Which is why this story was very much fabricated.
4 Likes
I want to share JustLurking’s report with a few people who may share it on Twitter. Is this ok? Is there another place this wonderful research has been posted that will not bring unwanted attention to this forum?
Thanks.
8 Likes
If you’re looking for explicit permission, you’d need to ask @JustLurking, but I assume since they posted it publicly they’re okay with others seeing it
3 Likes
I certainly hope not, but sadly I can totally believe there are parents out there that’ll do this to their kid …
2 Likes
Sorry for the delayed response, I only occasionally visit this site these days. Naturally you or anyone else can use and reference anything I wrote at any time on this forum, including all of the information in this thread. Anyone can even take credit for that research, if they wish so, I’m completely fine with that as well.
I conducted this research to verify legitimacy of the claim made by the news sites, and decided to share my findings seeing how many people began praising, what indeed is a situation of a real sexual exploitation of a child, just not by the doll company, but rather, by the supposed mother of said child.
I think that if there is any takeaway from this situation, is that this is an important case that showcases how out society focus on demonization of victimless sexual gratification, resulted in their judgement being clouded to the point in which they no longer even consider that child predators can abuse children for ulterior reasons than pleasure: like scoring ideological gains through fabrication of evidence to be used in facilitation of their goals - being produced at the expense of a wellbeing of a real underage individual.
This situation has revealed how much an average person needs to learn, to patch the gaps which resulted in them supporting victimization of a child. It also shows, how despite the superstitious speculations of fictional media and silicone toys “normalizing child rape” - the mass acceptance, praise and support of sexual abuse of kids has already creeped itself in through the very opposite way to what such speculations propose - the performative moral outrage against pedophilia, and the communities who drive it.
If this message is going to reach more people and result in people becoming better at protecting their and other kids as a result, then I will be more than happy that my time back then when I contributed to this thread has brought some positive change to the society, and I need no recognition for that nor praise.
6 Likes
How did it get the media attention? Simple: Dumb false moralism. Let’s be honest: This doll concern is manly not worrying about if it actually increases child abuse, but moralism because dolls existence is considered “wrong” and “disgusting” to most people because it can be used by pedophiles for sexual pleasure. That’s why when shit liken that appears people usually do not question they are just horrified and want to burn people who do such dolls instead of questioning this mother’s atitude of literally putting her CHILD to pose like a frinckin sex doll. People are not very racional when it comes to things that are “too disgusting” to them. So much that many people actually cry after looking at child sex dolls. There was other woman wanting to ban a sex toy that resembled a baby boy from Amazon and she was mad that it took time to the doll to be actually banned. Like, fuck, there are literally hurtcore videos out there on the dark web with actual infants and children getting tortured, abused and violently raped, people paying for actually raping children that live in the poverty in some 3th world countries, minors being emotionally abused to send videos and photos of themselves to groomers, there are people paying for watching videos of infants, toddlers and children getting violently raped on lives (The disturbing fact is that the younger the child, the more the person pays for watching the abuse. Watching an infant abuse video usually costs WAY more than seeing a 12 year old little girl getting abused), children being shammed by their families after the abuse, infants dying due to the violent abuse but the problem is a fricking sex doll? Like, why do people worry about such irrelevant things?
4 Likes
How true! What does it tell us about the character of supposed “child protection” crusaders when they publicly posture and virtue-signal on the basis of “evidence” which they know to be false?
If a scrap of real evidence exists for any doll manufacturer grabbing a random family photo of a child off of the web and making a doll copy thereof, I’m sure we’d all like to see it. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
The person who posed that little girl to resemble the doll image, then dishonestly used it to help fuel a moral panic, (along any “child protection” organization knowingly jumping on her bandwagon to signal-boost and amplify her false narrative), should all be ashamed of themselves.
Does any “child protection” website still have an article about it on their website? If so, has anyone informed them that it was fake to see how they responded to such information? Did they do the honest thing and take down their article about the bogus “doll manufacturers victimized my daughter!” pseudo-scandal? Or did they just ignore their critics, refuse to engage with the evidence, and kept their bogus “threat to children from doll manufacturers” article unchanged?
In the latter case, one would have to wonder what their real motivation was, since sounding alarms about a nonexistent “threat to children” based on false “evidence” does nothing to make children safer. Worse yet, it drains attention and energy away from confronting and dealing with bonafide threats to children which actually exist.
5 Likes
Hope you’re still around!
2 Likes
It’s all about “having a doll makes you likley to posess CSAM”. So they can search your computer and take your shit, circumventing your 4th Amandment rights, Nazi tactics.
5 Likes
It’s not even that difficult to realize that this is a lie. Why would they take a pic of some random kid they probably don’t even know as inspiration to a doll design? It’s obvious that the mother made her daughter pose similar to the doll or just took a pic which was similar to the doll. This whole moral panic over plastic is not only stupid but really dangerous as people don’t even take time to think whether such things are true or not. They just see something “gross” and hate on it.
3 Likes
That was pretty obvious. Why would a company which has so much money go after some random kid to take inspiration if there are better looking children like Anna Knyazeva or child models that they can get inspiration from? It’s not logical to assume that this story is true.
2 Likes
Some garbage about how dolls are “practice” for the “real thing”, like EMS dummies.
3 Likes
Why would a pedo who wants to SA children buy hundreds of dollars in a doll? I believe SA kids is easier and cheaper, no? These people have a melted brain.
3 Likes
It begs the question of parents posting pictures and videos of their kids, setting up YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter (?) accounts for them to get likes (are they monetizing them?). BTW it’s generally the mothers doing this. Child models and actors that are in the public view with social media accounts. People viewing their pictures and watching their videos.
What if someone has the means and decides to make a likeness of that person without their permission? Like they would ever ask them in the first place! Within a few years they don’t look the same. The attraction for the person watching them fades or is gone completely. They’re not about to go out and stalk that person. I’ve never seen it. Any stalker anyone has seen doesn’t bother with creating something resembling the person at that time in their life.
They’ll never know that someone owns a likeness of them. Or what that person does with it, whether sexualizing the object, loving it as if it were their own, or worshipping it. It’s still a surrogate with no life in it. A dead thing. You could say that’s not right.
But so is having your picture taken in public, can’t stop stores and gov. from doing it. And their intentions of what they use your image for are relatively unknown. But more so when it’s an individual possibly giving you the creeps or being weird about it with unknown intentions. You still can’t stop them. If you’re in a public place there are no laws against it. Unless the images that you may be a part of are going to be used for commercial purposes. Then they need to get your permission.
That image of a young model whose parent posted her pictures has no idea that a private person made a likeness of them for their own personal use. Or maybe were an inspiration for a fictional likeness? Now what? So now that person who was used to create that thing deserves some kind of royalties or something?
All of this kind of thing is muddy waters.
3 Likes
I honestly don’t get why would a parent post the pics of their children on social media or make them models on the first place if they don’t want pedophiles to masturbate to them to begin with. It’s not possible that it never crossed their minds (with the world we live in) that a pedophile would ever use the pics of their children on a sexual way. Either by masturbating while looking at them, doing IA with them or using them as inspiration to NSFW drawings. Influencers create social media to their children and don’t expect that some pedophiles may look at their kids, come on guys. Also, child beauty pageants in which children walk in bikinis, how the hell aren’t the parents expecting that pedophiles will look at their kids and masturbate? There was this dude who tried to sue Nirvana because the album’s cover is a baby pic of him. Literally NO ONE would know that he is the baby on the pic. What am I trying to say with that? If some nepio masturbated to a pic of him as a baby, how wasn’t anyone expecting it?
It also goes to something that I’ve said before, that is: it’s not possible to stop pedophiles from feeding their fantasies, or else we wil have to ban everything correlated to children. And when I say everything, I say everything. You simply can’t fully sperated kids and pedos, at least not 100%. Because a pedophile can use EVERYTHING correlated to children as masturbation material. They can use perfumes, plushies, reborn dolls, album photos, etc.
Literally, how can you prevent a pedo of having 0 contact with children? They will have to see them some day. A pedo may go to the beach and public pools and see children there, not to mention squares in which children may be, parks, theaters, movie’s public restrooms and even just shopping’s public restrooms which often have baby diaper changing tables, how can you prevent one from masturbating at a public restrooms or going home and masturbating to the same children? Or even just children or babies who they found attractive on social media? Or just writting their fantasies on diaries? Or writing fanfiction?
You just can’t. Even without lolicon and sex dolls, you just can’t. People who are horny WILL find a way on how to get satisfied sexually. Trust me, human creativity goes beyond imagination when it comes to that or torture someone who they hate. (Search for ancient tortures)
2 Likes
Should we talk about the 10s of thousands of men in prison who aren’t gay? I agree. People will always find a way.
How would anyone know who had an image of them and what they were doing with it? Why does it even matter? I feel these ideas are an attempt to trespass into other people’s heads where no one has any business to go. Oh the powers that be live within a paranoia of preventing future crime and keeping everyone safe. It’s a pointless endeavor to contrive and surmise what anyone’s intentions are in general. Freewill cancels all of that. You can’t penalize someone for a “thought crime”.
When it comes to legislation against lolicon and dolls it’s the “what ifs”, “maybe”, “possibly” paranoias that drive them. Ignoring valid research in favor of fear mongering and moral panic. With SJWs attempting to sway opinions against them by any means necessary.
I guess, people are going to do whatever they will do? It’s no surprise the “me too” movement, someone lying, or some parent showing off their kid can all be subverted and are used in the pursuit of monetary gain. It’s laughable how predictable people can be when it comes to money being part of the equation!
And an underlying factor of privatization of the penal system which they need to keep feeding more bodies, to keep them in the black. Always comes down to money. Dolls are a $4B/year business far as a knew 2 years ago.
When it comes down to it, it’s all an issue of privacy. What a person does in the privacy of their own home with an inanimate object (doll, picture, video, drawing, etc.) matters to no one. Whatever thoughts anyone has are their own and nobody’s business. Any argument aside from that is pure speculation.
What someone may or may not be thinking doesn’t matter. It’s not until someone acts and it becomes a crime that becomes problematic. And so there are laws against acting out, NOT THINKING!! If “thought crimes” were punishable then everyone would be in prison for multiple murders.
The only thing to do to protect children is to teach them the dangers and stay vigilant. Not put them out there for the world to see. Save for the price of admission when it comes to show business. How much money is it worth? To not care about people seeing your child in a TV show or a movie, and the public pictures that go with it, and the awards ceremonies; and what they may or may not be thinking.
The parents putting them on social media may just as well be driven by the cuteness and love they have for them. It’s all done in the purest of innocence and beauty, I can appreciate that! It’s not sexual for many people. For those where it triggers a sexual response, it’s their business, their “issue”. If a parent is worrying about what others are thinking and is such a problem for them, then don’t post such things.
2 Likes
As a frequent user on the ATF booru, there’s SO MUCH HENTAI AND PORN based on the likeness of actual child actors. The little girl from Poltergeist (RIP) or the girl from the recent FNaF movie, for example. Or even stuff based on images of random not-famous children. Hell, I’ve been helping compile a blacklist of artists if we suspect/find out they’ve based their art on actual CSAM! Yeah, some artists even use actual child sex abuse to inspire fictional child sex abuse! These guys think they’re slick until those who recognize it come forward with evidence of what these “artists” have done. I’d like to know the psychology of these people…
I know I’ve talked about this before, but what I find hilarious is when a lolicon artist puts “pedos/MAPs DNI” or “100% fictional characters only” in their bio (even saw one explicitly say “MAPs and NOMAPs DNI”, wtf??), but turns around and makes a hentai based on an actual child actress. Like, huh? I’ve seen debates between several users here (including admins and mods) about there being a difference between the character a child plays and the child actor themselves. As for me, I vehemently disagree that there’s any meaningful difference.
If a person watches a live-action movie or show, she’s a child character played by a child actor/actress, and proceeds to have sexual fantasies/the need to draw sexual art of them, their attraction goes well beyond being “just a lolicon” at that point. Anybody defending themselves otherwise I deem incredulous and completely can no longer take seriously. Kanna Kamui, Anya Forger, Mabel Pines, Pan (Dragon Ball), etc.? Cartoon characters, not necessarily a pedophile! Live-action like Hermione or Stephanie or Eleven or X-23 (Logan), etc.? Nah dawg, I got some bad news for you…
I made another post some time ago also detailing some of my thoughts/feelings on the matter:
And just now I saw this other old post from a different user sharing much the same concerns as myself:
Even at the time, people accused Nirvana of being/catering to pedophiles by featuring uncensored baby penis on their album cover. Nirvana’s simple response boiled down to:
“Only pedophiles would actually focus this hard on a baby’s penis. What does that say about all of you?”
1 Like
And THAT’S the entire point!!!
Like I said, I fap to 2 passages from Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal, particularly about crucifying 15 year-olds and hunting 12 to 14 year-olds for sport. I don’t appear to have plans to do either IRL. To put it another way, if we’re talking fantasies, I’m way beyond just sex.
1 Like