Sex Doll Ownership: An Agenda for Research | SpringerLink (Open Access)
The attitudes of high and mighty “researchers” and politicians high up in their thrones is more likely to increase my “offending” or “rape” factor than an inanimate object. Do you really think I have a complete lack of sentience? Absurd.
This isn’t a rub on Dr. Harper, his paper isn’t too bad, but the people he rebutted.
So this article rebuts claims that dolls “normalize” and encourage sex crimes?
I’ve been trying to find proper literature that does. I have a few but I want more, and something that’s actually peer-reviewed and doesn’t use minor correlations in CSAM consumption and contact offenses against children.
It’s going to be hard to find studies which don’t involve CP as most other things have a far smaller criminal significance. They receive less funding as well and it is simpler to extrapolate assumptions from one thing to another. It is also far harder to measure the effects of dolls on crime than CP as there are far fewer dolls than people watching CP, it is too easy for a study to fail to reach statistical significance.
You could try to run a study on a group of people to see if they feel it reduces their desire to have sex with children, however a desire is not the same as a compulsion, or even beyond a compulsion. In fact, a therapy is less about removing desires, than about removing the rejection reaction which causes great distress, and to set up rules about what someone is willing to do. Any rational therapy at least.
In the realm of OCD or anxiety in general, the more obsessed someone is trying to prevent something from being thought, the more they try to resist it, the more they think “I am evil for thinking that”, the more it comes back and turns into an endless nightmare they can never stop. Some level of acceptance is important for reducing it, although someone does need limits on what they’re personally willing to do.
Depending on whether someone is self-accepting and how much so, you may get a different result. And you have to be careful not to include desperate people who may particularly awful reactions to just about anything (likely psychological). Gender dysphoria / mania / hormonal dysfunction may aggravate anxiety. There are a lot of psychopathology to consider and just slapping random people off the street into a study won’t suffice.
Probablistically speaking, it is likely someone who is desperate is going to have more morbidities than something who does not. You may get someone who has mania, psychosis, OCD, gender dysphoria, and who is deeply religious and thinks sex is immoral. It is even worse if someone puts on a show in front of a parole officer.
It is important not to confuse sadism and pedophilia too. When I see dramatic overhyped articles talking about children being tortured and killed, this isn’t really something a normal pedophile would actually want to watch. In fact, it is the very opposite. It doesn’t sound like it is even a pedophile at all and all these weird people get lumped into studies and they assume how they react is how pedophiles react.
Finally, orgasms are very important for a person’s mental health in general, it is well-know to be such. If the alternative is none at all, it is unlikely someone will settle for it. There may be research in that area as it widely mentioned, although I do not know of any. Anything which is deletirious to mental health is going to have a host of negative factors, and these may lead to things which aren’t even related to CSA, but which are equally undesirable to society.
This could mean asexuality could be considered pathological, although it is possible asexual individuals are built differently to alleviate that problem, and if there is nothing they can do about their asexuality, there is little purpose in trying to stigmatize the condition by pathologizing it.
As a non-MAP doll enthusiast of specific Asian feminine qualities (cute face, flat chest, petite, and short), I have to say it’s really worrisome to see people getting caught with actual illegal porn on their persons alongside dolls and spoiling an otherwise clean hobby that has nothing at all to do with children.
On the other side, I don’t think it’s proper for government, society, doctors, and behavioral specialists to condemn and ban the use of computers when someone has used a computer for something illegal. Someone could go outside and beat someone with a baseball bat, and that baseball bat will be perfectly fine. It is always the person at fault, and never the inanimate object.
It’s also improper for them to assume that everyone who likes or does ‘A’ is inherently also the same kind of person who likes or does ‘B’.
It’s also improper for them to blur so many obvious lines. We can’t put a domesticated dog outside with a pack of wild wolves and call them the same, any more than we can call a doll enthusiast a pedophile, anymore than we can call a pedophile a child abuser. There are some huge steps between each of these classifications, that to mistake them all as the same is incredibly fallacious to an unfathomable degree.
And the caveat is dolls owners face who own small dolls would have to speak out to set themselves aside from the madness is that they will then be labeled as pedophiles, and then they automatically inherit the badge of ‘child predator’ despite never actually having harmed anyone. Then they are placed on a neighborhood watchlist and their future is toast.
Stigmas will come and go. When enough is enough a really good lawyer will be chosen to correct a great injustice, like always.
Bumping because I want to renew interest in this. I want more proper, empirical, nonbiased studies which objectively and concisely rebut or challenge these moralist claims, and I feel like it’s there, but just needs to be found.
That story about the woman from FL whose daughter’s likeness was used for a sex doll - despite the fact that it’s untrue - is very likely a deliberately false story.
We need to find more evidence of that to prove otherwise.
Anyway - there is definitely no causal relationship between fantasy and reality, providing they’re made apparently distinct. Context is key when presenting claims.