Participation

[Jimpink]

Not intending to stir up any controversy here, one question that had me a bit miffed was the selection for sexual preferences, but only because one of the choices is pedo. I know they've been referring to them as "minor attracted persons" in the UK and perhaps elsewhere, but last time I checked that's not really a gender identity or legitimate sexual preference and in my area we have zero tolerance for it.
However, I reckon that if such a person has CLD's then that might just spare some tender little lives. Still, I found the suggestion of that being given equal footing with the other sexual preferences repellant.

I'm with Rock on this and I'm sure many many others will be too. If you feel the need to ask questions based on this illegal in most countries subject then do so separately. As Rock has already eloquently put, "pedo" is not a recognised sexual preference or gender identity. It is against the law, morally inconsiderate and predatory, which is putting it very mildly. This condition affects some, and without doing any proper research I'm not going to say anymore.

[sexfoHH]

Thanks for your feedback and your participation, it helps us very much!

We understand your opinion and we do not want to offend anyone. For our research it is very important to identify people with a pedophilic interest. The leading researchers in the field, such as Michael Seto, describe pedophilia as a sexual orientation (see e.g., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y) and we have therefore used an instrument to assess sexual orientation that also asks for pedophilic interest.

[Jimpink]

This same survey has been posted over on UKLDF and the thread is already full of discussion regarding the ambiguous questions, slightly biased answers and that inclusion of pedophilia.

I'll just say this, I've read Michael Seto's thesis and yes he does refer to this as a sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean he is correct or that the term is recognised as such by the general population. Whatever outcome is produced by this study it will be tainted by the inclusion of elements like this. However if there is something else in play that we're not aware of then please enlighten us.

Also check out the discussion: http://www.uklovedollforums.co.uk/forum ... hp?t=15694

[PDutus]

I've also been following the discussion over on the UK Forum and I took the survey from there.

My conclusion that it is certainly better than some I've seen/done.

And I agree with the comments about the inclusion of paedophilia: Michael Seto may describe paedophilia as a sexual orientation but that does not mean he is correct. It is his view. Others would view it as a psychiatric disorder.

To many of us, these dolls are far more than objects for sexual gratification. In fact, some of our dolls are not used for that purpose at all. Photography, companionship, appreciation of them as works of art feature just as prominently, if not more so in some cases.

To paraphrase one of my mates over on the UK Forum, our girls have personalities (interestingly, this is, for once, touched on in the survey under discussion) and we do not consider them mere lumps of TPE or silicone that are just there for screwing. When researchers get this through their heads, that they are not just lumps of silicone/TPE that people screw, then they might start to get a better idea of exactly how we relate to these dolls and stop focussing primarily on the sexual aspect.

[sexfoHH]

You are absolutely right that this is a debate and that Michael Seto's view cannot be considered "right".
Nevertheless, it is very important for us to identify people with a pedophilic interest. We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up. At least in Germany there is a political debate about banning small sex dolls without any scientific data to base the discussion on.

[Jimpink]

You are absolutely right that this is a debate and that Michael Seto's view cannot be considered "right".
Nevertheless, it is very important for us to identify people with a pedophilic interest. We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up. At least in Germany there is a political debate about banning small sex dolls without any scientific data to base the discussion on.

What do you mean exactly by "We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up"...?

If you're referring to us as a social minority trying to defend our reputation against those who don't understand the lifestyle, and automatically label us as dangerous to minors or at least freaks, then I'll say be careful how you approach this subject.

If your need to identify those with an interest in the forbidden relates directly to explaining how this comparison is flawed then I understand the requirement. However, I'm new to this, only a couple of years in, many forum members past and present have spent years and decades trying to prove the fact that the doll lifestyle is harmless and absolutely misunderstood. As you can see multiple surveys and studies have been submitted before all with the same agenda so it's natural for us to be defensive. A little basic diplomacy is needed here so choose your words wisely.

[sexfoHH]

You are absolutely right that this is a debate and that Michael Seto's view cannot be considered "right".
Nevertheless, it is very important for us to identify people with a pedophilic interest. We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up. At least in Germany there is a political debate about banning small sex dolls without any scientific data to base the discussion on.

What do you mean exactly by "We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up"...?

If you're referring to us as a social minority trying to defend our reputation against those who don't understand the lifestyle, and automatically label us as dangerous to minors or at least freaks, then I'll say be careful how you approach this subject.

If your need to identify those with an interest in the forbidden relates directly to explaining how this comparison is flawed then I understand the requirement. However, I'm new to this, only a couple of years in, many forum members past and present have spent years and decades trying to prove the fact that the doll lifestyle is harmless and absolutely misunderstood. As you can see multiple surveys and studies have been submitted before all with the same agenda so it's natural for us to be defensive. A little basic diplomacy is needed here so choose your words wisely.

It is exactly as you say in the last clause: for our research it is very important that we do not take the love doll community as a homogeneous group - as it is unfortunately often done in politics and in the media. This is, if I get the posts in the forum right, not only wrong in terms of content, because you have completely different relationships with your dolls. It also biases the results of the research and our goal - to keep the debate substantively separate between legal and illegal behavior. I can guarantee you that we don't consider you to be freaks or dangerous.

[Rock13]

As I always tell survey takers, if you've met one doll owner then you've met one doll owner. Although we may have certain motivations and practices in common ranging from sex and companionship to avid interests in fashion, photography, and storytelling the culture of doll owners is difficult to quantify. Just like a 24-band graphic equalizer there's so much variation between doll owners, their dolls, and those precious relationships that in my opinion the community has become nearly as diverse as humanity itself. As a researcher, depending on what you hope to quantify, you've taken on a daunting task. Qualitatively speaking, I can tell you that we doll owners are typically a respectful, affable, and mutually supportive lot.

[Jimpink]

You are absolutely right that this is a debate and that Michael Seto's view cannot be considered "right".
Nevertheless, it is very important for us to identify people with a pedophilic interest. We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up. At least in Germany there is a political debate about banning small sex dolls without any scientific data to base the discussion on.

What do you mean exactly by "We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up"...?

If you're referring to us as a social minority trying to defend our reputation against those who don't understand the lifestyle, and automatically label us as dangerous to minors or at least freaks, then I'll say be careful how you approach this subject.

If your need to identify those with an interest in the forbidden relates directly to explaining how this comparison is flawed then I understand the requirement. However, I'm new to this, only a couple of years in, many forum members past and present have spent years and decades trying to prove the fact that the doll lifestyle is harmless and absolutely misunderstood. As you can see multiple surveys and studies have been submitted before all with the same agenda so it's natural for us to be defensive. A little basic diplomacy is needed here so choose your words wisely.

It is exactly as you say in the last clause: for our research it is very important that we do not take the love doll community as a homogeneous group - as it is unfortunately often done in politics and in the media. This is, if I get the posts in the forum right, not only wrong in terms of content, because you have completely different relationships with your dolls. It also biases the results of the research and our goal - to keep the debate substantively separate between legal and illegal behavior. I can guarantee you that we don't consider you to be freaks or dangerous.

I don't believe that you have the opinion that we're, as I described, dangerous or freakish, that's not the point I was making. Choosing how you describe your intentions the way you explain the methods and content of your study needs to be carefully thought out. Why, when submitting this survey to the forum, did you not make it clear the intended goal for this research was to determine a certain conclusion, even if it may be vague before embarking on the quest? I'm assuming the forum moderators were made aware of this or maybe not? There's too many unknowns going on for my liking.

Your above statement still is a little confusing as to what you hope to achieve from all this. I'm hoping it's a combination of language barrier and not subconsciously putting the goal into the minds of the parcipitants. Therefore skewing the outcome.

Whatever is going on Rock put it perfectly, you've taken on a daunting task...

[Taeyeon]

Hello!

I wish to help with science very much and I also answered questions in survey^^
Some questions are very interesting I think!
I thought very much about answers.
I was not offended by some other questions!

I wish much success with study (^_^)/

Thank you
TaeYeon

[sexfoHH]

Hello!

I wish to help with science very much and I also answered questions in survey^^
Some questions are very interesting I think!
I thought very much about answers.
I was not offended by some other questions!

I wish much success with study (^_^)/

Thank you
TaeYeon

Thank you so much for your comment and feedback! If you know of any people who would like to participate, please let us know.
Best,
Jeanne

[sexfoHH]

You are absolutely right that this is a debate and that Michael Seto's view cannot be considered "right".
Nevertheless, it is very important for us to identify people with a pedophilic interest. We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up. At least in Germany there is a political debate about banning small sex dolls without any scientific data to base the discussion on.

What do you mean exactly by "We think it is also important for the doll community not to mix things up"...?

If you're referring to us as a social minority trying to defend our reputation against those who don't understand the lifestyle, and automatically label us as dangerous to minors or at least freaks, then I'll say be careful how you approach this subject.

If your need to identify those with an interest in the forbidden relates directly to explaining how this comparison is flawed then I understand the requirement. However, I'm new to this, only a couple of years in, many forum members past and present have spent years and decades trying to prove the fact that the doll lifestyle is harmless and absolutely misunderstood. As you can see multiple surveys and studies have been submitted before all with the same agenda so it's natural for us to be defensive. A little basic diplomacy is needed here so choose your words wisely.

It is exactly as you say in the last clause: for our research it is very important that we do not take the love doll community as a homogeneous group - as it is unfortunately often done in politics and in the media. This is, if I get the posts in the forum right, not only wrong in terms of content, because you have completely different relationships with your dolls. It also biases the results of the research and our goal - to keep the debate substantively separate between legal and illegal behavior. I can guarantee you that we don't consider you to be freaks or dangerous.

I don't believe that you have the opinion that we're, as I described, dangerous or freakish, that's not the point I was making. Choosing how you describe your intentions the way you explain the methods and content of your study needs to be carefully thought out. Why, when submitting this survey to the forum, did you not make it clear the intended goal for this research was to determine a certain conclusion, even if it may be vague before embarking on the quest? I'm assuming the forum moderators were made aware of this or maybe not? There's too many unknowns going on for my liking.

Your above statement still is a little confusing as to what you hope to achieve from all this. I'm hoping it's a combination of language barrier and not subconsciously putting the goal into the minds of the parcipitants. Therefore skewing the outcome.

Whatever is going on Rock put it perfectly, you've taken on a daunting task...

We do not have a specific conclusion that we are looking for. The survey is conducted in the context of exploratory research, which means we don't have hypotheses, we just ask open-ended questions.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss with us and sharing your thoughts.

[Jimpink]

We do not have a specific conclusion that we are looking for. The survey is conducted in the context of exploratory research, which means we don't have hypotheses, we just ask open-ended questions.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss with us and sharing your thoughts.

Your questions are not open-ended enough to explain certain aspects of the doll lifestyle. It's fairly clear to see the outcomes that would be generated from the questions in that survey so I disagree that this is exploratory research. In order to be fully engrossed in researching dolls, their origins, relationships and understanding what they mean to us you need to stop asking questions and listen. Maybe even experience it for yourself.

[maddmatter70]

Kindly take MY survey:
circle one, be honest now, no really....
A) I ask question because I seek truth
B) I ask question to skew data points into whatever I want
C) All I care about is the data I sell to highest bidder

[sexfoHH]

Do you know that there is a new law in Germany that bans small sex dolls, regardless of the lack of scientific data?

One of the reasons we do research is that important decisions should not be made on the basis of moral feelings, but need to be based on solid data. This study is of course limited in its qualitative representation of a human being - as is any quantitative analysis. We know that very well.