What doll bans are doing and will do...add nothing to keeping children safe

I’m only going to start with this. Recently it was mentioned that payment processors have now started putting doll vendors on the MATCH list. Whereby they’re basically black listed as far as accepting payments through credit and 3rd party online payment companies such as PayPal. PayPal has been passing moral judgements since a few years ago. Keeping customer’s monies and not paying the sellers.

Which is basically what will happen if federally sponsored digital currency replaces real money. They will tell you what things and how much of them you’re “allowed” to purchase. Total control of how, where, and on what you can spend your money. Fascist to the core! But that’s another topic.

The vendor where I purchased a number of my dolls from has now been coerced into shutting down sales of smaller dolls. Otherwise the payment processors won’t allow him to accept any kind of payments for any dolls. This means that now he’s been forced to sell only “legal looking”, adult style, “socially acceptable” dolls. Which in turn means most will have large and very large breasts and be much, much heavier.

There really ARE some young looking, flat chested women that actually exist in the world. Many short ones too! In case anyone was wondering? But no, can’t have any flat chested dolls! Seems too triggering for most “normal” people. They start having lewd, lascivious, lurid thoughts of their daughters and nieces! Forget that their looking at a piece of rubber! Oh, and BTW, many of us DON’T use them as masturbation aids. In case anyone was still wondering about that too?

My take on the psychology of people is this:
Because it looks like a familiar object that reminds people of their own children matters not. Them imagining sexual things being done to “IT”, is THEIR own imagination taking hold. Then they project that THOSE people want to do those things to their own child. That’s where the moral panic sets in and a false connection is made through projection of their OWN sexual fantasies and fears!

He also sold some small, scaled down large breasted dolls, so people could move them around much easier. Even some handicapped customers could enjoy the company of a doll without needing a crane to move her! But here’s where it all starts. Get them to be unavailable. Problem solved!

It circles back to doll banning laws. Turning all small doll owners into felons. Circumventing 4th Amendment rights, using small dolls as “probable cause” to break into their homes and blindly search for anything! Very, very few offenders and possesors of CSAM have had “A” doll. Many have not even had a small doll. Just “a” doll of somekind. They purposefully leave out the details and conditions of the doll. A doll owner’s doll is generally very well cared for and in very good condition. They are not cheap toys! Surmising that ALL small doll owners possess CSAM is like saying everyone that owns or wants to purchase an AR-15 rifle is planning a mass shooting!

Children will be so much safer in everyone’s mind. Reality will soon prove otherwise. It already has regardless of dolls!

From my vendor:

"Why do we have to stop offering small dolls?
Even we though we have helped thousands of customers to get their dolls, we understand smaller dolls are still controversial to some people or some places. A lot of customers are grateful when they get a quality doll with a very aggressive price from us. While some people still ask us why we offer such a young-looking doll. We understand that false beliefs about them are everywhere in our world. We also believe that we are not doing anything evil or wrong by carrying smaller dolls. Actually, we have helped a lot of people.

Why did we carry small dolls?
One known pain point for companion dolls is the weight. It’s even more difficult for senior customers or customers with physical challenges. In the past, we have saw someone purchased a 90 lbs dolls from us while he is on wheel chair. The end story is that he had to get another wheelchair for the doll.
Smaller dolls are usually 30-50 lbs which are much more manageable. It’s much more user friendly. Since 2020, there are a few times that we wanted to cut this product line, but we still keep it today just for those customers.

What’s a young-looking doll?
A lot of people, including someone from law enforcement, asked us the question. What’s your dolls age? There is no such a thing called age for a doll. When we make smaller or miniature dolls, we just use a full size doll’s mold and scale it down. Some people even thing we use real child model which is absolutely a joke. A doll is a doll. It’s only about body type, weight, face, wig and functions. It’s nothing to do with child porn or pedophilia. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks it this way.

What’s our plan and why?
We will stop carry smaller dolls and young-looking dolls starting next week. We actually made much less profit selling smaller dolls than full size dolls. We keep the products for a lot of senior customers but unfortunately not everyone appreciates it. Those controversial products have affected our main business. If we want to run a health business, we have to cut those products.

What if I still want to buy in the future?
If you concern about the weight of a full-size doll or do have physical challenge to carry a full-size doll, you can still contact us. We can connect you to the overseas suppliers directly and stand behind the products as before. Thank you for your support and understanding!"


Merely selling a doll as a doll should suffice.

Merely selling a sex toy as a sex toy should suffice.


I also will never understand why the fingers are pointed at “sex” doll owners as being the perverts. If one orders a doll without the “love” holes it becomes like any other toy doll. Yet the “normal” people will still point out that it’s mouth could be used for sexual pleasure. Why are they the one’s thinking that when the person special ordering them is not thinking that? When the person clearly ordered the doll to be as a doll, whether for companionship or photography or an art piece; not for using it as a sex toy.

Because it’s made from the same material, is life-sized, and is marketed as a sex toy; it’s assumed that’s it’s one and only purpose. Many times it is not used for sexual purposes. Lawmakers fail to see that side of the argument. They single track all life-size dolls as having one and only one purpose, for sexual gratification. They go on to project their idea of what people may or may not be fantasizing about when using them. They single track that supposition with the small dolls as a desire to harm children. The laws are a total stretch of imaginings based on supposition of one thing that is merely a plausibility. Leap-frogging their way to a false belief. Then touting themselves as a knight in shining armor out to protect and save children! Such a farce!!

When research has shown and statistics have proven otherwise. Dolls have no bearing on child abuse. They are merely being used as a ploy to blatantly ignore the 4th Amendment to blindly search for CSAM.

There is no other way to fulfill what could be a child’s dream of owning a life-sized version of a doll, then to get one through a company that markets them as a sex toy. Even though someone can special order them to be the same as a toy doll. Everyone gets thrown under the bus because of the “normal” person’s own imagination, fear, and perversion.


Life, or near life size dolls are generally marketed as sex toys. I don’t think MOST people buy them for any other reason.

1 Like

Store mannequins. But those are generally hard plastic. TPE dolls came about because they’re cheaper to make and poseable. Someone came along and had other thoughts.

1 Like

These doll laws are about virtue signaling. Most on the ground do not think that a failure to feel protective of a doll poses a threat to society. There’s a cadre of loud, manipulative screamers pushing this nonsensical symbolic ideology that resembles magical thinking. If hitting it with a hammer doesn’t hurt anyone, there’s nothing to feel protective of.

That doll laws cannot be justified is how this needs to be viewed. To the extent that no one is expected to feel protective of dolls, punishment for failing to feel protective of a doll cannot be justified.

A failure to feel protective of what doesn’t matter cannot be construed as a failure to feel protective of what’s precious. It doesn’t make sense.


“Most” is not “all”. Were dealing with the “all”, “only” problem. “All” AR-15 owners are NOT mass shooters! They “all” don’t “only” buy their guns for mass shootings!

1 Like

TPE is not cheaper than the plastic used in store manikins, silicone is even more expensive. Also, store manikins are not usually made to the same level of detail or flexibility as a sex doll. And store manikins are not usually anatomically correct. Most sex dolls are not designed to stand on their own. They are best stored hanging from a hook in the neck with the head on a stand. On the other hand, for the purpose of customs duties, sex dolls are classed as manikins. I am not saying they should be banned at all. I am just noting that sex dolls are made and marketed for one specific purpose, and the fact that some people don’t use them for that is irrelevant. They are made as a sex toy and not an emotional security blanket or clothing display device, even if they can and are occasionally utilized that way.

AR-15s are not the common weapon in mass shootings, handguns are. AR-15s are banned in about a dozen states, including some of the most populous states (e. g. CA & NY). However, even if a few people misuse them for heinous reasons, that doesn’t mean we should ban something in a free democratic society. Especially something clearly enumerated in the highest law of the land as a right.

United State v. Stevens (2010) established a balancing test.

If proscribing one thing also proscribes protected expression, then the proscription is overbroad.

Dolls that are designed to accommodate bedroom play do not have to be used in such a fashion. They can be used other ways.

Just for fun, here’s Meta’s AI on this.

The balancing test described in United States v. Stevens (2010) is a legal framework used to evaluate the constitutionality of government restrictions on speech. The test is often referred to as the “Stevens test” or the “speech-balancing test.”

Here’s how it works:

  1. The government bears the burden of proving that the restriction on speech serves a compelling governmental interest.
  2. The restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
  3. The restriction must leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

In other words, the government must demonstrate that the restriction on speech is necessary to achieve a very important goal, and that the restriction is carefully tailored to minimize the impact on free speech. Additionally, the government must show that there are still other ways for individuals to express themselves on the same topic.

This test is a balancing act between the government’s interest in regulating speech and the individual’s right to free speech. It’s a high bar for the government to meet, and it’s intended to ensure that restrictions on speech are carefully considered and limited to what’s truly necessary.

The Stevens case specifically dealt with a federal law that criminalized the creation and distribution of animal cruelty videos. The Supreme Court struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on speech, finding that it didn’t meet the balancing test.

There is nothing threatening in expressing the idea that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. Regulating what doll someone can use to express that idea cannot be justified. If hitting it with a hammer doesn’t hurt anyone, protecting it cannot fulfill a compelling interest.


No. I’ve never seen a handgun mass shooting reported. That’s your POV. And that statement is another supposition. Irelevancy doesn 't assume guilt of the opposite. That’s a false arguement! You always seem to make assumptions about things. I like to think you’re on the side of reason, yet many times you seem to be an antagonist.

The recent Kansas City Chiefs shooting was all hand guns. 2024 Kansas City parade shooting - Wikipedia

I am not making assumptions. I am stating facts.

1 Like

I am not sure if you agree or disagree with me. I do have some knowledge as I did research towards buying one. I most strenuously object to any government trying to ban them. It’s none of their GD business. Even if they are used as intended as sex toys.

1 Like

Telling adults to pretend that dolls are precious is going too far. That’s something some think is cute for a toddler to do.

Regulating the shape of sex toys is going too far.

I am a doll owner. A claim that owning a doll makes someone evil is absurd.


Maybe I am not making myself clear. A sex doll is made and marketed as a sex toy. It is not meant to be a “companion” or for emotional support or for clothing displays. That is not its primary purpose. Use of it for other reasons is irrelevant. That being said, there is NO excuse for banning t

I completely agree. Trying to justify sex dolls on the basis that some are used for other purposes is irrelevant to the fact that they shouldn’t be banned in the first place.

1 Like

I justify them as an emotional support tool. Just because they’re marketed as “sex toys”" is irrelevant to me. So why do people like me deserve punishment? Why does anyone desrerve punishment, for what? Having a sex toy that’s disapproved of by mainstream society? That’s fascist! Allowing an authority to dictate what you can and can’t use to pleasure yourself. Being “allowed” a fantasy if you wish. I say, fuck off then!


This is a one sided argument. Who’s to say what they can and can’t be used for? Marketing is just there to generate sales. If the majority would likely be looking in that vien is the majority’s problem! Labeling everyone as the majority is where your arguement falls apart.

1 Like

Not pretending that a doll is precious isn’t evil.

Some think it’s cute for a toddler to pretend a doll is precious.
Telling an adult to pretend that a doll is precious is preposterous. Claiming that not pretending a doll is precious poses a threat to society is absurd.

Essentially no one believes that dolls are precious. If not pretending that dolls are precious poses a threat to society, then everyone who doesn’t pretend that dolls are precious is a threat.

Maybe this is better.

Toddler Pretend Play vs. Adult Expectations

While it may be seen as endearing for a young child to pretend that a doll is precious, the same expectation applied to an adult would be considered preposterous. The notion that not engaging in such pretense poses a threat to society is equally absurd.

Lack of Doll Reverence is Normative

In reality, the belief that dolls are inherently precious is held by very few people. Therefore, the claim that failing to treat dolls as precious represents a societal threat is unfounded. By this logic, the majority of people who do not ascribe special significance to dolls would be considered threats themselves.



One thing I keep hearing is that these dolls are marketed as sex toys, but are they really?
I look at a store page for one of the most popular doll brands. “Sex” word count = 0, there are fully clothed pictures of the product, technical information on size, material and weight. The marketing includes options for head model, eyes, wig, skin tone, standing feet, and makeup. The only thing in all the marketing that could indicate sex, is the “hole option” that includes an option for “no holes”.

Imagine buying an $800 “super stroker” and the only thing you knew about its functionality is that it has a hole. This marketing wouldn’t work at all. I would want to know more about how it feels inside with explicit detail. I would want to see a hundred user reviews. Where is all the hype for sex? Why are the dolls wearing average clothes and not BDSM gear?

Society may feel that these are nothing more than perverse rape dolls, but that doesn’t make it so. We need to stop letting antis control the narrative.


Unfortunately, the average person on the street is an idiot. For example: