Minnesota: Bill prohibiting the possession, sale, purchase and dissemination of child sex dolls!

Sex positivity
1

I came here to just find out if it’s too late to take action against this bill does anyone know?

Child sex dolls possession, sale, purchase and dissemination prohibition

POSSESSION OF A CHILD SEX DOLL.

Subdivision 1. Definition.

(a) “Child sex doll” means an anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot with features that are intended to depict or resemble a minor and is intended for use in sex acts.

Subd. 2. Dissemination prohibited.

(a) A person who knowingly, or with reason to know, disseminates a child sex doll to an adult or a minor is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction or delinquency adjudication for violating this section or section 617.246 or 617.247;
(2) the violation occurs when the person is a registered predatory offender under section 243.166; or
(3) the violation involved a child sex doll depicting a minor under the age of 14 years.

Subd. 3. Possession prohibited.

(a) A person who knowingly, or with reason to know, possesses a child sex doll is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction or delinquency adjudication for violating this section or section 617.246 or 617.247;
(2) the violation occurs when the person is a registered predatory offender under section 243.166; or
(3) the violation involved a child sex doll depicting a minor under the age of 14 years.

Subd. 5. Exception.

This section does not apply to the performance of official duties by peace officers, court personnel, or attorneys. This section also does not apply to the performance of official duties by licensed physicians, psychologists, or social workers or persons acting at the direction of a licensed physician, psychologist, or social worker in the course of a bona fide treatment or professional education program.

Subd. 6. Second offense.

If a person is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section within 15 years of the prior conviction, the court shall order a mental examination of the person. The examiner shall report to the court whether treatment of the person is necessary.

Subd. 7. Affirmative defense.

It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating this section that the child sex doll was produced using only persons who were 18 years of age or older.

Subd. 8. Conditional release term.

Notwithstanding the statutory maximum sentence otherwise applicable to the offense or any provision of the sentencing guidelines, when a court commits a person to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for violating this section, the court shall provide that after the person has been released from prison the commissioner shall place the person on conditional release for five years. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section; section 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, 609.3451, 609.3453, 617.246, 617.247, or 617.249; or any similar statute of the United States, this state, or any state, the commissioner shall place the person on conditional release for 15 years. The terms of conditional release are governed by section 609.3455, subdivision 8.

Sec. 3. CREATION AND DISSEMINATION OF CHILD SEX DOLLS PROHIBITED.

Subdivision 1. Definitions.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
(b) “Child sex doll” has the meaning given in section 617.248.
(c) “Minor” means a person under the age of 18 years.
(d) “Promote” means to produce, direct, publish, manufacture, issue, or advertise.

Subd. 2. Use of minor.

(a) It is unlawful for a person to promote, employ, use, or permit a minor to engage in or assist others to engage minors in the modeling for the creation of a child sex doll if the person knows or has reason to know that the conduct intended is to create a child sex doll.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(c) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction or delinquency adjudication for violating this section or section 617.246, 617.247, or 617.248;
(2) the violation occurs when the person is a registered predatory offender under section 243.166; or
(3) the violation involved a minor under the age of 14 years.

Subd. 3. Operation or ownership of business.

(a) A person who owns or operates a business in which a child sex doll, as defined in section 617.248, is intentionally disseminated to an adult or a minor or is reproduced is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction or delinquency adjudication for violating this section or section 617.246, 617.247, or 617.248;
(2) the violation occurs when the person is a registered predatory offender under section 243.166; or
(3) the violation involved a minor under the age of 14 years.

Subd. 4. Dissemination.

(a) A person who intentionally disseminates for profit to an adult or a minor a child sex doll, as defined in section 617.248, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if:

(1) the person has a prior conviction or delinquency adjudication for violating this section or section 617.246, 617.247, or 617.248;
(2) the violation occurs when the person is a registered predatory offender under section 243.166; or
(3) the violation involved a minor under the age of 14 years.

Subd. 5. Consent; mistake.

The following are not defenses to a charge of violation of this section: (1) consent to the modeling for the creation of a child sex doll by a minor or the minor’s parent, guardian, or custodian; or (2) mistake as to the minor’s age.

Subd. 6. Affirmative defense.

It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating this section that the sexual performance or pornographic work was produced using only persons who were 18 years of age or older.

Subd. 7. Conditional release term.

Notwithstanding the statutory maximum sentence otherwise applicable to the offense or any provision of the sentencing guidelines, when a court commits a person to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for violating this section, the court shall provide that after the person has been released from prison the commissioner shall place the person on conditional release for five years. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section; section 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, 609.3451, 609.3453, 617.246, 617.247, or 617.248; or any similar statute of the United States, this state, or any state, the commissioner shall place the person on conditional release for 15 years. The terms of conditional release are governed by section 609.3455, subdivision 8.

EFFECTIVE DATE.

This section is effective August 1, 2024, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=SF3899&y=2024&ssn=0&b=senate

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/te…ssion=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0

2

Pinging @elliot and @Gilian

We could probably forward something to the legislature, should this gain traction.

It’s likely that it won’t get picked up since this was submitted on Feb. 19 and still hasn’t been moved out of its committee. Bills banning CLSDs tend to die in that stage anyway, either due to lack of interest in prohibiting them, arguments about the constitutionality of banning them, or because they’re simply forgotten about in lieu of actual governing/legislative work with actual purpose.

Still, though. These types of bans are not based in empirical science and denying a MAP/pedophilic individual the right to relieve himself with a doll will not make children any more safe.

4 Likes
3

Are all these so-called “lawyers” unfamiliar with the Lupe Fuentes case?

1 Like
4

One could merely explain that no minors were involved—at all.

3 Likes
5

Basically, the idiots think that dolls are 3D printed photos of children or even adults.

3 Likes
6

I dislike the catharsis model, because it frames people as though people were fish in a bowl. It’s akin to feeding wild animals to keep the beasts from ravaging the population. It disregards the agency to moderate and to feel empathy. However, the more one has, the more one has to lose, and the less one has, the less one has to lose. I think it’s commonly accepted that when one has nothing to lose, the only protective aspect that remains is altruism. Ultimately, framing a group as wild animals doesn’t render a good image.

My argument is that punishment cannot be justified.

Choosing to do something harmless is not choosing to do something harmful.

To the extent that it would be found strange for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom, a failure to feel protective of a doll cannot coherently be construed as a failure to feel protective of what matters.

It’s not evil to think that shape cannot make a lifeless object precious. It’s not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. There’s no evil to punish for.

3 Likes
7

I always have trouble processing these statements of yours? I get the second part of the first one. That one shouldn’t feel like they’ve failed to protect children by protecting a doll? Or that a doll is no different than a broom (which it IS technically; an inanimate, lifeless object). But to most owners, their dolls mean as much to them as possibly a real child means to a parent. Mine do, since I’ll never have children of my own. They are surrogates for that purpose. Not for masturbatory purposes. If my house were on fire I’d save my dog before I’d save a doll. I can always get another doll.

To make these laws prohibiting dolls is to deny those of us that would feel alone and destitute otherwise. Even those that have also gotten them as surrogates to stand in the place of children they may have lost due to death, disease, or fatal accidents. Leaving people like us to suffer in anguish. Forcing us into a life of agonizing solitude. Not allowing me to own dolls would be torture for me!

Not allowing me to use AI to create pictures of MY children, what I would think or want them to look like, would just add to my suffering. I agree that pictures of real kids shouldn’t be used without their parents knowledge or permission in creating said images. But celebrities over 18 are fair game imo. Using their public images to train or morph with my doll’s face to create a picture of my imaginary child shouldn’t become an issue if it’s for my own personal use.

As for this part.

It leaves me a little baffled? It’s not evil to think the shape of my doll resembling a real child is precious to me. Maybe ONLY me? There’s nothing wrong with that! It’s my object that I use as a surrogate to cope with MY emotions. It’s for MY emotional support and well being. Denying me my right to own a doll just because of the way it looks, is to deny me my joy. It’s not the same feeling as say a real parent and child, but to me it’s everything it can be regardless! Whether or not someone use it for ANY purpose, regardless, shouldn’t matter to anyone! Whether they masturbate with it or use it for target practice. It’s still nobody’s concern!

So I still can’t figure out if what happens to a doll should matter? Whether good or evil, it’s a piece of personal property. Should we jail Pete Townsend for destroying Gibson guitars on stage? Or Jimmy Hendrix for doing lewd things with his guitar on stage? It doesn’t resemble a real human so I guess it doesn’t matter? But because a doll looks like a person it gets suddenly imbued with rights? And people punished for “violating” it? It’s a THING!

3 Likes
8

I don’t state that one should be punished for feeling protective of a doll.

What I explain is that it’s never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a sex toy—at least to the extent that it would be found strange for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a sex toy.

My point is that punishment cannot be justified.

That’s it!

It’s not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter, no matter how much the doll means. There’s no evil to punish for.

Consider whom that message is intended for.

9

I hope someone comes up with a better discourse than I have.

State Senator Beth Mizell has introduced a doll law for Louisiana.

Please know that I argue that punishment cannot be justified.

By the way, I’ve been warned by Twitter.

10

Well, I’m hoping that @elliot and @Gilian can get involved with protesting these bills by submitting a letter in opposition or by contacting the legislators directly regarding this.

You have a very well-put-together legal precedent-style argument for these dolls, and I’m hoping you could provide it here.

3 Likes
11

I’m adding this, just because.

Proscribing dolls proscribes expressing the idea that it’s never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a sex toy.

Texas v. Johnson (1989).
“[T]he Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages.”

3 Likes
12

Thing is, this is never about protecting dolls. It’s about punishing what they think are “monsters”, which usually ends up killing or “curing” them. If the experience is enjoyable, then it is not a “punishment”.

1 Like
13

This is why I don’t like the catharsis model. It frames a group as animals. It dehumanizes.

The discourse to proscribe doll ownership is about framing doll ownership as incitement. It’s about framing a failure to feel protective of a doll as a threat to society.

Proscribing dolls proscribes expressing the idea that sympathetic magic has no effects, that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter and that it’s never morally relevant for anyone to feel more protective of any doll than of a sex toy.

Those ideas threaten no one. Also, there’s no exception to the 1A guarantee of protection than renders authority to proscribe.

For the most part, doll use is framed as incitement or as a failure to feel protective of what matters.

That’s why I state that to the extent that it would be found strange for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a sex toy, a failure to feel protective of a doll cannot coherently be construed as a failure to feel protective of what matters. A failure to feel protective of a doll cannot be construed as a failure to respect social boundaries.

Choosing to do something harmless is not choosing to do something harmful.

It’s not evil to think that shape cannot make a lifeless object precious. It’s not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. There’s no evil to punish for. It’s not evil or erroneous to think no one’s ever been harmed from what happened to a doll.

A question never asked is this.

How evil is it for someone to think he can use any doll he wants as a sex toy?

The issue is that doll ownership is framed as dysphemistically as the fanatical activists can express it. The activists literally posit a fairytale.

To the extent that some symbolic ideology doesn’t include diving into a dumpster to save a discarded doll, it is vacuous. To the extent that some symbolic ideology does include diving into a dumpster to save a discarded doll, it is absurd.

Thinking that what happens to a doll does not matter is no more evil than thinking that tying shoes does not matter, regardless of how evil the person who holds that view might be. Therefore, punishing someone for how they handle a doll cannot be justified any more than punishing them for how they tie their shoes.

I use “never” and “anyone” for a reason.

1 Like
14

I don’t read it as that, I just see catharsis as a way of demonstrating that it won’t drive people to perpetrate abuse, or act as a catalyst in the etiology of CSA perpetration (meaning it entranced the risk).

I don’t like how pedophilia/minor attraction is falsely pathologized and not distinguished from pedophilic disorder.

Even the DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR definitions of pedophilic disorder draw a line between PD and a “pedophilic sexual interest”, with the latter even going so far as to clarify that sexual preoccupation and personal engagement were not enough to qualify as diagnostic criteria.

If anyone is curious about this, I’ve posted about it here on the forum.
https://forum.prostasia.org/t/dsm-5-tr-definition-for-pedophilic-disorder-changes-and-commentary/

2 Likes
15

Over-medicalization of abuse poses a serious risk of inappropriate interventions (for one, there are multiple etiological pathways to an act of abuse, for simplicity, let’s use an example of sadism) and it creates an impression of absolving abusers of responsibility. Even if you’re not doing that, it is hard to escape that. It isn’t a useful thing to do in the realm of public discourse. It also smells of behaviorism.

This is the psychiatric association. Psychiatrists are primarily medical doctors, not psychologists. Psychiatry has a very dark history. You can’t deal with that darkness and it distracts. Stick with human rights.

Behaviorism is a school of thought in psychology which was pioneered by B.F. Skinner in the mid-20th century. He used to do experiments where he’d put rats in a box, expose them to various stimuli, and note down their reactions. I concur it is concerning to primarily describe people in this fashion.

If your references are overwhelmingly forensic, forensic adjacent, or involves people who work primarily in these areas, you are inevitably going to get a tilt towards looking at people through the lens of “risk”, “possible criminality”, or other such things. That is quite unhelpful in talking about something as mundane as sexual expression. Would you talk about video games from the perspective of the experiences of people sitting in a Texan prison?

When will you learn?

1 Like