Partners of sex doll owners?

[kanna]

Well even if you want to be charitable, it doesn't cover the case of people who can and do fulfil their personal urges in the real world as well ("real world" is also an odd phrase to choose here). There are plenty of doll owners who are also in sexual relationships, or who have sexual encounters from time to time. As I say it's just (at least implicitly, if you wont accept explicitly) it's just assuming doll owners are either after something weird/dodgy they can't have for real, or that if they just have normal desires then they can't get these satisfied anywhere else.

Even that depends on how you interpret it. You chose to interpret the "not able to" as describing the entire life of someone. However, it can just as well be interpreted as describing a more temporary 'not able to', which happens to everyone.

But more to the point. The researchers aren't doll owners themselves. Isn't it a little weird to expect them to understand all the possibilities and intricacies of how sex dolls could be used? Especially before they've completed the research.

I didn't take the questionnaire. This is something I would have wanted answering before even doing so.

I think it was on the introductory page that explained some things about the questionnaire before asking if you agree and taking you to the questionnaire if you clicked 'yes'.

[MattUK]

But more to the point. The researchers aren't doll owners themselves. Isn't it a little weird to expect them to understand all the possibilities and intricacies of how sex dolls could be used? Especially before they've completed the research.

In that case don't make sweeping statements about how and why dolls are used that leaves reasons out, especially if the reasons you leave out are actually the more typical ones, if you're coming from a place of ignorance. Plus it would only take a cursory glance at a forum like this to see those reasons front and centre.

I think it was on the introductory page that explained some things about the questionnaire before asking if you agree and taking you to the questionnaire if you clicked 'yes'.

I got as far as that page and didn't notice anything like that, which is odd given that it was something I wanted to know, but I'm happy to take your word for it.

[siliconelover]

MattUK

[Richard V]

Hi all. I was enjoy a quality debate thread ! Congrats on keeping it civil ! Indeed, a very fine point has been placed on vocabulary, which is fine. Let me add this : Consider the Source. I reviewing both the links ( tks Harlem) and learning about Mr Harper focus of study " Social psychologist interested in issues relating to forensic psychology" as well his studies, all of which involve Sex Offenders. Based on his focus and background, I would not trust him. I would have the feeling his trying to frame me. No, Mr Harper would have to gain my trust before I would grant an interview.

[curiousswede]

Hi all. I was enjoy a quality debate thread ! Congrats on keeping it civil ! Indeed, a very fine point has been placed on vocabulary, which is fine. Let me add this : Consider the Source. I reviewing both the links ( tks Harlem) and learning about Mr Harper focus of study " Social psychologist interested in issues relating to forensic psychology" as well his studies, all of which involve Sex Offenders. Based on his focus and background, I would not trust him. I would have the feeling his trying to frame me. No, Mr Harper would have to gain my trust before I would grant an interview.

Indeed, I wonder if there are even any researchers out there who dare to publish, what is most likely the case, a study of people who just wanted to feel less lonely, have more sex regularly with hot synthetic girls, enjoy photography in a completely new way and so on regarding (sex) dolls. The public would most likely be outraged because "the study didn't confirm their preconceived notions". A comparison for what I am talking about is that there have been very few studies on "Sex differences" lately because many researchers have been under attack by the public because it seems "animalistic and not humanly progressive that there would be actual sex differences - we are better than that now, we have moved beyond that and transcended!!" (*shaking my head with a sigh*).

Also, some questions seem like asking for a criminal confession. It is like having a study on guns asking gun owners, "Do you often think about shooting people? If so, where on the body would you most likely shoot them?", I mean wtf, come on. Agreed and unfortunately, the researcher in question just looks biased based on his previous research even though I am sure he is well-versed in that field of human forensic psychology and criminology.

Furthermore, I do not think the public will ever be ready for this kind of "lifestyle choice" some members of the doll community have chosen. It would be like asking the Pope what he thinks about doll community and whether it is a sin or not. I am pretty sure we all know the answer to that question unless the Pope himself is the TRUE "Lord of Doll Harems"!

Finally, we have the most damaging risk of them all: data manipulation. Who knows and what mechanisms are in place to NOT allow manipulated data like framing all sex doll owners in the worst light possible? It just is not worth it taking part in this study, too much of a big risk of possibly being framed by an undercover researcher wanting you to respond to question where your replies will be changed after the fact. Hm.

[kanna]

Indeed, I wonder if there are even any researchers out there who dare to publish, what is most likely the case, a study of people who just wanted to feel less lonely, have more sex regularly with hot synthetic girls, enjoy photography in a completely new way and so on regarding (sex) dolls. The public would most likely be outraged because "the study didn't confirm their preconceived notions". A comparison for what I am talking about is that there have been very few studies on "Sex differences" lately because many researchers have been under attack by the public because it seems "animalistic and not humanly progressive that there would be actual sex differences - we are better than that now, we have moved beyond that and transcended!!" (*shaking my head with a sigh*).

I don't think sex dolls are anywhere close enough to an everyday topic to be in danger of that. There aren't that many people who care.

Also, some questions seem like asking for a criminal confession. It is like having a study on guns asking gun owners, "Do you often think about shooting people? If so, where on the body would you most likely shoot them?", I mean wtf, come on. Agreed and unfortunately, the researcher in question just looks biased based on his previous research even though I am sure he is well-versed in that field of human forensic psychology and criminology.

I think I'd be more interested in if there seems to be bias in his previous research than what exact topics he was researching. It's not the topic choice that creates a bias. It's valuing one's own preconceptions more than the truth that creates bias. Also, this research would be relatively pointless unless people, generally, feel that they can trust the results. Especially when it comes to people who start from the assumption that doll owners are dangerous. They're not likely to trust research done by someone who doesn't specialize in what Mr Harper specializes in.

Furthermore, I do not think the public will ever be ready for this kind of "lifestyle choice" some members of the doll community have chosen. It would be like asking the Pope what he thinks about doll community and whether it is a sin or not. I am pretty sure we all know the answer to that question unless the Pope himself is the TRUE "Lord of Doll Harems"!

It's just a question of getting them used to the idea. People always fear what they cannot understand.

Finally, we have the most damaging risk of them all: data manipulation. Who knows and what mechanisms are in place to NOT allow manipulated data like framing all sex doll owners in the worst light possible? It just is not worth it taking part in this study, too much of a big risk of possibly being framed by an undercover researcher wanting you to respond to question where your replies will be changed after the fact. Hm.

Someone who just wanted to falsify data would not need to spend this much effort and likely wouldn't.
Also, the questionnaire doesn't identify you in any way. How would that kind of framing even work? It'd just be his word against yours.

[haremlover]

The whole point is that we are the ones demonstrating no more link to criminality by reason of doll enthusiasm than the sample norm. As a professional he is saying that there has been no proper research nor evidence for the links to liklihood of criminality being assumed.

His published projects are very sympathetic to changing attitudes towards established sexual offenders -

Approaching Rehabilitation with Autistic Men Convicted of Sexual Offences
Using personal narratives to humanize people with pedophilic sexual interests
Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important?
Reducing Stigma and Punitive Attitudes Toward Pedophiles Through Narrative Humanization

Now doll owners are not per se people with pedophilic sexual interests. No issue.

Even if doll owners were, his focus is reduction of stigma and punitive attitudes towards such people,

We are the people able to demonstrate No Connection between sexual offending and doll ownership so this study is very important.

Accordingly the questionnaire linked from viewtopic.php?f=141&t=120380 is extremely important and I urge all to take part.

Best wishes

Harem

[MattUK]

Just want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing the researchers of being untrustworthy, or that they have any intention of framing anyone or being dishonest. Just that their starting point doesn't seem to be "hey, these are people with a niche interest, let's take a look at that and find out what's going on", but rather "I'm sure these freaks aren't as dangerous as everyone seems to think, let's see if we can quantify exactly how dangerous they are and how to minimise the risk they pose to our children". Kind of like... I don't know, some kindly and well-meaning Christians trying to understand Satanism and not realising all the baggage they're bringing with them before they even start.

[haremlover]

You misread the situation. They actually are saying

"hey, these are people with a niche interest, let's take a look at that and find out what's going on"

BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVITY FOR WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO PROPER RESEARCH AND NO EVIDENCE and IN THAT CONTEXT

"I'm sure these freaks aren't as dangerous as everyone seems to think, let's see if we can quantify exactly how dangerous they are

and here is the right place to draw upon doll owners for them to be able to garner the necessary evidence that doll owners are neither freaks nor dangerous, at all.

So cooperation is important.

I have the impression that there are owners of dolls who have fears of interaction with other people, and that's why they prefer dolls who don't answer back.

Human interaction is rather like the animal world. One has the choice of answering back

dogs.jpg (128.54 KiB) Viewed 1640 times

or running away.

In the circumstance where bona fide academics are researching whether there is any evidence at all for commonly held beliefs, running away doesn't help. Those commonly held beliefs have to be squashed and buried, and we are the ones able to provide the evidence to do so.

I have pointed to the statement on the other TDF page:

Again, I understand the apprehension that some may have about surveys such as these. However, please be assured that this survey assumes nothing about those who own sex dolls. In fact, the survey was motivated by a frustration that media outlets represent doll ownership in a way that assumes sexual risk. As I suggest above, the only way to directly address these concerns or representations is to ask about them in a very direct way. For this reason, I would urge you not to give up on the survey after seeing questions that may lead to discomfort, and to answer them in an honest way. It is only by doing this that we can tell your stories, and address these issues for you within the broader literature. Please do not assume that this research makes any judgement of people who own dolls. If anything, we come from a place of support and wish to be able to represent this community in a way that is less emotional and more evidence-led.

We take the view that somebody having 'atypical' sexual interests and attractions is not a direct indicator of risk. Instead, we need to understand how and why these attractions translate into risk. The reason for some questions in this survey that relate to age of attraction and sexual aggression is that we are collecting data on a range of websites and forums, including sites for individuals who are minor-attracted. Again, we are not making any assumptions about doll owners, but these questions simply reflect our range of data collection methods.

One can't have clearer statements than that.

The survey is on https://ntupsychology.eu.qualtrics.com/ ... aXpJW2ldrf

It's only by enabling these researchers to have the evidence they need that Dr Richardson who clearly has a grudge against something to do with failed relationships, and looking at her it's not difficult to see the reason why, and idiot journalists who encourage the mindless to make prejudicial Twitter feeds https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorr ... e337476e79 can be discredited from their positions.

Best wishes

Harem

[MattUK]

Even the thing you just quoted contains the very sentence I initially objected to:

We take the view that somebody having 'atypical' sexual interests and attractions is not a direct indicator of risk.

I don't consider an attraction to adult human females to be 'atypical' for a man, and the researchers don't seem to grasp that that's even an option, let alone (probably) the typical case for male doll owners. I know some people have specific fetishes for dolls, and that's fine, but the researchers seem to assume that's standard. Honestly it would be like assuming any woman with a vibrator has a 'dildo fetish'. Unless by "atypical" they're talking about children again. Either way, I don't even recognise myself in that statement.

And I don't buy into it even being an indirect indicator of risk, but again the starting assumption is that there is some risk there, before the survey is even done. Cart before the horse.

[kanna]

I don't consider an attraction to adult human females to be 'atypical' for a man, and the researchers don't seem to grasp that that's even an option, let alone (probably) the typical case for male doll owners. I know some people have specific fetishes for dolls, and that's fine, but the researchers seem to assume that's standard. Honestly it would be like assuming any woman with a vibrator has a 'dildo fetish'. Unless by "atypical" they're talking about children again. Either way, I don't even recognise myself in that statement.

Here you go again expecting the researcher to already be an expert about doll relationships and why people have them. *sigh*
But that is not even written with doll owners in mind as the audience. It's aimed at the general public, of whom, a significant majority will see someone who is actively interested in sex with dolls as atypical and any attempt to directly challenge that view would jeopardize the ability of the study to convince the general public that such people aren't dangerous as some are claiming that they are.
Also, frankly, I agree with that. It is atypical to be interested in having sex with a doll. For now, anyway. I do think this will change rapidly during the next decade or so, though.

Note, that this is not the same as just having the feeling of being sexually attracted. It refers to consciously, wanting to have sex with a doll and accepting that want. I'd be surprised to find someone who doesn't feel any sexual attraction when shown a doll that looks like a woman they would feel attracted to.

And I don't into it even being an indirect indicator of risk, but again the starting assumption is that there is some risk there, before the survey is even done. Cart before the horse.

Umm, no. The assumption is that owning a doll poses no direct risk and indirect risks are what is being studied to reduce the number of people who form prejudiced opinions based on rumors and to give people who care about understanding things something more reliable to base that understanding on. What you're basically objecting to is that the prejudiced rumors are being allowed any influence on the choice of questions. I hope you do realize that the study would be much less useful in counteracting the false rumors if they listened to you?

[MattUK]

Here you go again expecting the researcher to already be an expert about doll relationships and why people have them. *sigh*

It's not about expecting anyone to be an expert, it's about recognising an inherent assumption. If you're truly being objective and open-minded then there shouldn't be any inherent assumptions like that and I find it telling that I see them. I don't cosider myself an expert either, but as I said it only takes 5 minutes browsing on a site like this to tell the lie to these assumptions.

But that is not even written with doll owners in mind as the audience. It's aimed at the general public

No that was the quote from the post on this forum, to doll owners, asking for their participation

Also, frankly, I agree with that. It is atypical to be interested in having sex with a doll. For now, anyway. I do think this will change rapidly during the next decade or so, though.

I've already said that I agree that doll ownership and doll "use" is atypical, but that I don't agree this means the sexual desires of doll owners are atypical. The whole point of a doll is to replicate (or at least approximate) the visual appearance and sensory experience of a woman. Elf dolls and other exotica aside, most dolls are designed specifically to appeal to typical sexual desires. I mean you can tell that just by looking at them.

What you're basically objecting to is that the prejudiced rumors are being allowed any influence on the choice of questions. I hope you do realize that the study would be much less useful in counteracting the false rumors if they listened to you?

No what I'm objecting to, or at least pointing out, is the obviously biased interest of the researchers themselves. Obviously the questions should reflect these concerns if that's what the survey is about, but to me the worry as that the people conducting the research are primarily interested in the psychology of sexual offenders and paedophiles, and seem to be bringing a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions before they even get to the questions. I don't want to touch that with a bargepole.

Each to their own of course, but since we're being encouraged to take part in this I think it's only fair to be allowed to express my concerns.

[kanna]

If you're truly being objective and open-minded then there shouldn't be any inherent assumptions like that and I find it telling that I see them. I don't cosider myself an expert either, but as I said it only takes 5 minutes browsing on a site like this to tell the lie to these assumptions.

1) That is a standard that no human can meet.
2) The researchers might well be avoiding reading the conversations here prior to completing their research to not bias themselves.

I don't agree this means the sexual desires of doll owners are atypical.

You know, they didn't actually make any claims about that and judging from the questionnaire, that's also part of what is being studied. I had quite a few "Are there really people who like X?" moments while answering it.

Each to their own of course, but since we're being encouraged to take part in this I think it's only fair to be allowed to express my concerns.

Of course. However, the reason I'm having this conversation with you is because it looks to me that your concerns are mostly based on misinterpretations and jumping to conclusions.

It seems to me that your criticisms mostly arise from hypersensitivity towards what others might assume about you (and perhaps this community as a whole). With hypersensitivity, I mean reacting to the mere perceived possibility that someone might think something, with the same emotional strength as you'd react to them actually thinking that and hence being unable to tell the two apart consistently.

I used to be like that too, many years ago. It's something that will continue to cause you a lot of pain until you properly process the trauma behind it. Please be aware of that.

[MattUK]

1) That is a standard that no human can meet.
2) The researchers might well be avoiding reading the conversations here prior to completing their research to not bias themselves.

Maybe no human can meet the standard of absolutely zero presumptions or assumptions whatsoever, but I think there are some really obvious and incorrect ones here. And I don't think deliberately avoiding reading the words of people you're trying to understand is a great methodology.

Of course. However, the reason I'm having this conversation with you is because it looks to me that your concerns are mostly based on misinterpretations and jumping to conclusions.

It seems to me that your criticisms mostly arise from hypersensitivity towards what others might assume about you (and perhaps this community as a whole). With hypersensitivity, I mean reacting to the mere perceived possibility that someone might think something, with the same emotional strength as you'd react to them actually thinking that and hence being unable to tell the two apart consistently.

No my criticisms stem from the backgrounds and professional interests of the researchers, which are very heavily involved with the psychology of criminal sex offenders and paedophiles. My criticisms also stem from what I percieve their biases to be, and I've given quotes that I believe demonstate why I see them that way. I feel it's justified to be offended by some of it and not feel I have a need to defend myself. I feel like acting like there is a case to answer is demeaning. I don't want to give any specific comparisons for fear of making this even more controversial than it needs to be, but just pick any minority of your choice and imagine the response if someone came onto a forum specifically for them, giving them an "opportunity" to try and convince wider society that all the worst prejudices and slurs about them weren't true. How many of them do you think would jump at the chance, and how many of them do you think would tell them to take a hike in no uncertain terms? To take the former option is (to me) basically accepting that it's reasonable for people to have ridiculous prejudices against you, and that the onus is on you to change their minds. I don't accept that.

I can't really do much else, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you.

I used to be like that too, many years ago. It's something that will continue to cause you a lot of pain until you properly process the trauma behind it. Please be aware of that.

Don't even know what you're talking about. What pain? What trauma? Now you're making assumptions too, sheesh.

[haremlover]

Even the thing you just quoted contains the very sentence I initially objected to

It appears that you are snatching at bits rather than looking at the whole.

Kanna has offered wisdom from which you might be able to benefit in the long run.

For those appreciating the value of the research the survey is on https://ntupsychology.eu.qualtrics.com/ ... aXpJW2ldrf

Best wishes

Harem