Netherland Doll Ban

But the other explanation sounds better for the “epic good vs. evil narrative” that everyone from all political leanings seem to be attracted to, like vultures to a carcass. See how the American Darkstalkers cartoon insisted on making the game’s morally ambiguous characters fit into strict hero and villain roles.


This is not (or should not be) persuasive at all.

The idea of using culture as an argument lies squarely in the offense principle, and places emphasis solely on presumed negative or criminal elements that are merely tangential rather than seriously or intrinsically associative.

It’s also a stark deviation from the traditional Harm Principle in almost every sense. No evidence exists concluding or supporting that they sexualize children on the sole basis that they are not designed to implicate the rights of real children or the likenesses of real children.

Is there any form of proper judicial review process by which a ban on child sex dolls could be challenged under Dutch law?


It feels odd to have to say this, but the histrionic polemics have caused many to miss obvious factors.

Declaring that how someone handles a doll shows what someone wants to do to a person is declaring that a doll will be viewed as a person. To the extent that one thing will not be confused for another, the things will not be viewed as the same. One will no sooner confuse a person for a doll than expect for a doll to eat breakfast.


So she believes that it is within the function and purview of government to criminalize things and the people who possess them because they are associated with a subculture that the state has deemed problematic.

It really is a breath of fresh air in a way to hear the authoritarianism of their pursuits be stated so plainly and unabashedly. On the other hand, this as well as many other recent developments in the “protect the children” culture wars crusade have exposed that principles about freedom, privacy, and the role of government do not and have never mattered to the overwhelming majority of people. It’s a realPolitik state of affairs where nobody really even cares enough to maintain a veneer of fairness or principles anymore, and instead openly admit that they intend to use criminal law as a bludgeon to enforce their own prejudices against people whom they hate to cheers and applause.


Indeed, I believe this is an unusually honest statement. It is not about protecting children, which we all know is bullshit anyway because there is no proof that dolls cause any kind of harm to children. It is about criminalizing and erasing a minority.

This is no different to when we were imprisoning gay people for having consensual sex.


I stopped using gay people / homosexuality as an example in this context, because it destroys your entire argument by people going:


Not a fan of LGBT as a whole, because the hypocrisy is real. Are they happier if being compared to Fictosexuality? A doll is a fictional character after all. Pedophiles living as fictophiles is basically the goal.


It’s so weird when people say that to me because I’m literally gay and a pedophile. If there’s anyone qualified to decide whether or not they’re comparable, it’s me. And yes, the experience (and stigma) is similar.

I don’t usually get involved in doll discourse though, so often it’s within the context of debating whether sexual minorities deserve basic rights and protections.


I always found it weird to use “-phobia” in that way. Phobia means fear… What, is this a way for the powerless to have some illusion of “power” over the powerful? “Well, at least, we scare them or something, like that”? I remember when the word, villain, used to mean something closer to villager. It got its negative context, due to all the peasant rebellions against the heroic knights.

1 Like