Wow! On one hand I feel duped! On the other, seems like the usual âanti-pedophileâ rhetoric. Like every other âhit pieceâ, the article doesnât address a number of things. Leans more toward the negative aspects and none of the positive ones. Did this journalist do their homework? Probably not, as always! Just a brief scratching of the surface, cherry picking, and spouting of opinion to support their disdain. A lot of assumptions and suppositions as per the usual rhetoric.
I found this article below easily enough. I remember seeing something about these countries and statistics some time ago. Youâd think a professional would do their homework? Psychology Today one of the most mainstream publications for professionals!
Can we not do the same? And extend our suppositions, based on the conclusion of these examples, to the world of MAPs? That existing and fictional material would lesson the possibility of a negative outcome? Someone offending. That banning it and dolls would be a detriment to the safety of children? Leaving no outlet for people to indulge their fantasies. Iâll be so bold as to say likely the rest of the world would respond with a resounding âNOâ!
But as in classic liberal, left-wing style, the double standard is allowed when it comes to their opinion. Their platform, their opinion. They can surmise and project the negative outcomes due to these things simply because of the labelling. âPedophilesâ, âMAPsâ, and they lump in everyone else. The entire LGBTQ+ community while theyâre at it!
If their claims and what theyâre saying about Prostasia and Larry bear any truth to them, I would be a little more than annoyed and dismayed! I would feel Iâve been misled all this time. Through the tons of discussions Iâve seen, many of us believe in the basic principles. That âattraction is fine, donât ever cross the lineâ. A slogan if you will?
Fantasy is fantasy and harms no one. This applies to your own thoughts, fictitious material, and dolls. All of which directly involve no one. Harm no one. They are personal things that reside in personal spaces that are nobodyâs business! Outsiders are allowed to hate us and those things. Theyâre allowed to say whatever they like. But an intelligent person tries to see as many sides as possible, at least a reasonable person should look at opposing views. And all be willing to open up discussion, not sling insults in an attempt to discredit and assassinate characters.
Who is Anna Slatz?
That article is dated 17 January 2023.
Prostasia has never advocated CSAM. However, some erroneously include cartoons and dolls when defining CSAM. Neither dolls nor cartoons are derived from harm.
Itâs not amoral or evil to treat a doll in a way one would never treat a person. Itâs not amoral or evil to not extend human rights to a doll. Itâs simply not evil to think that what happens to a doll doesnât matter.
The doll laws claim to regulate behavior and to not protect dolls; however, they punish not pretending a doll has human rights. Doll laws mandate for dolls to be treated as though they were people.
No oneâs freedom should depend on pretending that a doll has human rights.
Cartoons are no more CSAM than stick figures are.
one thing you forgot to mention:
treating cartoons and dolls as âCSAMâ is an absolute insult to the real actual human victims of CSAM. Comparing cartoons or dolls to the actual real abuse that real human beings go through is quite ridiculous.
Equating dolls as having rights and cartoons the same thing as actual abuse of a real child; devalues the child as a living being. In essence theyâre saying these things are of equal value. That a person is the same as property. They are not! What everyone seems to forget, is just over 100 years ago, children were treated like property. And in some places around the World, still are! And women! And the perpetuation of FGM!
Within the wording of the UK laws it states that looking at an innocent picture is fine. But looking at the same picture and having sexual thoughts is a crime. So how are they going to prove that one?! The thought police!
The only âgatewayâ dolls are, is to authorities to go fishing, assuming someone owning a doll automatically possesses CSAM. They use it as an excuse to circumvent the 4th Amendment and search a persons home, confiscating any digital media. Itâs merely a ruse to facilitate a witch hunt.
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because a few people caught with CSAM happen to have a doll; does NOT mean that everyone who owns a doll possesses CSAM. In those cases, I think the condition of the doll would tell a lot about why they have it. Itâs like saying everyone who owns a car may at sometime run people over on purpose. Just because it has happened a few times.
Yeah, we know thereâs bad people among us. But why should we have to surrender our rights to privacy to satisfy the paranoid, and the machinations disguised as justice, to feed the privatized, for-profit prison system?! They feel âhamstrungâ that they canât just molest anyone they want. Using dolls is just another excuse to trample peopleâs rights. Inanimate objects and what people do with them, and fiction, in the privacy a personâs home, shouldnât be anyoneâs concern.
Chiming in to point out that this article, like many others, is not true in the slightest.
The person they are calling out as being the âLarryâ on the âBoyChatâ forum is not the same person as here. This was confirmed.
Any research coming out of ReDuxxx is very strenuous, to say the least, at least with regard to anything referencing or targeting Prostasia or its community or staff.
Reduxx, rhymes with sus?