The claim that "In fact, of the 128 dolls seized in the UK, 85% percent of the men who imported them were also found in possession of child pornography " Is false.
This claim has been repeated multiple times in articles about sex dolls and by antis. Including the author of “A Case Study via Sociolinguistic Analysis of Covert Pro-Paedophilia Organization Registered as a Child Protection Charity and its links to Paedophilia Enablers in Academia and Academic Propaganda,” He’s quite obsessed with us.
In his “research piece” he provides “(US GOV 2017) as the source for his claim. In the citations though it links to a press release by “representative Daniel Donovan of new york” Who was in the process of passing the creeper act. An failed attempt to get ban child sex dolls at the federal level.
The first usage of this data comes from a hill article published by senator donovan, a large part of his press release is copy pasted from this as well. The hill article was published on december 12 2017 but few repeated this claim until the press release on december 14 2017.
Donovan cites no source and does not provide evidence.
Using google tools I searched for any reference to this statistic prior to this and despite many different search terms and approaches I found nothing mentioning this “data” prior to december 12 2017
But I do think I know where this comes from.
A BBC article written on july 31 2017 Claims that “since March 2016 and july 31 2017” , “123 dolls have been seized, destined for 120 importers.” They didn’t cite anything but because the BBC is run by the British government so this is most likely true.
On this day other news outlets published stories nearly the same as the bbc. (none of them cite a source or report who gave them this information.) But I believe it comes from the BBC as they are most likely to have contact with the British government. (Whoever first published it is irrelevant though)
The article then says that 7 people have been charged with importing them. Later down the line in subsequent articles it is alleged that 6 of the 7 people who were charged had child porn. I didn’t fact check this because it’s unimportant. The BBC article nor others ever state that these are the only or first people to be charged with this crime, it just mentions people they have information on. There is no reason to assume that this is a comprehensive list. Only 3 people are named in these articles so I have no idea how they could identify the 4 others and report on their charges. I also found a sun article published on jan 20 2017 that claims that 24 people had been arrested for importation of child sex dolls. This conflicts with idea that only 7 people had been arrested at that time. The sun article claims that the NCA national crime agency released that but didn’t give a link or citation to that release or even a person who supposedly said it.
The rep likely based his story on this. ALL of the numbers are wrong. 120 goes to 128. March 2016 - july 31 2017 goes to all of 2017. 6 out of 7 is about “85.71%.” The part about all seized dolls resulting in convictions seems to be made up though.
There are quite a few similarities and I think he based his story on this. I don’t know if he was dishonest or just really dumb but I think there are to many similarities to say these aren’t somehow linked.
The claim that 128 people were arrested for sex dolls and then 85 percent were found to have child porn is false.
Another problem with this claim is that 85.15 or 85 percent of 128 is not a round number. Did the british police charge point 9 percent of person, yeah that doesn’t make sense.
Trying to use the claim that 6/7 people were found to have child porn as representative of the larger debate is still wrong though.
1, There is no evidence that this is even true. I didn’t spend much time looking at all the articles but all that I looked at didn’t cite a source or name the people charged. So it may not even be true and the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove a claim.
2, 7 People is a horrible sample size especially if your trying to prove a extreme claim.
4 What happened to the 113 others, police were able to not just identify how many dolls were seized but how many people were recipients. Their information was very good. It had been over a year since they started seizing the dolls. The mail system is very secure, were they just too lazy to track down the others? Doesn’t seem likely. The others were likely arrested and charged only with the doll and because of that didn’t make the news, especially national news.
5 So let’s say for the sake of argument that for some reason in over a year the British police had only arrested and charged 7 out of the 120 people. (8.4 percent) This is still shit data because the police always charge the worst offenders first. Of course the first 6 would have child porn because they were going after the most extreme criminals. The fact that only the first 6 had child porn probably means the total number who had it was very low.
6 The BBC does not state this is a comprehensive list. The antis are still using the selection bias they always do.
1 The news are most likely to report the most shocking and serious crimes, along with crimes that fit a narrative.
2 Child porn is more shocking than sex dolls.
3 Also fits the narrative that sex dolls are used by predators.
4 Media less likely to report sex doll arrests without additional factors because less interesting and financially viable.
5 Police departments are less likely to release statement on less serious crimes like sex dolls as opposed to more serious crimes like child porn.
6 Police are more like to release info on more dangerous criminals like those who watch child porn as opposed to those who only have sex dolls.
7 Stories that fit narratives are more likely to be become popular than “boring” ones the don’t…
For all these reason sex doll cases are much less likely to be published and make their way onto the national news than sex doll cases that involve child porn.
7 Even if this is true it doesn’t prove that sex dolls make people commit crimes, only that people that use sex dolls may have committed crimes in the past. This is not evidence that sex dolls would encourage people to commit crimes because the people who ordered them didn’t even get to use them.
8 Even if many people who own sex dolls commit crimes it doesn’t mean that they should be illegal unless the doll caused the crimes. That would create precedent to treat people as criminals even if they haven’t done anything immoral … Can we just go to detroit usa and search everyone’s house for illegal guns because there more likely to posses them then the average person? Minority report style.
9 The fact that the dolls are illegal also would greatly affect the people who are buying them as opposed to if it were legal. Many people presumably want sex dolls but don’t buy them because that would be illegal and risk getting arrested. But anyone who watches child porn is already breaking the law and disregards the risk of punishment. This would heavely baise the sex doll purchasers to be child porn users or other criminals.
10 If people who watch child porn are also wanting dolls it shows that there is potential to replace their illegal porn with legal and fictional material. IF we let them have the sex doll they may have never moved on to child porn. Sadly child porn is easier to get than sex dolls in the uk so many people will download CP instead of using the doll. If people who have real CP are wanting fictional material there is clear potential of using fiction as a replacement. But we need to make the fiction based porn easier to get than real porn.