Exploring the Psychology of doll owners

Sex positivity
1

An ongoing study into the psychology of doll ownership. We can’t seem to get away from the term “sex doll”. Granted a majority of them are built for that purpose. However others and I have ordered them made without the anatomical/sex/functional holes. Catdoll offers the option up front. Other companies will make them that way if you ask. Making them just mannequins.

The argument could be made for use of the oral cavity, but anyone that special ordered theirs to be just dolls will be highly unlikely to engage it that activity. I won’t reiterate the reasons.
Here’s a link to the original paper. It’s been misquoted in many a hit-piece article.

8 Likes
2

I want more studies on fiction/fantasy outlets, such as sex dolls, virtual/simulated child pornography, etc.

Any study that actually performs some form of study or data analytics seems to pretty much prove our side.

7 Likes
3

I believe that genuine and thorough studies would conclude that these are all harmless. The logic behind the ban on all these victimless outlets make no sense. According to the escalation theory it is of society’s upmost importance to prohibit adult woman with petite bodies to engage in sexual conduct. They are figuratively a doll that can portray a “false sense of consent” and “be used as training”.

Where is the difference? People know that the woman is an actual adult, so it is not real. Just how people grasp the concept of objects being nothing more than that. Objects.

3 Likes
4

Have you seen that girl on The Learning Channel? She had a brain cancer as a baby that affected her pituitary gland or thyroid or something, so she never grew past the height and size of an 8yo. She’s in her 20s and you can tell. She technically has a form of dwarfism as a result. She struggles to have a normal adult life because everyone acts like she’s a kid, especially when they don’t know.

Imagine having to show ID then go throught the whole damn story every other time. And the poor guy she’s dating has to take heat because people are judging her on her looks and size. Then judging him because he’s dating her. He liked her personality. It’s pathetic! She even says it was so hard dating because a lot of ‘weirdos’ would try to date her. Like hate to say, sad to say, some pedophiles that could fufill a fantasy.

How do you think that made her feel? How do you think people like myself feel when we’re accused of bieng predators and “practicing rape” with our small dolls?

When in fact they fulfill a role in my life for an experience I’ll never get to have. Being a parent. Loving my children. All I get is a fantasy. An imaginary world that helps me cope with the unbearable lonliness of being single and over 50. Suicidal depression and an endless emptiness, a void, in my life. Makes me so flippin’ angry! :cry:

2 Likes
5

I think this is relevant in this thread? Posted this earlier. Someone brought up the love for their children, how they weren’t attracted to them the same way as another child within their AoA. How parental love is different.

I would’ve liked to have kids. I was engaged at 24. Thought I was going to get married and the usual family stuff. Didn’t work out that way. Life has it’s own ways.
I feel it’s too late for me. I can’t see anyone in their late 20’s or 30s wanting to marry someone 20+ years older and have babies. So where does that leave me? Adoption? For a single, Caucasian male? I don’t think so!

I discovered the life-like small dolls. I can say I love them like a parent would. I’m not sexually attracted to them. I know they are not real. They’re just “things” that I could do whatever I want with. Instead I can have an imaginary fantasy whereby it satisfies my need to love a child in that way. There are upsides and downsides to the idea, but in my case, the upsides for me are better than what I consider to be the downsides.

Most important is a point that was made. The love is a different shape for sure! I have a full size 5’2" (158cm) that fills the role of the girlfriend. I actually don’t “use” her in that sense, but I love her differently than my 4’2" (128cm) and 3’7" (110cm) dolls. They are my daughters. 9/10 and 5. I love them as I would love a child. Now can we say “precludes romance”, to a degree maybe? You’d do anything for your children. My love for my surrogate children is deeper than a romantic love, it’s very deep, beyond a romantic love. I care for them “as if” they were real. I would never do anything to hurt them, “as if” they were real.

So hard to explain. They do have different personalities. Their personalities spring up from my own. So, in a way it’s an even more intimate relationship, being as they’re not truly a separate entity as such. I’ve been self studying how this happens. I know a big part of the personatiy comes from the part of my own that got pushed aside due to circumstances, its definitely age connected. When I got my 128cm there was an instant connection to that 10yo that got left behind. And it has really set that part of myself free from the perceived childhood traumas I’ve suffered.

Maybe knowing that physically, your child is a part of you, with a separate personality, just as my surrogate personalities are a part of me while the physical part is not; is an equality of sorts; that precludes any sexual attraction? It’s a deep dive for sure!

1 Like
6

There might be a sort of uncomfortable paradox here though, that the ethics of conducting such a study in the first place is contingent upon our hypothesis that fiction/fantasy outlets is harmless being correct to begin with, but the whole point of conducting a study is to test a hypothesis and being open to the possibility that it’s wrong … idk where I’m going with this, just typing words ^^;

2 Likes
7

No, I understand. After numerous historical cases of horrific unethical human experimentation, we’re more concerned than ever about only ever performing experiments that are as ethical and humane as possible. There are very real ethical quandaries when it comes to stuff like this. I personally don’t know how to reduce the risk of harm within these research experiments, but I guarantee you it’s a question these researchers ask themselves everyday.

2 Likes
8

Thing is, I’m not even actually that worried about actual harm (since I strongly suspect the hypothesis that fiction/fantasy outlets are harmless is correct). But like, how do you explain this to others? You either say you’re open to the possibility of being wrong (and thus admit a willingness to risk causing harm), or you say you’re certain this experiment is ethical (and thus open yourself to accusations of confirmation bias)

I guess if the methodology is sound, and anyone reading the research can verify it’s sound, it doesn’t really matter how biased the researcher is? So it’s not really a matter of increasing knowledge, but confirming what the researchers already ‘know’. Which I guess is still increasing knowledge in the sense of establishing common knowledge

1 Like
9

The idea that studying the effects of doll ownership is unethical has often been used by groups trying to criminalize dolls without any evidence to justify putting no effort into trying to understand the effects of dolls before banning them. The argument basically goes like this: (1) it is possible that dolls make real abuse more likely, (2) there is just no ethical way to prove that this hypothesis is wrong, therefore (3) to be on the safe side we have to ban the dolls right now. Even organizations like Don’t Offend used this argument to justify why they are generally against child dolls and just passively stood by when they were banned in Germany.

Thing is, this is just not true. Of course, you cannot recruit a bunch of pedophiles, give half of them dolls and the other half not, then lock them in a room with a child and then see which group has raped more children. That would be unethical.

But you can recruit people who already own dolls in places where it is still legal, and compare their psychological makeup with control groups who do not own dolls. For instance, you can try to figure out whether people who own dolls are more or less psychologically stable, have more or less risk factors for CSA, or self-report more or less instances of CSA compared to those who don’t own dolls. Using statistical analysis this can give an idea about the psychological effects and harmfulness of doll ownership.

A study like this is perfectly ethical. Even if dolls turned out to be harmful, you are not giving dolls to people but asking people who already own a doll a few questions. In fact there are several studies about the effects of doll ownership and pornography which were more or less conducted like this.

8 Likes
10

In all the reading I’ve done along with various studies, I’ve found a few common things when it comes to doll owners. No one can ever say with 100% certainty, however.

  1. They are really happy with their dolls. Even if they bought them just for sexual gratification, they very quickly develop a relationship with them and care about them.

  2. They are happier overall. Feeling from the moment their first doll arrives, that their lives have been improved. It’s the feelings of being accepted, loved no matter what. Being able to love and care for their idea of who that doll is to them unconditionally without rejection. There’s a healing power to them. (No arguments, no drama)

  3. No matter how much or little porn they watched before, the habit of viewing porn dimishes significantly if not ceases altogether.

  4. They have no desire or intention of ever harming a child or raping a woman.

  5. That people who would look to do harm that are predators, have absolutely no interest in owning a doll. A doll doesn’t satisfy their desires.

I almost disagree somewhat with the part about doll owners feeling women are “uknowable”. I’ve heard more than once from doll owners that they\ve been through rough relationships. Been rejected, maybe have given up on the dating scene (like myself for the most part).

Frankly may be angry at women as a whole and have decided they’re done with female relationships. This does leave out the few female doll owners out there.

3 Likes
11

Wasn’t sure I should continue? Once I get started…

With the attitudes of entitlement being so prevalent nowadays. The risk of being financially ruined in a messy divorce. The system is set up to lean more toward the woman’s side. Many men are not interested in taking that chance, giving rise to the MGTOW movement. Which of itself has a few different philosophies going on within it. But that’s a different conversation.

Finally addressing the idea of what someone may or may not be doing with their doll in the privacy of their own home. For all you know, that friendly store clerk, pastor, or teacher could be role playing, wearing diapers, into leather and BDSM in their bedroom.

And what business is that of yours? Would that change your feelings about them or attitude toward them? Do those things make them any more likely to force those actions on anyone else?

So why the same questions about doll owners? When the facts are that predators are opportunistic and usually a trusted figure to that particular child. Many times a close family member. Not a random MAP, pedophile, or doll owner.

There’s no “maybes”, “possibly”, “could”; those are all projections of a negative outcome and simply incorrect. Those things can happen with anything by anyone any time. There’s no predicting outcomes. Same idea with gun ownership.

Why are doll owners suddenly under the microscope just because they have a “strange” hobby that most people can’t relate to or understand. Same pushback with genders. Just because you don’t understand someone’s ideas doesn’t mean there’s a danger of them doing something bad, causing harm to someone.

It’s an attempt at correlating behaviors, projecting outcomes based on opinion and poor assumptions which many times have been proven false in the past with many things.

I’ve really grown tired of all the philisophical debates over them. What someone feels is “Immoral”, many things go on in the world they don’t like but there’s nothing illegal about them (see previous example), and they’re not causing people to act against others. There are no victims. The only “victim” is the observer who feels offended in some way.

Too bad! Change the channel, mind your business, stop prying into people’s private lives. Stop being so nosey and trying to read minds and control everyone and everyting.

2 Likes
12

That makes sense :] Maybe this is just doll discourse 101 and I’m just behind on the program, but I’m still worried about how one might still discredit such a study:

  • If it relies solely on self-reports, doll owners have an incentive to paint themselves as harmless regardless of what they’ve been actually doing in their lives
  • If it relies on more than self-reports, there might be a ‘trolley problem argument’ where not-intervening when you know some people have dolls is no better than giving dolls to people just because the former is passive and the latter active
2 Likes
13

Worry=Fear. Who can you guarantee out of curiousity hasn’t done something thought of as questionable in their life? Back to “what ifs” debating and philosophizing again.
Intervene when someone owns a gun. They may shoot someone.

The fact still remains, predators have zero interest in owning dolls. There’s no fear in their eyes when they violate it. Quoted from someone. Get that one fact straight and everything else falls into place. They’re absolute monsters!

Doll owners are not hunting children. Even the ones that are into using their dolls and “doll porn”. You want to take it a step further. Even the ones into “doll porn” dress and fix their girl’s hair and make-up. They care about them.

Any predator that may own a doll, you’ll see it’s been abused, not maintained, her hair’s a mess, missing eyelashes and fingernails, the wire fingers all askew and bent out of shape, probably stuffed half naked in a closet or under the bed.

And for the most part, those kind of people are not going to invest the money into a quality doll. Even the torsos cost at least $500 for a garbage one. They simply won’t invest the time, money, or effort of owning one. And to be sure, they won’t have totes and closets full of clothes for them or extra wigs, props, or any of the stuff you find to maintain a doll. No piles of make-up or nail polish.

They’re looking for an opportunity, that’s where their focus is. Finding the next victim.

I literally have half my closet full of dresses, a dresser full of clothes plus 4 totes under the bed, one tote of props and doll parts (extra eyes and tongues, some TPE chucks for repairs, 2 dozen wigs with 6 more on the way), nails, eylashes, a drawer of jewelry, a drawer of various hair ties and bows, assorted fashion accessories, all kinds of combs and brushes, a lot of mineral oil, cornstarch, and baby powder, a pile of microfiber clothes and towels. Also all kinds of stuffed animals and toys (some I’ve had for years).

For us it’s a return to childhood. No one saying “you’re a boy, you can’t play with dolls! Only girls and sissy boys play with dolls!” It’s freedom to enjoy a hobby that helps cope with emotional trauma. And it’s not inexpensive either! There are no ulterior motives.

Better I should be into trains or some other mundane hobby that’s not scrutinized? How many boys have been lured into abuse by other hobbies by those same predators?

Where do I stop here? Can’t seem to make it clear enough! Even the studies are discounted as psudoscience. Scoffers will always scoff. Ignore the facts, ignore the truth, believe your own delusional fears. Seems to be the way of the world. Mob rules, believe hearsay, judge everyone according to popular opinion. Don’t listen to facts.

2 Likes
14

Preaching to the choir here! I’m not anti-doll; I’m just anticipating the kinds of objections people would have towards research on (the effects of fiction/fantasy outlets such as dolls), and worrying about them because I don’t know how I’d respond to them. I’d understand if you thought I was concern trolling, but I thought I made it pretty clear I don’t even think doll owners are dangerous o_o

I don’t agree that the way people treat inanimate objects says anything about the way they treat real people.

2 Likes
15

It’s become a hot topic for me because of all the vitriol over them. Maybe I wasn’t sure? Everything I’ve said I’d also say to the naysayers. They won’t listen. They don’t want to listen. Too opinionated, up on their moral high ground looking down at everyone.

It’s all ego and narcissism in my book. Feelings? What do they care about another’s feelings? They’re going to dictate what’s right and wrong in their view, like it or not! Don’t try to confuse them with FACTS!

2 Likes
16

Are you saying that the way someone treats a doll is indicative of how they would treat a child? That seems pretty spot-on to what people opposing dolls claim

2 Likes
17

No I’m just saying that they don’t really care about the doll. To them it’s a stop-gap measure. They want to taste real fear.
So what your saying is that doll owners who fawn over their dolls and give them lots of love and attention are going to do the same with a child. Not want to hurt them, violate them or their trust. Correct.

Versus the opposition who claims that doll owners who love and care about their dolls, spend time and money on them; are going to go out and traumetize child, acting the exact opposite of how they are with their dolls. Huh?

1 Like
18

I don’t think there’s much evidence that the way people treat an inanimate object affects how they treat others, period. If you want to be seen as respecting children and their boundaries, respect children and their boundaries. You shouldn’t need a fake child to prove that you can.

1 Like
19

There are certainly some limitations with this study design, but you can somewhat mitigate them by carefully crafting the questionnaires you give participants, and by careful statistical analysis controlling for variables that may influence how someone answers these questions.

2 Likes
20

(revevant post between how someone treats an object reflecting how they would treat a person was deleted I think?)

That shifts the narrative. We’re being told that people who own dolls are looking to harm children. We know they’re inanimate objects. The opposition seems to think that just by owning a facsimile, that they are automatically assumed to be pedophiles and predators. That is simply false.

They’re not getting “fake children” to “prove” that they respect children and their boundaries. They’re getting them to feel they have someone to care for and love. MAP or not. Knowing it’s an inanimate object. They may do things with that object that they most definitely would NOT do with a child. They know the difference. My one 128cm has a belly ring. Am I gonna let my 9 or 10yo human child have one? Absolutely not! They can get a tattoo once they’re 18 and an adult. Once again, equating the two as equal devalues the living, breathing human life.

It’s also taken as popular opinion that “pedophiles” ARE “predators” and the ones commiting acts against children. And THAT is factually incorrect. We know it’s always a person whithin the child’s immediate circle. Be it a family member or a trusted authority.

No different than any other label that’s been slapped on any other minority group.

1 Like