Partners of sex doll owners?

[MattUK]

Well I'd be more interested as to why you think they are the same thing. I don't really see why you would think they would be. If someone insults you and you respond, does that mean you were afraid? If you're not afraid, is the only response to just ignore it? Or go along with it because you don't fear it? I don't really get that I'm afraid.

Being afraid and feeling fear are different things. Being afraid is one possible response to fear. When I was learning to process my own trauma, the one skill that was crucial to learn was how to let myself feel the fear, that was strong enough to induce panic, without taking any action, mental or physical, with the intent to make the fear go away. Instead, I just observed the fear to learn what it was trying to tell me. I just allowed my curiosity to mingle with the fear and waited to see what I could learn. Would you say someone doing that is afraid? I wouldn't. But feeling fear? Most definitely.

Feeling fear is feeling like something is a threat. It's a bit harder to describe "being afraid" because I've never really had to put my finger on it before, but it's something more than merely feeling threatened. Perhaps it's just simply lack of confidence combined with the feeling of threat or wanting to flee or hide from the threat (or the fear itself).

When something happens that creates so much fear that the person cannot handle it and ends up trying to wall it off as a survival strategy, that is called trauma. As long as it's not processed, it might occasionally try to come out as a nightmare and certain events will act as triggers that threaten to bring it back to conscious awareness. This can result in all kinds of defensive, aggressive, avoidant and other kinds of behavior as the person unconsciously attempts to avoid having the fear resurface. For intelligent people, it also tends to lead to complex mental gymnastics with the sole purpose of creating a mental model of the world that mostly works while allowing avoidance of the trauma. Everyone experiences some trauma in their lives, because no-one is a master at handling fear when they're born. It's a skill that needs to be learned.

Anyway, the answer to your question is 'No'. That doesn't mean you were afraid. It doesn't even necessarily mean you felt fear either. That depends on how you responded to it.
If the response was defensive, aggressive or passive-aggressive, then yes, you felt fear (as in felt threatened), not necessarily afraid, though.

Sorry, I don't buy any of that. It seems like an exercise in looking for something that's not there because it fits your preconceptions. Kind of the whole issue I have with this study really

[rubherkitty]

If Dr. Rebecca Lievesley & Craig Harper are interested in the doll culture and the disdain for them maybe they should interview those with the disdain? Have they ever thought about interviewing the female spouses of "anti doll" male legislators?

Maybe they should ask the wives about what goes on behind their bedroom door so they can have a balance from both sides?
Does you husband ever ask or coerce you into the following acts:
Bondage
S&M
Asphyxiation
Lesbianism
Fantasy role play such as: Rape, Incest, Underage representation.
Sex Dolls or Toys
His possible Cross Dressing or Transgenderism.

If we are to open up our bedroom practices to be scrutinized, I feel Dr. Lievesley & Craig should know the sexual proclivity of those who are making the judgement. Maybe these people harbor deep seated sexual and emotional problems? How can a divide be solved if you only see one side of the valley.

[markcyber]

I think the way i see the problem here is there is no such thing as an innocent question or series of questions if the person posing such questions already has pre-conceived notions or it comes from a place of prejudice . Or is perceived that way.

I'll try to illustrate:

If you take part for instance to "set the record straight" then you are a subject with an axe to grind, every subject with an axe to grind is changing the natural response to questions so that's an issue to bare in mind from the start.

But for example suppose a seemingly innocent question like "do you like watermelon?" is posed to a black community message board.

They would be defensive and get angry . To an outsider the defensive nature does not raise an issue with if they actually like watermelon, that's not a problem (why would it be?), the defensive response is why the question needs to be posed in the first place. In other words : why are YOU asking me?, what is the context?

Any answer given one way or another is essentially irrelevant if the question should not have been asked in a targeted and pre-conceived way.

I used that as an example to point out the absurdity of the idea it is "up to us to set the record straight" and answer questions, because the context of who is asking and why is of extreme importance.

So I'll call this the "watermelon problem" where 1. A question or series of questions cannot be answered at all due to the question(s) being a prejudiced conclusion by the person(s) asking or refusal to answer occurs because participants believe this to be the case. 2. Even if the questions themselves are not an issue who they are targeted at and why may be an issue .

The watermelon problem only goes away if the research is generalized with an equal amount of 'normal' general population added in the research i.e 'we asked 100 doll owners and 100 members of the general public if they ...x...and do they.....y'

[Sian_E]

Hi everyone,

I can see that this project, which actually is made up of several studies, is causing a lot of debate and potential controversy, so I wanted to just address a couple of key points.

Firstly, my research (and that of the rest of the research team) is historically related to sexual crime, public attitudes towards this, and its prevention. There have been selective sentences pasted in this thread from various biographies and research pages about this research. The crux of all of this work, at least from my perspective, is that negative public attitudes, media misrepresentations, and widespread stigma all decrease levels of wellbeing among those groups being discussed. In relation to sexual crime and people with paedophilic sexual interests, this is known to contribute to an increased risk of offending behaviour. We do not assume any link between doll ownership and sexual aggression in this work. For anybody who reads those past papers, the message that we are promoting is clear - we should be trying to reduce levels of stigmatisation of groups who, in spite of society's views about their sexual behaviours, are causing no harm.

This project on doll ownership is driven by one thing - a frustration at the raft of social policy changes sweeping various countries in the absence of any evidence. I am a member of the advisory board of the Prostasia Foundation - a sex positive and evidence-based non-profit that is against censorship in policy moves to prevent sexual aggression. Given that doll use is being associated by various politicians and media outlets as being linked to sexual aggression, the aim of this work is to look at this link (which, according to our preliminary data analysis, doesn't exist) and promote the kind of sex positive anti-censorship message that I've mentioned above.

A concern was raised about the type of data being collected. We appreciate that standardised surveys are not ideal for this kind of topic, which is why this project is formed of several studies:

1) The survey looking at personalty, sexuality, and sexual aggression (to directly address the links being made by the media and politicians about doll ownership and sexual crime). A sample of non-owners is also completing this survey, as stated in the information page of the survey.
2) Interviews with doll owners to explore the range of sexual and non-sexual reasons for ownership, their experiences of doll ownership, and views about societal attitudes
3) Interviews with the partners of doll owners, to see if and how doll ownership can be integrated into healthy relationships
4) A large scale public survey looking at perceptions that people make about doll owners, why they make these judgements, and exploring strategies for reducing stigmatisation

As you can see from this, we are approaching this topic in various ways, hoping to triangulate data and present a rounded view of doll ownership that both directly addresses stereotypes and myths about doll owners, and starts to tell the truth about the realities of doll ownership.

For those who question our motivations in the survey (study 1), I can only offer two response. First, as alluded to by another poster, it would be very easy to collect a small amount of data, show an association between doll ownership and sexual aggression, and publish this quickly. We have not done this, because we are scientists who value quality data with adequate sample sizes, and we want to be able to be able to present a convincing argument based on a larger sample. This is the reason for the continued posting on the forum to encourage participation. Second, we have explicitly not made any links between ownership and aggression as a result of this survey. In fact, I presented some preliminary analysis at the ATSA conference in Atlanta last November (the world's biggest academic conference on sexual crime) saying exactly the opposite of this. These slides can be accessed free and unedited here: https://osf.io/7pqjf/

I completely understand the trepidation that some have about taking part in studies such as these. However, I'm not sure how much more open and clear we can be as a research team about our motivations and intentions. Please do feel free to ask as many questions as you would like about the project and studies mentioned above.

If you would like to take part in the survey, you do do so here: https://ntupsychology.eu.qualtrics.com/ ... aXpJW2ldrf

Best wishes
Craig

[MattUK]

1) The survey looking at personalty, sexuality, and sexual aggression (to directly address the links being made by the media and politicians about doll ownership and sexual crime). A sample of non-owners is also completing this survey, as stated in the information page of the survey.

This was one of my initial concerns, that a "control" sample like this would not be taken. I actually asked this before I looked at the survey, and I did read through the introduction page and didn't see mention of this. I don't know if it was added after, or I just didn't see it. If it's the latter I apologise for that. But then...

it would be very easy to collect a small amount of data, show an association between doll ownership and sexual aggression, and publish this quickly.

This seems to imply that it would be easy to get a study published where the above was not done. If this is true then that would appear to be a bit of an indictment of the peer review standards of your field would it not?

[Sian_E]

Possibly, though probably not in the higher-tier outlets.

That's not just true of psychology though, where ideological biases pervade publishing, but in all areas of scholarship. Though we see that as even more reason to do this study properly. If we are to present the kind of argument that our data are currently suggesting (i.e., that there's nothing 'weird' or 'deviant' about this group), we need to have a water-tight study to protect against any potential biases of reviewers.

[moodflow]

Possibly, though probably not in the higher-tier outlets.

That's not just true of psychology though, where ideological biases pervade publishing, but in all areas of scholarship. Though we see that as even more reason to do this study properly. If we are to present the kind of argument that our data are currently suggesting (i.e., that there's nothing 'weird' or 'deviant' about this group), we need to have a water-tight study to protect against any potential biases of reviewers.

Sian, it's an interesting study and may turn out to be very helpful in promoting acceptance among general public, but I wonder if anyone in the field of psychology is getting curious about the underlying reasons behind the seemingly explosive growth of interest in dolls (the bulk of which rests with the male population).
To your knowledge, has anyone been looking into the causes for this trend, specifically in the western societies?
Granted, there is a variety of reasons why people decide to own a doll (or a bunch of them), but I think it won't be a long shot to suggest that most men who resort to dolls do so because of the increasingly unsatisfying or outright destructive dynamics of relationships they've had with real women.
For clarity, I'm married and not one of the unfortunate folks, but originally coming from Eastern Europe and having lived in Canada for over 20 years I can tell you clear and loud that it's an extremely bleak outlook from my perspective. I really feel for the guys here, as it's a complete disaster of a system. - Just wondering if anyone is even bothering to ask "why?".

[notaflyingtoy]

I believe in science; though it is admittedly prone to bias, the alternatives are speculation and superstition, and scientific study is the only thing with the power to dispel these. I also understand why researchers in abnormal sexual behavior are uniquely qualified to publish results that would end up normalizing what I believe is an essentially normal sexual impulse. I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do, but my partner and I will both be applying to participate in this important work. It seems our best hope to stand against the tide of ignorance-based legislation making its way around the world.

[kanna]

Granted, there is a variety of reasons why people decide to own a doll (or a bunch of them), but I think it won't be a long shot to suggest that most men who resort to dolls do so because of the increasingly unsatisfying or outright destructive dynamics of relationships they've had with real women.

While that seems like an extremely plausible factor, I think it's also huge that realistic enough dolls have become much more affordable since a few years ago and people are slowly noticing that.
For example, I might have looked into buying a doll much earlier if I had known there's a lot of acceptable choices available for around 1500€. I expected the cost to be over 5000€ before I started looking at what's available and even then my initial reaction to 1500€ dolls was to doubt if I'd be getting what I expect.

[markcyber]

That was a damn long survey, i feel like i just did an exam.

It's all multi choice stuff like strongly agree / strongly disagree and basic demographics .

I mean the methodology absolutely requires a large sample size, and regardless of that size anyone looking at that would wonder how much bias and or honesty existed in the answers.

I tried to answer as honestly as possible in as much as i can with these types of things where you can either overthink a question or not recognise what it is asking and whether i am 1 strongly disagree or 2 disagree or 3 somewhat disagree

[kanna]

That was a damn long survey, i feel like i just did an exam.

It's certainly rather involved.

I mean the methodology absolutely requires a large sample size, and regardless of that size anyone looking at that would wonder how much bias and or honesty existed in the answers.

I tried to answer as honestly as possible in as much as i can with these types of things where you can either overthink a question or not recognise what it is asking and whether i am 1 strongly disagree or 2 disagree or 3 somewhat disagree

The same questionnaire is being presented to both doll owners as well as non-doll owners, so they aren't actually analyzing the answers directly but rather comparing the statistical differences between the answers from both groups, which tends to cancel out the effect of dishonesty as well as misunderstanding the questions. At least as long as the assumption holds that both groups are roughly equally likely to answer dishonestly or misunderstand.

[MattUK]

I wouldn't be surprised if the doll-owning sample turns out to be less atypical than the "normal" sample. Not because they actually are, but I feel like there's going to be more of a pressure on them to show doll-owners in a good light, so they're probably likely to be less honest if they have any slightly weird interests.

I also have to wonder how much good a survey that relies on self-reporting is going to do anyway. It's probably fine if people are coming to it open minded, but anyone with any prejudice can just instantly use that as a reason to dismiss the results if they don't agree with what they already think.

[kanna]

I wouldn't be surprised if the doll-owning sample turns out to be less atypical than the "normal" sample. Not because they actually are, but I feel like there's going to be more of a pressure on them to show doll-owners in a good light, so they're probably likely to be less honest if they have any slightly weird interests.

I also have to wonder how much good a survey that relies on self-reporting is going to do anyway. It's probably fine if people are coming to it open minded, but anyone with any prejudice can just instantly use that as a reason to dismiss the results if they don't agree with what they already think.

There are ways that can be used in questionnaires that allow the researchers to estimate how reliable each participant's answers are. While I won't go into specifics, I'll say that this questionnaire is using them. Probably more than I could spot, since I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify all of them.

[haremlover]

It's great to see Craig and Sian's interventions in this thread above and I urge all to read them.

Today I undertook the interview with one of the researches and can attest that the fears and negative opinions expressed in this thread are entirely misconceived.

I noted before, but hadn't remembered the name, the connexion with the Prostasia Foundation.

In the UK Phil at The Doll House, doll vendor, has been on the receiving end of harrassment from Border Force and the National Crime Agency. Phil is very enthusiastic of the work of the Prostasia Foundation. With Phil's endorsement of the foundation and the researchers connected with it, and his perception that it's very helpful, it really is appropriate for doll enthusiasts to line up behind him in support and assist with the collection of evidence, which I can attest to from my interview as being potentially very helpful to the doll world.

One thing that I picked up on is "doll ownership" as a "lifestyle". For many of us married blokes lifestyle isn't the word we'c apply to our hobby of admiring the female form through the lens of dolls. Lifestyle, as a choice, might well be appropriate to for instance as well described by member moodflow above where many of the women in the dating market in the western societies are capable of being perceived as avaricious bitches seeing how they can best abuse men by what they can get out of them. For men with such a perception of women as grasping, the choice of living with a doll is a lifestyle choice. But for others of us happily married, it's just a hobby. Rebecca explained that lifestyle wasn't intended to be a word used with such depth of connotation, she explaining that for instance in choosing not to drink alcohol at parties was for her a lifestyle choice.

So there may be a generational division in the meaning of the word - for older people meaning something that is defining in life - and for younger people just something one chooses in the course of life.

But there are many men who have hobbies not shared with quite such enthusiasm as wives - loudspeakers and hifi - model steam engines - model railways - classic cars. All these things are hobbies, just as being nerdy in admiration of the human form through dolls, not "lifestyle".

With regard to spouses I've heard instances where wives are jealous of husband's hobbies. "You get rid of that . . . car . . . big speakers" whatever, or it's either it or me. And the bloke gives up the focus of objection and the woman still dumps him. Dolls are in a similar category to other areas of male attention and admiration which can be obsessive, and in the main such things are hobbies rather than lifestyle, in terms of things that actually take over one's life.

So if there's any criticism, the use of the word lifestyle is the only criticism that I'd make, although it's entirely suitable dolls having coming to the fore of perception through "Lars and the Real Girl".

The bottom line is that this research is valid, commendable and should be supported by doll enthusiasts. We neither need the baggage of Lars, nor that imposed upon us by the gutter press. The survey is on https://ntupsychology.eu.qualtrics.com/ ... aXpJW2ldrf and is extremely valuable.

Best wishes

Harem

[HannahW]

Hmm, I wonder if I count as the partner of a sex doll owner

But seriously, I feel pretty much the same way Matt does about this thing. It's kind of weird how we tend to agree on pretty much everything actually, now I come to think about it. But I guess that's why we get along.

But yes there's nothing weird goes on in our relationship, we're pretty normal. Well... Matt is very normal, and has very traditional and almost vanilla interests in that regard. Me on the other hand... oh boy do I like some weird stuff. Some of it's quite dark and you'd probably find it disturbing, if not actually frightening. Of course Matt doesn't want to do any of that stuff because he's such a nice and normal person, but I have ways of persuading him and encouraging his dark side. It's all coming from me though, it's not his fault.

Lately he's been telling me that sometimes, when he's tired or maybe a little stressed, when he looks in the bathroom mirror he sees me staring back at him. Sometimes, while he might be holding a toothbrush, in the reflection he sees me holding a blood covered knife. But I guess he's just a little tired and stressed from work, nothing to worry about.

But other than that we're a totally normal couple so maybe we should consider doing this survey after all. Put the record straight.