Caitlin Roper Advertises Child Like Dolls on Twitter

Kind of kidding, even though a conspiracy theorist could reason that she advertises in a deceptive manner. Nevertheless, negative publicity is still publicity.

Anyway, here’s the stuff.

The video shows photographs taken by photographers who did not give permission. She explains how to buy a doll and shows quite a number of photos. She specifically advertises for a popular brand.

I’m unsure what to do about this. I can only imagine that all the stolen material has been included in her book.

The rhetoric of normalization shows mid way in the video.

Advertising her book on the video server and on Twitter, she seeks to proliferate all the information contained in the book and the video. Merely seeing this information “could” “inflame the desires” of the impressionable who might like the material she condemns.

Direct to the video.


Ah, Collective Shout! Prostasia’s had a few run-ins with these folks, ain’t they? This Roper figure is referring to this heavily-debunked incident:

And she refers to these dolls as specifically “child sex abuse dolls”, something I myself pointed out was oxymoronic:

And wouldya lookit that? It was Collective Shout who popularized this term! Such a small world, no?

Roper also claims that a 2019 report from the Australian Institute of Criminology found that dolls can increase the risk and rate of CSA. Tho, I believe Prostasia has gathered much evidence over the years to the contrary. Many folks who use dolls claim to have decreased sexual/romantic interest in actual children, instead pouring it all into their dolls.

Could anybody link the appropriate studies that debunk Roper’s claims? I’m sure they’re around here somewhere…

Anyways: at the end, she simply states with a cheeky smile that it’s not good enough that child-themed sex toys be heavily regulated: they must be banned entirely! And they must be criminalized, make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or own such things.

I’m not a doll owner (nor do I currently have the funds to purchase and upkeep one or two), but I’m not opposed to the idea of having one someday. But alas, if fellers like Collective Shout get their way, I’ll have to make do with poorly constructing my own out of cheap materials, print out and staple a loli to where the face should be. Would such a crude project be deemed manufacturing a “child sex abuse doll”? Would I be thrown in jail all because I cobbled together some mishmash of household materials and sex toys into some pleasure abomination? An onahole is fine, but attach a body to it and it’s suddenly a problem!


As far as I know there’s no evidence they reduce attractions, but there’s strong evidence that they prevent abuse in the form of a recent paper:

Prostasia is also funding additional research on the topic:

There are more studies that have been cited here in the past, including some that demonstrate doll use is linked with a lower propensity toward sexual aggression:

I’m sure others will have more to add


Child sex dolls are such an extremely niche of a niche topic that I can only assume the reason they get outraged about it is because they feel that they need to get outraged about anything.
I hope that in the future, this “Center on Sexual Exploitation” will divert more effort towards preventing actual sexual abuse, but judging by the Vimeo playlist, they seem to be a conservative organization hell-bent and hyperfocused on destroying porn.