor for the mindless.

6 Likes

To be fair to those who are against child sex dolls, I think a lot of them think that the use and availability of these dolls would “awaken” or at least heighten a dormant attraction in people they never even knew they had, and due to the stereotypes they’ll assume that people with this attraction will be more at risk at harming children, so being against them would be logical from that perspective.

The only way this argument doesn’t make sense is if you believe minor-attraction is a sexual orientation just like being straight or gay. You can’t make a gay person extra gay in the same way you can’t make a MAP more minor-attracted.

So I think that might be where many people get confused because you’re talking about redirecting a naturally occuring sexual orientation towards non-harmful alternatives and they’re talking about the potential of developing a fetish or preference.

1 Like

That’s a fair point.

There is also Agalmatophilia which is a direct attraction to objects. No biological person necessary at all. Can’t really say it is exclusively a sexual orientation really, but it is definitely a sexual attraction. Some people are sexually attracted to balloons. Some attracted to couches. Or spaghetti. In that same regard, human-shaped dolls (puppets, mannequins, crash dummies, etc, regardless if they are sexually capable and regardless of structural likeness), are here to serve multiple great purposes other than just sex. If they support sex, then it only adds to the object’s value for those who value that.

It is liberating to love or use an object without any of the consequence of dealing with a human at all. This must stay. Anything more that gets attached to this just adds needless complexity and weight to an otherwise perfectly floating boat.

Of course, there will always be bad eggs. Those are everywhere, as different kinds and in different degrees. I know its difficult to draw the gray line on a grey canvas, but here is what I think the basis should be:

  1. Is the subject a human or animal?
  2. If Yes, is the subject being harmed or future-jeopardized?

That’s it. Otherwise, we start to rely assumptions to try to predict global outcomes by taking a small sample pool, or worse, a non-existent sample pool, and applying it to every person, with no regard to whether it actually fits them, and then prioritizing the worse case scenario as the ultimate truth.

I personally believe Humans as a whole are far more intelligent than that, looking at all the great things we’ve accomplished in Maths and Sciences. Reaching other planets gives me hope that we can conquer this stupid period of modern sexual identity crisis and sex taboo/fetish hatred here on Earth.