- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
France’s consumer watchdog has reported the Asian fast fashion giant Shein to authorities for selling “sex dolls with a childlike appearance” on its website.
The Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) said the online description and categorisation of the dolls “makes it difficult to doubt the child pornography nature of the content”.
Shein later told the BBC: “The products in question were immediately delisted as soon as we became aware of these serious issues.”
The danger is in sexualizing children, it’s not a normally occurring part of human sexuality, and if people can sexualize children easily that can lead to sexual abuse of actual children, and that’s always harmful, seems like a 2=2 type of thing to say, but it is. Anyway, modern psychology shows that therapy for people who do sexualize children, who haven’t actually abused any children in any way, are unlikely to ever abuse children, so the doll or child sex abuse images, or other ‘outlets’ of sexual behavior aren’t shown to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, but therapy does. They don’t need sex dolls, they need therapy. And then maybe a healthy sex life with an adult.
This feels a lot like the “violent video games cause violence” argument, but because it’s about child abuse, people don’t want to defend it.
Are there actually any studies supporting your comment? I briefly looked and couldn’t find anything.
Very few companies will fund any research into this field and they almost always have it locked in private libraries and you have to request for it specifically. You basically won’t ever find anything on the subject publicly or hell, even behind a publicly accessible paywall.
There have been a number of people over the years who have done this very research and spoken about it publicly and that’s a key complaint they have on it.
Few times that research has been shared and I’ve had the privilege to actually read it. It has been shown that one. It is totally normal for sex preference development to just be stunted. It is a thing that just happens. That yes therapy does help and for the most part those who would not abuse so long as they get therapy show no indication that they would change in become an abuser.
It has also been shown that when there are healthy alternatives for the expression, those who are abusers and do so due to mental health, developmental or standard sexual preferences have access to those healthy alternatives. They are more likely to stop abusing or seek therapy once they have found a healthy outlet.
Pretty much the only case where you can say that not having a healthy alternative and therapy shows no help or those who choose to be abusers do entirely to personal reasons.
Basically the only time not having harm free. Healthy alternative material helps is when you’re talking about rapists not pedophiles.
That’s the other part of the problem. So many people just assume pedophiles are rapists. When one is just the sexual attraction, the editor is someone who is a abuser. And while common for those two things to be labels on the same person they don’t have to be, nor do they need to be.
We demonize the issue so heavily that we do frequently drive people to seek out a healthy alternative and a safe method of expression into circles with abusers who will then use those people to make a profit. Which only drives the need for more abuse material.
It’s the same problem that you see with basically any other drug vise issue that we overly demonize in society. If you don’t give people a healthy alternative and a clear path from problem to safe solution to therapy, they’ll never make it to therapy.
But unfortunately, due to the nature of the subject, finding anyone who’s willing to fund more research, finding anyone who’s willing to have their name publicly attached to that research and finding anyone who’s willing to fund actual help for the issue is basically impossible.
For obvious reasons, I’m not going to read any reply to this comment. I’ve had enough death threats to last a lifetime. So if you have a differing opinion or if you want any more information then share it with others and do your own research.
I’m only sharing my personal knowledge that I have on the topic. Whether or not you choose to believe me is your prerogative. As always, this is the internet. Do your own research. And if you do not know how blame your public high school.
See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it’s just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?
It’s a question that will likely never be answered. Is it worse to have a child-like sex doll or a horny pedophile with no legal outlet?