World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I can see how this whole topic can be kind of tricky. Not letting a free citizen have sex with a child like doll is kind of like arresting someone for thinking about committing a crime. I am generally of the belief that people should be free to do as they please as long as what they do doesn't impinge on other people's rights and such. But this is one of those border cases. Making it illegal without proof that it leads to crimes is questionable. But waiting for the proof means some children were abused, which is unacceptable as well.
Also, a guy could just buy one of those things that is lower torso and upper legs only. Nothing on it implies an age. So he can think of it as a child in his head. Yet making those illegal seems a stretch. Maybe it would have to be something like all sex dolls need to include enough parts to clearly distinguish them from children? But even that would be hard to truely define.
I mean does it even look like creators are aiming to produce child like appearance? Full sized products would be more expensive to create and ship, and for customers - to buy and store.
You can easily buy a compact silicone alternative with human body features and... you'd be called a mutilation maniac?
I think there may be some social issues with a for-profit company being financially incentivized to promote and sell pedophilia to people.
How would you rather deal with this? A boycott? Do you have money in child sex doll manufacturing that you can withhold?
That's not really what this is about. You're trying to assess this on a personal freedom level when what we're talking about is a guy with a megaphone.
God, giving capitalism a financial incentive to advertise pedophilia is a new nightmare to me now, thanks
You're welcome 🫡
I really don't understand what you are saying. I was in fact looking to open a discussion on a personal freedom angle. But the specific topic here was just what got me thinking about it. "A guy with a megaphone". I really have no idea what that is referring to.
I did suggest that all sex toy type products could maybe be required to have some dimension that clearly marks the item as representing an adult. That would be my suggestion. But I am still curious where people draw the line on personal freedom vs something that isn't proven to be harmful. Drugs and such are another good example. Should people be allowed to do whatever dtugs they want, as long as they don't drive or something. Alcohol actually follows that example. Guns do to. Lots of ways to frame the debate.
The "guy" would be Shein.
Another neat way to frame the debate, to reach for the obvious example, is over swastikas. Of course, having a picture of a swastika tattooed on your arm isn't harming anyone, so why should we as a society have any distaste for it?
To answer "we shouldn't" is to cede ground to nazis. We do not, actually, have to tolerate their symbols.
The 4chan-nazi pipeline—yes, I'm still talking about pedophiles—if you're not aware, is a strategy by which people are drenched in ironic, nazi iconography, which results in them being more permissive of that kind of thing, and thus makes them much, much easier to be groomed by king-master klansman, or whatever they call themselves.
Being too permissive of something is socially harmful.
I agree, pedophiles are often villainized way too much. I would like them not to be so afraid of being found out that they never get therapy. If they're good people, I assume they want to be better as much as I want them to, even if it's difficult. None of this means we need to sell dolls to them.
Think about it this way: I watch pornography all the time. I am not any less likely to fuck a woman. How is the doll supposed to satiate them?
I realize that I sound very condescending right now, but I'm sincerely asking: this idea that a legal outlet is actually more helpful to them, where does this come from? Does it even make sense?
Whether you mean to or not, I think that you are ceding ground to people who want pedophilia to be more popular. They do exist: middle America loves child marriage. This is why I'm not engaging with the personal freedom angle; it's not really relevant.
Also, requiring child dolls to have some dimension by which they are clearly identifiable as adults is an effective ban on child dolls—it's the same thing.
The danger is in sexualizing children, it's not a normally occurring part of human sexuality, and if people can sexualize children easily that can lead to sexual abuse of actual children, and that's always harmful, seems like a 2=2 type of thing to say, but it is. Anyway, modern psychology shows that therapy for people who do sexualize children, who haven't actually abused any children in any way, are unlikely to ever abuse children, so the doll or child sex abuse images, or other 'outlets' of sexual behavior aren't shown to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, but therapy does. They don't need sex dolls, they need therapy. And then maybe a healthy sex life with an adult.
This feels a lot like the "violent video games cause violence" argument, but because it's about child abuse, people don't want to defend it.
Are there actually any studies supporting your comment? I briefly looked and couldn't find anything.
See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it's just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?
It's a question that will likely never be answered. Is it worse to have a child-like sex doll or a horny pedophile with no legal outlet?