Btw, banning mannequins which resemble minors (even if it doesn't resemble an *actual minor*) and are likely to be used for sex is unconstitutional (it violates the First Amendment).
There are also already laws to handle other scenarios. Also, didn't right wing mobs harass a foundation in 2020 which worked with a manufacturer to come up with a code of ethics?
I'm also struggling to imagine a blanket prohibition is going to be particularly helpful here.
The data on this is rather scant, in particular, it seems to focus a lot on how a "clinical population" would respond to it, although it's fairly positive there.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171114012411/http://www.sexpo.fi/2017/03/09/avoin-kirje-tullille-huoli-lasta-esittavista-seksinukeista-on-turha/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2023.2199727
Critics tend to have a conspiratorial tinge which makes me uncomfortable and they tend to reach a lot.
Yet more are along the lines of "Doing this must mean someone is a very bad person" and they can't seem to move past that talking point.
I'm not a fan of pitting someone and trying to screw them over.
Obviously, if an accidental "resemblance" (that'd likely come from very high realism, and the fact a lot of people look fairly similar, especially at scale), it shouldn't count as deliberately making it look a certain way.
Resemblance in quotes because it'd probably be a real reach.
I think only a really bad faith actor with a bone to grind might look for coincidences, and probably even they don't have the time to bother.