Please read before posting: Regarding 100cm and 132cm dolls

[Filch]

We have discussed such a change in management in great detail, but changing TDF to a "doll art forum" which allows every kind of doll, would hurt the forum in more ways than one, and would probably be the end of it.
Most of the visitors come here for the sexual aspect of the dolls, just look at the Doll Album, and especially, which pictures are viewed most. It will never be the fully clothed pictures that receive the most views.

Also, there could never be discussions about the sexual aspects of the dolls in such a forum. Which would be like a car forum, that could only talk about the bodywork, but not the power of the engine.

While I do not entirely agree with the car forum metaphor (as I do not find it illogical for a car forum to have sub forums focused on individual aspects of car-related discussions), however after reading your patient explanation I can see now that it is a sensible decision to establish certain rules to protect the existence of this forum that is shared by many doll owners. As you have mentioned, the reality is that people visits this forum expecting to see/read about sex dolls. So I can see the logic behind TDF's decision of denying certain dolls information to be posted. As Spock have said: "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I think we should appreciate the time and efforts that TDF's mods have spent to govern and maintain this forum, and trying to keep everyone happy at the same time.

Therefore, it is fair enough that for anyone who wish to continue posting in this forum to respect such set rules. However I do not agree with some expressed concerns about DS132 dolls being related to pedophilia.

It may be questionable to some that DS132 can be purchased with vaginal hole, but please also remember that DS132 was originally advertised as a non-sex doll and I myself for one ordered it without sex hole. I enjoy the companionship of such lovely creature, as much as I adore the companionship of my collection of many 1/6 scale manga-figurines. But does that mean I intend to have sex or masturbate to my beautiful figurines? And what evidence would such accusations based on?

I adore my dolls and I project life into them with my imagination, however I do not see any of my dolls as children or substitute to children. Reality is, and as we are all well aware of, is that these dolls are made of silicone and they not real humans. To imply that one adores his DS132 may be a pedophile, or imply one's desire to have sex with such dolls as a childlike substitute because the doll has a childish appearance, IMHO that is a baseless accusation.

One justification I can see is if the owner already has an adult sized companion doll, he could buy a non sex childlike doll as a daughter and he would not be accused of pedophilia.

I failed to see the logic behind this. How can one justify himself for not being a pedophile by owning an adult-sized doll? Reality is that there are monsters out there who abuse both women and children. If one is a monster or pedophile then he is what he is regardless of what doll he owns.

Also, it seems that this discussion is steering away from the original topic (DS132/100 dolls' acceptability to this forum), and heading towards the discussion of whether one's taste on female distinguish him as a pedophile. While pedophilia is wrong and should be unacceptable to all regardless of cultural background because of the damage that forever scars the victims, this discussion is unfortunately irrelevant to the original topic of this post - which is whether DS132/100's acceptability to this forum

So then how do you prove a jury that you are not a pedophile when the police confiscate the 100/132cm dolls from your home? Does it matter that they have sex holes or not? I thought that you may have a case defending yourself if the dolls have no sex holes. Even if the prosecution can not prove you had sex with the child like 100/132cm doll, the judge and jury may still think you are questionable for owning a 100/132cm doll with sex holes.

My bad for steering the discussion off topic. I just really wanted to say that nearly all of the Asian Manufactured heads/faces for small dolls look too childish in my honest opinion. If they could just make the faces more mature then there would not be this problem.

[eeniemeenie]

So then how do you prove a jury etc.

I assume you're referring to the USA...why would anyone need to prove anything to a jury? Are dolls illegal?

eenie

[AlexKnight]

So then how do you prove a jury etc.

I assume you're referring to the USA...why would anyone need to prove anything to a jury? Are dolls illegal?

eenie

If customs are able to confiscate a sex doll with a childlike appearance, then yes, such dolls can be considered illegal.
Why else would some manufactures choose to ship the body and head in different shipments, other than to make sure their product gets through customs.
If the doll wasn't questionable, then they could just send it in one package.

[louislaine31]

It's a difficult question ... A doll is not an human being : and I'm not sure that a doll can be illegal in my country.

..> A doll looks young ? And so what ? It's not an human being ? Pedophilia is forbidden because human being have been hurt ... But a doll can't be hurt.

Illegal ? i'm not sure ...

[eeniemeenie]

If customs are able to confiscate a sex doll with a childlike appearance, then yes, such dolls can be considered illegal.

I am not aware of US Customs confiscating dolls of any kind.

eenie

[Filch]

The 100/132cm doll with child face and sex holes would be akin to child pornography in the regards that it is a work of art depicting a minor in a sexual manner, or a means to simulate and promote child sex abuse, and it is simply a smoking gun that sends up red flags. USA has been cracking down on child sex offenders thanks to Chris Hanson and other vigilant activists. So what ever is acceptable in France or where ever, it is not acceptable in the USA.

I could only imagine that a person with no previous sex offense records could legitimately explain it is for art/modeling purposes. He would then prove his case by showing his portfolio depicting the child like doll in non sexual manners.

I was afraid of buying my 80cm Elf at the time, but nothing happened...yet. I am still paranoid. My only excuse is that I am loving a tiny elf with a fully developed rack. No child has DDs like my Jizzabelle.

Perhaps the Asian manufacturer, DS-Dolls could put elf ears on the 100/132cm heads and market them as spriggans/sprites/fairy/elfs/ or what ever mythical creature that is young in appearance yet adult. Then, the elf ears could be snipped/trimmed off by the owner if he so chooses.

[eeniemeenie]

The 100/132cm doll with child face and sex holes would be akin to child pornography in the regards that it is a work of art depicting a minor in a sexual manner, or a means to simulate and promote child sex abuse, and it is simply a smoking gun that sends up red flags. USA has been cracking down on child sex offenders thanks to Chris Hanson and other vigilant activists. So what ever is acceptable in France or where ever, it is not acceptable in the USA.

I don't think a doll or sculpture, even anatomically correct, is automatically considered to be "depicted in a sexual manner" just by virtue of existing. I am not aware of anything being illegal about the actual human body or any depiction of it, naked or clothed, of any age, simply existing, especially while engaged in, or depicted as engaging in, non-sexual activities, or lying in a box of bubble wrap. For instance, a lot of parents have pictures of their naked kids in the bathtub, and that is not illegal. The National Gallery of Art has plenty of depictions of naked cherubs and children hanging on its walls. And anatomically correct baby dolls are sold in toy stores.

eenie

[ctalon]

The 100/132cm doll with child face and sex holes would be akin to child pornography in the regards that it is a work of art depicting a minor in a sexual manner, or a means to simulate and promote child sex abuse, and it is simply a smoking gun that sends up red flags. USA has been cracking down on child sex offenders thanks to Chris Hanson and other vigilant activists. So what ever is acceptable in France or where ever, it is not acceptable in the USA.

I don't think a doll or sculpture, even anatomically correct, is automatically considered to be "depicted in a sexual manner" just by virtue of existing. I am not aware of anything being illegal about the actual human body or any depiction of it, naked or clothed, of any age, simply existing, especially while engaged in, or depicted as engaging in, non-sexual activities, or lying in a box of bubble wrap. For instance, a lot of parents have pictures of their naked kids in the bathtub, and that is not illegal. The National Gallery of Art has plenty of depictions of naked cherubs and children hanging on its walls. And anatomically correct baby dolls are sold in toy stores.

eenie

I think the law would disagree with you in the US. It would be really nice to have an actual lawyer chime in on this issue, as there seems to be no clear answer as to love dolls being legal or not. Here is an example of a man who was arrested, all be it for CP which is a whole other issue of course, however the dolls were considered a form of prosecution. I would not be surprised if customs escalated a doll.

Source:
Blow-Up Dolls Jail Bait?
Feds say perv possessed anatomically-correct inflatable child toys
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... -jail-bait

Aside from the above example, it seems dolls here are judged very differently amongst people if they fall under the questionable line. I can't believe I'm saying this, but to me it is Orwell's "Thoughtcrime" come to life full scale. It's no different than recent comparisons to video games and gun violence. If I play Grand Theft Auto, or the 'airport terrorist' scene in Call of Duty, will I then grab my assault rifle in real life and replicate the same behavior? Of course not, because one is fantasy, and one is reality of actions. Does that make me a murderer in real life now because of my fantasy within a video game? It seems a lot of the population would say "Yes, you are! GUILTY!" now. Fantasy/Thoughts is now considered reality apparently with some people. Thoughtcrime is now real. Seems very dystopian from a "free country" theme. This same logic is being applied to dolls as well now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

By this same logic, a lot of other dolls should be banned from TDF as well such as the BD Anime small/flat chested versions, C18's "Taffy" labeled to be a teen school girl, Ruby's "Presly" when shot in certain camera proportions, almost all of the Orient 'jewel/nano' series should be banned, Trottla, "Virgin Rose Doll" simply implies 'young virgin', ban them, let's see who else...I think you get the idea. I still would argue that we are talking about a fine line of argument on 'age' with some of these dolls. It seems if you throw a large set of tits on it, or add anime eyes, then it is ok no matter what is the reality of the theme I'm noticing. I'd be willing to bet the DS 132 would be 'ok' if it had DD breasts and anime eyes because now it is magically 'fantasy' vs it's previous state of er...non-fantasy, is the later even possible since it's a doll and not human?.

I stumbled across two photos recently and wondered if there were love-dolls made of replication of these two people, would those dolls be 'widely'
accepted as ok? Do you think these 2 would get whistles from the stereotypical 'construction yard workers as she walked by in her dress'? Surely that would be ok as they obviously look over 18, maybe 21 right, so that would be ok? Think about that, if someone posted a picture of a new doll model here on the TDF today based on the below two people, they surely would be accepted as ok love dolls correct?




Guess what, that's 14 year-old Kylie Jenner & 16 year-old Kendall Jenner. Are you guilty now?

Point again is yes, I agree it's better to be safe than sorry and protect the forum in the best interest of the law. However, there I'm not sure of actual legal status on some dolls in general now. Would an anime flat chested doll be considered 'illegal' in a US court? I don't know...would be interesting to find out an actual answer in a safe, legal manner vs someone winding up in a courtroom to find out the answer. Also, this post is not 'attacking' anyone/thing directly/nor calling for bans on above mentioned brands, it is simply adding more information for thought/discussion for the forum is all it is meant to do. Our culture contradicts itself so many times over and over in our society. To one person she looks 14, to another she's 23. One is a corrupt pervert to be executed by hanging, and the other one is another good old red blooded American man. To one person a doll/all dolls of shape/age/size are fantasy, just like a video game, and to others dolls are given 'real human rights/implications' and are not considered fantasy at all. Same logic is being applied to love dolls which is at it's core: Thoughtcrime. Scary. You were right all along Mr. Orwell.

[Szalinski]

Just a crazy suggestion, but you already have "members only" forums, so why not make all the forums that would be used for "adult content" members only. These "private" forums would prohibit images/discussions of the child-sized dolls. The rest of the forums that are open to the public would be open for all dolls, but any form of adult content would be forbidden.

Flickr has a similar system in place. They do allow adult content, but those accounts or parts of accounts that contain adult images are accessible only to Flickr members. My own Flickr account is made up as such. Many of the photos there are viewable by everyone, but I also have images that are most definitely of an adult nature and have been flagged as such by myself. These sets and collections are invisible to anyone who is not viewing my site as a signed in Flickr member

[AlexKnight]

I'm sure Flickr won't just display those adult-only albums to every member they have, but only to adult members, so they must have some form of age check in place, otherwise, they would open themselves up for a world of trouble, if non-adults could access adult-only content.

And considering lots of TDF members are sensitive about their privacy, requiring credit card checking, or something like that, to verify they are an adult, would not go well, not to mention, it would create a lot more work for our volunteer staff to make sure no adult content, what so ever, would be posted on the public forums.

Also, blocking all adult content from the outside world would not do TDF, or it's advertisers any good, because essentially, the adult content is what draws in new members, because for the majority, that's what love dolls are about, sex, and not art.

[bjdlover]

Been following this and had to finally say something. First, thanks to all the moderators for all your work. It's great to see the way that you guys very carefully analyze problems and discussions here and work hard to come up with policies that are the best for all. Secondly, after careful reading of all that has been written I can only come to one conclusion. We don't bloody KNOW!

This is a serious matter that could have far reaching effects on both individuals and the forum itself. Are these dolls illegal to import? To own? To possess or sell? Can we not sell them on the forum legally? If someone buys one from another member is that legal since the doll is already here? What about other dolls, if a Level D turns up for sale should everybody run for the exits?

Everyone seems to be voicing their opinions and I applaud this. But what we need are facts. Until we know if the possession of these dolls is legal I fear that it may in some way come back to haunt the entire forum. From what I gather doll owners (I'm still saving for mine) suffer from negative feelings from non doll owners. So it would be a disaster if someone purchased one from a vendor or another member and got in trouble for simply buying or possessing it.

I respect all the opinions that everyone has shared here, I really do. But this is a question that needs a professional answer. We need a lawyer's advice on this question for the good of the forum.

[Filch]

Ctalon hit the nail on the head. He explained what I was trying to say, but much beter.

If I keep talking about this I will become too obsessed.

[bjdlover]

So, any lawyers out there want to weigh in on this? If not maybe someone will have the nerve to ask one to look into this.

[Nescio50]

Hi bdjlover, welcome to TDF You had the honor that your first post was the 100th reply to this thread I never thought that this announcement would have so many replies, but it's good that we can have this kind of discussion!

About the legal stuff, that is quite complex. Remember, this is an international forum. Legislation differs from country to country. We have to recognize the global nature of internet. So, it's not just (for example) US law. Actually, TDF is under Canadian law, see our Terms of Use.

Also, there is more to this issue than legal stuff. Basically, TDF is an adult site for owners and admirers of love dolls and erotic adult dolls. That's what most members (and advertisers) are looking for.
To put it short, we try to prevent from accusations or law suits, and we want to be a friendly and save place for members, advertisers and volunteer staff

[Xanadu]

If you are a pedophile you are going to have those desires & thoughts regardless of a doll; you can pick up a K-mart catalog and see kids modelling underwear, or god forbid sit out front of school with camera. It's not a doll that creates that, it's the person and their issues.

I do agree with the ban on sexually suggestive images of these, and I understand the forum/websites desire & legal imperative to prevent such, but to ban on a brand just because of the size is a little presumptuous. That is why we have moderators - to moderate the content.

My two cents