New Doll Bill in Utah Legislature

Utah will be the latest state to try and pass a law which unconstitutionally and unjustifiably targets owners of plastic dolls. Laws targeting child-like sex dolls are very likely to be found unconstitutional and are a repugnant waste of resources and are bound to cause more pain and heartache, and are incompatible with American ideals of personal liberty and free expression.

A new bill in the Utah state legislature has been reported on by a local affiliate.

SALT LAKE CITY — A legislative committee on Wednesday gave unanimous approval to a bill that would prohibit the possession, purchase, or distribution of sex dolls made to look like minors or children.

HB108 sponsor Rep. Matthew Gwynn, R-Farr West, who also serves as the Roy police chief, said child sex dolls have been found in several recent investigations into child pornography or exploitation, and a representative from the Utah Attorney General’s Office said there is a “high correlation” between possession of the dolls and investigations into child pornography and abuse.

“These cases so far have been few, but we do have them here in Utah and we’ve seen them here on … more than one occasion,” said Nate Mutter, co-chairman of the Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee.

In some cases, Mutter said, suspects are technically savvy enough to hide their tracks online, and digital forensics teams aren’t able to find evidence of child pornography or abuse during an initial search.

“What we do know about the child sex dolls, though, is that there’s a high correlation between them being found in homes with child pornographic material or child sex abuse material,” Mutter said. “So, in those cases where we may not have something available to us, this would be an additional tool to essentially take someone into custody and bring them into jail.”

HB108 defines a child sex doll as “an anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the features of, or with features that resemble those of a minor,” that “is intended for use in sexual acts.” The bill would make possession of a child sex doll a class A misdemeanor, with a mandatory fine of at least $2,500, and makes distribution of a child sex doll a third-degree felony with a mandatory fine of at least $10,000.

Mutter said the dolls can be customizable, and he has seen dolls of various ages in cases, including toddler and infant dolls.

“These are highly disturbing and, you know, we’d look at this as a child protection bill, and we need your support,” he told the committee.

Unified police detective Tiffany Parker also spoke in favor of the bill.

“As someone who specializes in sexually motivated crimes against children, I’m here to say that we absolutely see these dolls in our communities here in Salt Lake County in Utah,” she said. “This bill is absolutely relevant. It does happen, it happens now, and this is something that we fully support.”

“(I) just appreciate the sponsor for bringing this forward, and for those who testified for the need of this,” said Rep. Val Peterson, R-Orem. “It’s sad that we need this type of legislation, but clearly it’s needed in code.”

HB108 was recommended unanimously by the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, and now goes to the full House for a vote.

Of course, right off the bat, these legislators are egregiously wrong in their rationale for legislation. Contrary to the claims espoused by these dolls, they harm no one, and cling to a supposed correlation with CSEM possession and doll possession as a justification for prohibition.

One of the bill’s sponsors even claims that the bill is designed to empower law enforcement to target individuals for engaging with their sexual interests or preferences without actually having the evidence to do so. I shouldn’t even need to explain why this rationale is bad, but I guess here it goes.

CSEM possession is rightfully illegal because a child was harmed and exploited for the materials to exist. Claiming that the interest in targeting the trade in CSEM warrants a prohibition on a sex toy that harms no one is not a valid justification for prohibition. Their views are colored by fear, an overwhelming misunderstanding of exactly what pedophilia is, and clearly are not informed as to the proper science behind doll owners and their users.
Even the claim that there exists a correlation between doll owners and CSEM possession is spurious and backed by a series of sensationalist articles. Yes, there have been instances where CSEM possession did coincide with doll ownership, but that’s not a valid reason to label a sex doll as contraband.

The comments from the post seems to be completely devoid of scientific literacy, with some commenters invoking biblical language to characterize their distaste with the subject matter.


One comment seems to be conflicted, pointing out that such a law will likely violate established SCOTUS precedent on the matter, but given the current makeup of the court, anything is possible as it’s already been observed that the current SCOTUS has no respect for precedent that does not conform to their arbitrary conservative vision. Conservatism truly is a disease.


I cannot begin to express my distaste with the Utah state legislature, but considering that their elected US Senator, Mike Lee (R), presented a bill to essentially ban sexually explicit expression online, the battle for sensibility and rationality within Utah’s public services may be more uphill than one would hope.

We truly are living in uncertain times. While we thought that the overall attitude towards these dolls has been relaxing, it seems that ignorance and prejudice will continue to dominate American politics.
I can only hope that groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will be available to fight against these abhorrent violations of American’s civil rights and liberties.


I never owned a sex doll. Although, given how lolicon is criminalized in Canada, I assume it’s the same for child sex dolls.

I imagine people use these dolls if they want to get a bit more “physical”.

It’s understandable why lawmakers want to ban child sex dolls. We all want children to be safe. At the same time, there’s a difference between a real child and a lifeless doll.

It’s always something like “if we allow child sex dolls, CSA will be NORMALIZED!!!”

Of course nobody would think that child sex dolls would be okay if there was a correlation between them and CSA. But, there isn’t. At least, not proven so far.

It’s always because these dolls look like children that lawmakers say that they should be illegal (or, remain so, if they already are).

They focus too much on the “child” part, never enough on the “sex doll” part.

Correlation does not equal causation. These people seem to have forgotten about that.

1 Like

About that, have they been? Like, may I have an example of the last time that they were trying to fight something, like this, specifically?


I’m not necessarily sure I’d agree with this. Alcohol abuse is associated with CSA perpetration, and I don’t see anyone supporting bans on alcohol as a CSA prevention measure. We should ban things that directly cause harm or put someone at a high risk of being harmed. Risk factors for harm are everywhere, and the decision to ban some but not all will always be based on stigma and bias. Obviously, this is a personal view, and probably wouldn’t be reflective of Prostasia’s stance on sex dolls if evidence emerged that doll use was a significant risk factor for CSA.


As I said, few people care about numbers and logic. They are about feeling like heroes with none of the risk. Of course, I prefer feeling like the Demon King myself, so maybe, it’s hypocritical of me to say that.


I didn’t know that. Thanks for linking the article, it was a good read!

Well, there isn’t one.

They’re claiming that they can cause or are associated with CSEM possession, a belief brought on by a handful of highly-publicized court cases where those caught with CSEM were also in possession of a doll, but this doesn’t really demonstrate a correlation, and if there is one, it’s not a very meaningful one either. CSEM possession may often correlate with acts of contact abuse, but the act of possessing or consumption of CSEM itself does not present itself to be a causal variable in the etiology of CSA perpetration, even in cases where the victims shown in the materials have similar features to the hands-on victims of the abuse.

There simply isn’t enough evidence to demonstrate causality (outside of exploitation/abuse perpetration being a requirement for the existence of CSEM, of course).

People often times wrongly assert that pedophilia is a motivating factor behind CSA perpetration, when in most cases, it’s only piece of a much larger puzzle, and is not even a requirement.


This is the part that trips people up. The idea that pedophilia is generally NOT a risk factor for CSA is completely at odds with what they’ve been led to believe. I blame the colloquial use of “pedophilia” to describe actions as opposed to attractions causing the confusion and subsequent fearmongering.


So there have been what? Two cases? Three? I’m sure if there was four it would be labeled an epidemic of catastrophic proportions. Yet somehow these few cases are enough for the State Attorney General to draw a high correlation between doll ownership and CSAM.
The only other reasoning mentioned for the ban is (Barney Fife voice) “Well… umm… we seen them! “

My stomach churns hearing of another doll ban, and being in a conservative state myself, I can only wonder when I will be deemed a criminal overnight.


Yeah… it’s genuinely nauseating. These people are clearly not acting within the best interest of children. None of it has been. The fact that the Child Rescue Coalition flat-out fabricated the story about the child-like sex doll in Florida should be of no surprise how devoid of integrity these ravenous, ideologically-charged, anti-science jackals truly are.

These dolls are harmless, as is all pure fantasy engagement.


I’ve been following this and I am appalled at how disingenuous and bad faith Rep. Gwynn’s arguments are for supporting this bill. Most of the time he is just lying and it’s not even hard to see that he is doing so. This is just another right being taken away so that cops have another tool to arrest actual criminals and he admitted as much. But everyone has to pay the price because criminals own these dolls on occasion as well. He called child dolls “Paraphernalia or tools of the trade” referring to child sex trafficking. It couldn’t be more ridiculous. The entire time they have repeatedly presented arguments that anyone can see are completely insane but they don’t have the courage to even question it. People aren’t buying the dolls and being sold on offending. If they committed a crime against a child at any point, I can promise you they were already a risk before they even knew child dolls existed at all.


They’re literally drawing on surface-level minority associations with these dolls to try and advance a morallist agenda with absolutely ZERO consideration as to the true effects of their legislative effect or intent.
Morality, such as this, will NOT help put nefarious/bad actors in prison, nor will it aid in the protection of real children.


Question is what can we do about it?

1 Like

Constitutional challenge.

Sex toy bans have been found unconstitutional before, and because of the way this legislation is written, it’s very possible to challenge it for failing to pass the scrutiny standards of Ashcroft and Williams, since there’s no evidence that the dolls themselves are devoid of expressive value, and since they’re being suppressed based on their contents out of unproven/unsubstantiated fears generated by unpopular association.


It was really concerning hearing the Senate today half heartedly voice concerns over the vague phrasing “child sex doll” and the possible constitutional violation as a whole but it was completely drowned out by reassurance to the voters like “I’m not a proponent of child sex dolls but tell me why they should be banned ?” That senator later mentions that he kind of doesn’t understand why private bedroom activity is a concern but then asks for him to explain the bill’s perceived necessity. As stated above, another senator voiced concern over a defendant’s easily understandable disadvantage in this scenario as well due to the vague description and the fact that its basically the call of the AG office on what a “child doll” even is. Gwynn proceeds to make the claim “We are talking about dolls that are obviously pre pubescent and toddler.” Okay well again he didn’t really answer the question and it’s still vague as hell. You could order a doll that is 5 ft tall with small breasts. Anyone can tell you this could be a pre teen girl or an adult woman as humans vary widely in height, weight etc. I am legitimately starting to believe that you could convince these people that if Mountain Dew Code Red were found in the houses of most people in possession of CSAM, you could make a case to ban that soda. You literally don’t even need and argument that makes sense. You just play on the fear of the unlikely correlation and don’t provide any insight on causation.


Maybe I’m asking in the wrong thread. I’ve always wondered/believed, how is a child harmed when it’s a group of Naturists who believe in the natural beauty of the human form? Rejecting clothing as a barrier to being true to others.
Or a photographer such as Sally Mann who’s family was fine being the subjects of her work?


I don’t think it’s right to conflate those two types of images, especially when they don’t even feed into the same market as CSEM, even if naturist images are consumed by some for that same purpose.

The prohibitions against CSEM are designed to prevent sexual exploitation of children and preserve their sexual privacy, as a child is not able to consent to, nor comprehend, that purpose.


Is this page current?


It lists the Utah bill so I’d assume it’s up-to-date with the information we have.


I don’t want to start the thread about the Arizona doll law.

I’ll delete this post later.