“Although the appearance of a real doll gives a vulgar and disturbing feeling (omitted), it is judged that it is not a product that harms the customs.”
The court raised the hand of the owner of’Real Doll’ again. Regarding the lawsuit for canceling the disposition against the head of the customs office of Gimpo Airport, where Real Doll A, a real-doll business operator, filed a’Real Doll import customs clearance,’ on the 12th, the Seoul Administrative Court said, “(Real Doll) seriously damaged or distorted the dignity and value of people. “It’s difficult,” he said.
This is not the first time the court has allowed real doll income. In June 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an adult product company in a lawsuit for canceling the suspension of domestic import customs clearance by Realdoll and granted the import.
The problem is the clash of judgment and public opinion. Criticism poured out right after the Supreme Court ruling in 2019. It is criticized that the real doll, which looks like a woman’s whole body, is made to satisfy sexual satisfaction, and that it can be sexually objectified. There were even concerns that it could be abused, such as the creation of a real doll that embodies a specific person. In July 2019, 263,792 people agreed to the Cheong Wa Dae national petition entitled’Ban the import and sale of real dolls’.
Nevertheless, the reasons for the court’s decision to import Realdoll again are as follows. Much the same as the previous Supreme Court decision.
▲ Although Real Doll expresses the appearance of an adult woman in more detail, it is not difficult to distinguish it from a real person ▲ The fact that the law cannot deeply intervene in an individual’s privacy or the right to pursue happiness ▲ Real Doll is disturbed but human dignity It is not the extent of seriously damaging the value and the fact that the nature of the sexual organs has no choice but to describe the body shape and attributes realistically.
Court ruling continues to pass through Real Doll
First, the court advocated’protection of privacy’, saying, “You should refrain from regulating sexual devices by treating them the same as pornography, which is sexual expression.” “(Realdoll as a sexual device) is generally used in very private spaces, and not interfering with individual activities in such private and intimate areas to become a state is the way to realize human dignity and freedom.”
In addition, there was a judgment that “real dolls that realistically portray the shape and attributes of a woman’s body give a vulgar and disturbing feeling,” and “because of the nature of sexual devices, it is inevitable that the shape or attributes of the body must be realistically described or implemented.”
The judge said, “If the jurisprudence related to sexual organs is considered together, it cannot be said that a person’s dignity and value are seriously damaged or distorted just because the whole appearance is similar to the body or the expression of the genitals is somewhat specific and naked.” “It can’t be easily concluded that it hits the level against sexual morality.”
In addition, the explanation that Real Doll is clearly distinguished from adult females was also mentioned as the basis for permitting the import. The judge said, “Although the article in this case is a more detailed representation of the image of an adult woman, it is not at a level that the shape is still so similar that it is difficult to distinguish it from a real person.” “Unless it is a special situation, there may be room for confusion with a real person. Almost none.”
The judge added, “It is only a full-body doll in the form of a woman, and it does not explicitly emphasize a specific sexual part. It is difficult to accept the defendant’s claim that customs clearance is legal on the basis of sophistication.”
Earlier, in the petition against Real Doll, “Can real women who use tools that can do sexually freely without any movement even though they see women as they are, can real women see them with the same human eyes?” People are likely to commit sex crimes against living women,” he pointed out, but the judgment of the judges contradicts these concerns.
Experts are also controversial
Jang Da-hye, a research fellow at the Korea Criminal Policy Institute, expressed regret about the court ruling. Commissioner Jang said, “Even if you consider the purpose of use or appearance, real dolls are clearly different from general sexual devices.” “In reality, real dolls have been used as a function similar to prostitution in a business named’doll room’. As it is equipped, there is a high possibility of being used in accordance with prostitution.”
However, it expressed a reserved position on strengthening the punishment. He said, “It is necessary to have a voice of criticism on Real Doll, but it is difficult to say that it is appropriate to strengthen legal regulations as personal privacy is involved,” he said. “There is a social alternative to the emergence of Real Doll that sexualizes women rather than punishment. It should be prioritized,” he said.
Attorney Hye-jin Seo (Director of Human Rights, Korean Women’s Bar Association) said, “This issue is not only a matter of men and women, but also a matter of basic rights and freedom of business of individuals, so it is quite difficult to judge legally.” He pointed out that if you ordered to make a real doll based on the same as it is, it will be a completely different problem because it will damage the dignity of a specific person.” He added, “If this is not the case, it may be excessive to bring the logic of invading dignity and human rights to the doll.”