>>16317 Done. We understand that allowing non-childlike realistic dolls to be discussed in a sexual context carries certain risks, so please make sure to strictly guard against any attempts to incrementally push boundaries with edge cases and not-childlike-but-also-not-adultlike realistic dolls. We do not want the kind of posters such things might attract.

>>16317 >I intend to allow sexualized images of dolls such as pic related. Is this fine by anon.cafe or does it raise concerns similar to 3DCG loli or more realistic dolls? This is a tricky thing to rule on because we ourselves don't know exactly where the law draws the line. We've previously said that we believe 3DCG renders of sex involving realistic models of children can definitely be seen to "simulate a juvenile with such behavior in a credible manner" and thus aren't allowed. Anime-styled 3DCG works of this kind are more difficult because they cover a fairly broad stylistic spectrum, some of which graze close enough to "realistic" depictions that they might be trouble - drawing that line is a bit of a mire at both the global and board level, so we strongly discourage it it to avoid being put in tricky situations where we end up having to judge edge cases to nobody's satisfaction. The doll you post there seems to us (unqualified as we are) to be sufficiently anime-styled that it wouldn't be mistaken for a "credible" simulation of a minor, but where will your board rules draw the line in a way that'd be understandable to your posters?

>We understand that allowing non-childlike realistic dolls to be discussed in a sexual context carries certain risks, so please make sure to strictly guard against any attempts to incrementally push boundaries with edge cases and not-childlike-but-also-not-adultlike realistic dolls. We do not want the kind of posters such things might attract. That's understandable. It isn't my intention to allow substantial discussion of realistic sex dolls and don't mind erring on the side of restrictive here. Realistic depictions of adults are only board-relevant in terms of being examples of construction techniques etc. and the techniques of the sexualization of a realistic doll differ substantially from those of more board-relevant dolls. >The doll you post there seems to us (unqualified as we are) to be sufficiently anime-styled that it wouldn't be mistaken for a "credible" simulation of a minor, but where will your board rules draw the line in a way that'd be understandable to your posters? The relevant rules will probably be something like this: >The posting of realistic images or realistic simulacra of children in any context is expressly forbidden. This includes realistic child-like dolls or baby-like dolls intended to simulate childcare. >The sexualization of dolls that could be considered toddlercon, or the sexualization of dolls that could reasonably be construed as simulating or based on real children is forbidden. Product lines such as Mini Dollfie Dreams which are derived from other unrealistic dolls are entirely allowed where they do not contradict the former. >Realistic representations of adult humans or animals (statues etc.) should be spoilered, and the sexualization thereof should be kept to a minimum. The doll in OP is of a line (Mini Dollfie Dream) that is a derivative variant of a type of non-realistic non-childlike dolls, which is the situation for the majority of acceptable cases. The more western style of childlike dolls that I intend to forbid are modeled after children rather than being variants of existing lines of dolls (notwithstanding 'realistic sex dolls', which are outside the purview of the board in any case and violate global rules if childlike). Increasingly neotenic dolls (which are usually lower quality and smaller) obviously converge towards just looking like the low-effort western dolls. At a certain point you're just cumming on a Dam Troll, which I'll ban before it gets out of hand under the toddlercon rule. I think it's reasonable to conclude that sexualizing something like "The girl and The Bull" would occur, and would probably violate romanian law. There was a single image of this kind of non-sexualized realistic child (the wireframe) which I have unlinked. Pic related are dolls of the same type as OP next to one of the line they're derived from.

>>16321 >>The posting of realistic images or realistic simulacra of children in any context is expressly forbidden. This includes realistic child-like dolls or baby-like dolls intended to simulate childcare. I have a question about in regards to statuary. What about the ever present putti/cupids in renaissance and neoclassical art, ancient Greco Roman statues( e.g. boy with swan, Laocoön and His Sons), the famous statue of a boy at Iya Valley in Japan, or the art of modern sculptors like (Charles Ray or Wim van der Kant)?

>>16322 >I have a question about in regards to statuary. What about the ever present putti/cupids in renaissance and neoclassical art, ancient Greco Roman statues( e.g. boy with swan, Laocoön and His Sons), the famous statue of a boy at Iya Valley in Japan, or the art of modern sculptors like (Charles Ray or Wim van der Kant)? They're banned. The >I think it's reasonable to conclude that sexualizing something like "The girl and The Bull" would occur, and would probably violate romanian law. There was a single image of this kind of non-sexualized realistic child (the wireframe) which I have unlinked. refers to exactly that (>>>/doll/993). You can't legally hotglue, say you want to lick all over, etc. realistic statues of children and considering that the board allows you to hotglue lolidolls, I think that it's pretty flagrantly out of scope. It's like someone posting images of real legal child models on a board right next to loli. Even if posts like >>>/doll/38 or >>>/doll/61 are the significant minority, they're much more important to the board than carvings of babies (that are striving to be photoreal) and I don't see how you can have both without positioning the latter in a sexual context. The original material may not be sexual in nature but there are some pretty good reasons why that kind of thing is banned by the global rules here and basically used as the yardstick for how pedo-friendly a site is. I also find it repulsive, personally, so even if it wasn't A) probably illegal and B) borderline offtopic I'd be more inclined to softban sculpture before I accepted seeing cupiddicks on the index

>>16322 >>16323 Putti etc. appearing incidentally in the non-sexual contexts you mention would not directly violate the global rules - they might be fine on some hypothetical SFW /fineart/ board, albeit deeply suspicious were they to receive creepily exclusive focus in a thread of their own - but we feel that it's very wise for /doll/'s owner to draw a bright line given they want that board to support NSFW doll discussion. In framing this, it may help to remember that Anon.cafe is pedophile-hostile beyond the requirements imposed by the laws of the land in which our servers reside.

>>16317 Have you heard of the tragedy of Doll-E the Disguise?