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?
3 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.
4 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.
4 Likes