Netherland Doll Ban

It appears activists are pushing for a doll ban in the Netherlands.

I used a translator to obtain this excerpt from the report.

“[T]he proposal is not about criminalizing acts that directly harm children, but mainly about setting a standard.”

One way i address the stated idea goes as follows.

One will no sooner confuse a person for a doll than expect for a doll to eat breakfast. That one will no sooner confuse a person for a doll than expect for a doll to eat breakfast renders doll play as distinguishable from acting out as undressing to shower is from undressing to ride a bus. Undressing to shower does not normalize or lead to undressing to ride a bus.

To the extent that one will not confuse an activity that’s conducted within the confines of solitude with one that is not, one will not view an activity that’s conducted within the confines of solitude as the same as an activity that’s not conducted within the confines of solitude.

It feels strange to have to state this.


Then they should set a standard of freedom.


One doesn’t need to be a sympathizer to find unjustified punishment revolting.

To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of any doll than of a broom, punishment for failing to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom is punishment for failing to do something odd.

To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of any doll than of a broom, punishment for failing to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom cannot be justified.


I’m not really certain about this, but as I recall, over 30+ years ago, the Netherlands was where the age of consent was the lowest. Either 12 or 14? Nude pics of something like 12yo and up were legal there. Again, I’m stretching to recall.
Still, it was always known as a place of being more relaxed and free on most things. Amsterdam, well known for marijuana smokers.

1 Like

I saw this coming tbh. They have an easy game now, because their biggest neighbour (Germany) has already done so. That will be used as an argument, same with the UK and perhaps Austria. While it seemed that the current austrian gov. wanted to ban these dolls first, they have just recently voiced their disapproval of banning them once again for the second time now.

Time will tell for how long the opposition can weaponize this topic. It is not unlikely that they will ban it once elections are coming up, similar to how it happened in Germany.

Should CLSDs be outlawed in Netherlands then it will most likely infect the entire EU. They have already used a computer-generated character in a giant coup last year to lure in criminals by producing porn using that character.

1 Like

Amazingly, my use of the word broom doesn’t suffice. I have been using an uglier form to emphasize what i mean. This doll nonsense needs to end.

To the extent that it would be found odd for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a nondescript sex toy, punishment for what someone does to a doll cannot be justified.

There’s a limit to what matters. Dolls do not matter more than a nondescript sex toy.

It’s not an evil fantasy to think that what someone does to a lifeless object in private cannot harm anyone and that what someone does in private is no one’s concern.

Applying age of consent laws to the shape of lifeless structures is tethered to sympathetic magic.

Doll owners don’t seek to throw parades. They just seek to be left alone.

I often retweet Dr. Cantor’s thread on the research, explaining that the research is the only research on doll ownership ever conducted.

The laws cannot be justified; however, that doesn’t stop moral grandstanding.


Replying to a tweet that stated that some make demands to have dolls, I included this statement in my reply.

It’s not about demands; it’s about unjustifiable punishment.

One doesn’t need to be a sympathizer to find unjustified punishment revolting.

All should feel insulted by the notion that they could be punished for buying a doll.


Apparently, the doll ban has been placed on hold.

Here’s the article.

The argument draws from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: right to private life.

“In the light of the right to private life, the Advisory Division of the Council of State poses the question of how far the government may go in penalizing behavior that is considered reprehensible or even immoral, but which in itself does not directly harm others.”


It occurs to me that if the right to private life has any meaning, it means that one should be free from being punished for how one handles a doll while alone. The feminist’s philosephy that’s used to justify unjustifiable punishment shouldn’t reach into one’s personal space. That reach intrudes where it does not belong.


It’s amazing how many “concerned and righteous” people have no problem reaching into someone’s private life and personal space. After all, they are on a mission from God. Besides it’s {choose one or more}; 1) for your own good, 2) for the children, 3) to safeguard society, 4) for morality, etc. Just ask them. The actual answer is that it gives them power that they take from you.

Sorry, just getting cynical as I age. Well, more cynical.


1, 2, 3 and 4 are pretexts.

Those some interchange “God” with “society”. Then again, like God, the commune is also a spook.


I find it interesting that they argue using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Seeing how these laws are spreading in the EU, I truly believe that this is becoming more and more an issue that the European Court of Human Rights should take a look at. Especially when national courts feel that they are unable to answer if this is in violation of ECHR.

From what I know is that the people in Germany will do exactly that should their complaint be denied, or not accepted for review.

1 Like

eh we didn´t make a decision on that yet.

I know one of the guys who put in his complain will not see it through to the EU, as he is weary of the privacy practices on EU level (which are a lot less strict then in germany) The other guy is already out as pedo so he doesn´t care about the privacy aspect but it remains an unsolved question of rather or not we can legally speaking and rather or not we will have the money to do so.

So yeah current situation is neither yes nor no. We will deal with that question when we come to it.

1 Like

Bringing it on an EU level would perhaps lead to international support from those few organizations that are against moralistic legislation.

I would be glad if Prostasia would accept donations and funnel them to you, but seeing how hard it is for them to get their research funding going it is perhaps just dream thinking.


We where in talk about support from Prostasia but ended up not having the time to collect the money to fight the ban. But they did say yes back then.

1 Like

I just saw a clip from The Blues Brothers. It stuck in my mind.

Um yeah, that’s kinda why I used them.

1 Like

God forbid you peak into their personal spaces. Yeah, it’s OK for them to lord over others but they’re exempt from everything they dictate. The age old story of people wanting power over others to “do as I say, not what I do”. Everyone always trying to play boss. Everyone needs to realize, their rights end at the tip of their nose, and they have no right to tell others how to live. Especially in their private life that affects no one else.


It is legally possible for the Netherlands to ban sex dolls that look like children younger than 12, the Council of State said in an advice to the Cabinet. Justice Minister Dilan Yeşilgöz wants to ban sex dolls that look like children under the age of 18. But according to the Council of State, that would be difficult to enforce because it is challenging to distinguish between the body of a 17 and a 19-year-old.

Damn. Really? But Twitter told me something different.

But the Council of State expects “that the distinction between pre-pubertal dolls and adult dolls is easier to make than the distinction between adolescent dolls and adult dolls.”

Child sex dolls are often made to look life-like and to have sex with. Customs intercept a few dozen such dolls every year.

Looks like they already block every import they notice.


“Minister Yeşilgöz said she wanted to ban child sex dolls because they are part of a subculture in which sexualizing children is normal.” So, her primary reason for banning dolls is because they are part of a subculture. Does anyone actually believe this?
She must prefer that real children to be the only potential sexual outlet for those who may be attracted to them, because the only thing being sexualized in doll subcultures is… dolls. I’m sorry but that is the only conclusion I can draw from these idiotic statements.