Mom Fights for Law to Protect Children After Daughter’s Likeness Used for Sex Toy

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

A mother in Florida is fighting back after she discovered that a likeness of her daughter had been used as a model for a sex toy advertised for sale online.

 

A woman only identified as “Terri” said she saw the sex toy, described as “a high quality sexy dolly live dolls for men” for sale for $559 on Amazon and other websites.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/04/law-protect-children-daughters-likeness-sex-toy

ession=true

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

8 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

 

 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/04/law-protect-children-daughters-likeness-sex-toy

ession=true

I wonder if she took the child's photo before or after she saw the doll. Still no way a child sex doll should be legal

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Quote

“The more a predator consumes online images and video of children being abused and purchasing of dolls that act out their sexual fantasies, the more likely they’re gonna be a hands-on abuser of a real kid,” Yoost said.

Is this proven? 

 

It's a very tough spot as a parent. There's no question the idea is to protect children but at the same time I've seen endless conflicting studies suggesting the "gateway" theory here and those that say it isn't. I have no idea how many own child like dolls but I'm going to venture an educated guess that it's not many who wind up sexual predators. 

 

It's important because this is just a doll. It's no different than the animated porn depicting children (or even anthropomorphic children.. things get very weird with the internet and people's imagination) one sees on so many sites.. despite the tastelessness and ridiculousness of it, it's not hurting actual children. It also doesn't mean we should lighten up on child porn laws as they're real children so there's no "non-harm" argument possible. We can argue all the livelong day about mental illness and other factors but regardless, if these things are outlets for screwed up people I don't see the harm, and I'd rather them deal with that than actual children.

 

To me it's about putting aside the squeamish gut wrenching I know this stuff brings (and the usual moral grandstanding that will occur) and looking at what is actually more useful, rarely is discussing intricate details of crime, mental illness, and depravity (especially involving sex) not going to result in people saying popular things to try and look good to whatever audience, but what matters to me regardless of what anyone else thinks is the criminal justice and functional biology/mental health aspects of this. Any non-overbearing way we can potentially help stave off predators and maintain freedom is something to buy into, I see no benefit to instantly jumping to the moral outrage authoritarian "ban it!" mentality. 

 

That being said, if someone's child was used as a likeness for one of these dolls, she has every right to sue, and if she can prove her case she deserves every bit of restitution and the producer forced to halt production of that doll. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,300]

I have to ask because it wasn't clear from the article -- why was she looking for 

Quote

“a high quality sexy dolly live dolls for men” for sale for $559 on Amazon and other websites.

 

I just ordered a bunch of K-cups for Al's Keurig off Amazon along with a thing to clean my boar bristle hairbrush, but I can't say I have looked for any sexy dollies on there, for men or any other gender.