Canadian doll brothels

starcrossedseahorse I'd agree with the addition of the word 'some'.

Some men '...never cease to disappoint do they?'

If only we knew what role stuff like porn can play in the escalation of male violence against women.

Turned out, women were really not after realistic sex aids. In fact the less real looking the better.

That's very interesting, thank you. It would be even more interesting to explore the motivations in women drawn to more realistic sex aids (I'm assuming there are some based upon those still being available but I am by no means an expert on the sex aid market).

I never claimed it was contributory. I claimed that it was possible that it would act as a gateway and escalate to sexual violence against real women

That would fall into the definition of contributory.

It's well known that serial killers don't generally start off killing out of the blue.

You keep repeating this without answering the question, are you claiming that, purely in isolation, preventing early abuse would prevent them from engaging in more extreme forms of violence later on? I propose that the violent acts are symptomatic rather than a constituent of their development.

If different, why?

I believe that the vast majority of men and women are capable of distinguishing between a piece of rubber and a human being, both consciously and subconsciously. Furthermore, I believe the abusive ones, who might be drawn to abuse pieces of rubber wouldn't be prevented from harming humans in the future by limiting their access to said pieces of rubber.

Read the sex robot article. Do you think that's the same, or different? If different, why?

No matter what creators and fans claim about the harmlessness or social good of sex robots, they project very clear beliefs about what men deserve and what women are for. The message is that sex is a thing men get from women or do to women, not a thing to be mutually enjoyed by two people. It is not a thing that demands care, compassion, respect, or empathy. Likewise, advocates of sex robots present “companionship” as a one-way street for men — challenges, disagreements, feelings, and thoughts are not valuable or desired qualities in a woman. “Companionship,” in this context, simply means male satisfaction.

You seem to be completely missing, deliberately or otherwise, my point, Ereshkigal darling.

I'm really not. I don't care what point you imagine you are making. I never claimed it was contributory. I claimed that it was possible that it would act as a gateway and escalate to sexual violence against real women. It's well known that serial killers don't generally start off killing out of the blue. It's well known that domestic abuse, for example, escalates. You're trying to claim that male pattern violent behaviour doesn't escalate. Have fun with that.

It's interesting how dildos have changed. In t'olden days of seedy sex shops on the edge of a town they made them to look like "real" willys, all veiny and flesh coloured. My boyfriend bought me one-I don't know if he ever used it but I never did-it was gross.
Then they started making Rabbits in bright candy colours and looking not remotely like cocks and the market exploded.
Turned out, women were really not after realistic sex aids. In fact the less real looking the better.
I dunno why but I find that interesting to ponder. Soz for the slight derail!

*dildo.

Autocorrect.

The company also sells a more affordable option — for only $100 you can buy the bottom half of a woman’s face, to stick your penis into at will

That's absolutely revolting but how does it differ from putting testicles on a realistically coloured dildos?

Good luck trying to pretend that violent male pattern behaviour doesn't tend to grow more extreme over time

You seem to be completely missing, deliberately or otherwise, my point, Ereshkigal darling. Put simply, and using your analogy, your logic would call for the banning of pets because some people might abuse them (admittedly, a problem in itself where animals are concerned) and somehow preventing this would prevent future violence on its own.

Ultimately, whatever users do to these lumps of rubber, is done based upon their own ideas.

The company also sells a more affordable option — for only $100 you can buy the bottom half of a woman’s face, to stick your penis into at will.

This is an article about sex robots, and how very realistic men would like them to be:

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchy-offer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/

It's the principle of escalation, a well documented phenomenon, Gronky dear. Good luck trying to pretend that violent male pattern behaviour doesn't tend to grow more extreme over time.

You appear to have completely missed my point, which isn't surprising as you went off on a boring derail about video games.

I'm missing where I mentioned it in any other way than speculating that it might lead to more concerning behaviour.

By all means, speculate away but might I suggest speculating in private if you don't want others to explore (and, potentially even disagree) with your speculations?

It's the principle of escalation, Gronky. You seem confused.

'Because of course it happens that way' isn't a terribly sound argument, Ereshkigal. Wanting something to be a particular way, no matter how hard does not make it so. Bad science is a great way to undermine your cause and prevent change for the better.

I really would reccomend you read up on the difference between correlation and causation. It's not a terribly complex pair of concepts and won't take up very much of your time. To clarify, read whatever guide you find in its entirety, if you just scan until you find the bit you want without approaching the material in a critical fashion, you'll fail to learn anything of use (as you have done here). I appreciate that it's a lot easier and can feel a lot better than some introspection but I believe you're a better person than that.

I'm missing where I mentioned it in any other way than speculating that it might lead to more concerning behaviour.

It's the principle of escalation, Gronky. You seem confused. Are you denying such a thing exists? I realise admitting it does is mighty inconvenient to your argument.

That's all I needed thanks. I'm not sure why you feel you're making a different point to me?

Quote mining is rather poor science. Are you proposing that, if prevented from abusing animals but otherwise sent on their merry way, they're unlikely to become serial killers? In terms of the evidence I've seen (and I again invite you to present contradictory evidence), the proposed causative link is any more than 'when people open umbrellas, it causes rain' logic.

I agree that the concept is unpleasant, even disturbing, but I'm missing the link where adult men doing disturbing things to inanimate objects is contributory to violence against women.

Predictive, in short, people who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans (well established within peer reviewed literature)

Yes. That's all I needed thanks. I'm not sure why you feel you're making a different point to me? Do you think serial killers carry on abusing animals for kicks while killing women? Do you not understand why that might no longer be enough?

Why do you think it's "predictive", Gronky? That's kind of my point.

Predictive, in short, people who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans (well established within peer reviewed literature) but not necessarily contributory, wherein preventing them from abusing animals would prevent them from abusing humans. They should still be prevented, on the basis that animal cruelty isn't acceptable but I doubt simply stopping them would stop them from abusing humans later.

It's similar to how it was once thought that smoking contributed to schizophrenia, on the basis that schizophrenics smoked at a much higher rate than the general population, as well as those with unrelated mental illnesses living within the same hospitals (controlling for the environment). It later transpired that nicotine actually suppresses/eases schizophrenic symptoms, they were self medicating, rather than self inflicting (although, obviously, smoking causes other issues).

Why do you think it's "predictive", Gronky? That's kind of my point.

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/melinda-merck-veterinary-forensics/538575/

BTW I happened on Fiona Scourfield's story earlier - she's one of the UK women who were murdered in the last year and who are being remembered by Counting Dead Women today:

twitter.com/CountDeadWomen?s=09

I read something on one of the US school shooters - maybe columbine - where a woman suggested that although video games may not turn huge numbers of innocent minds to real life violence, we should consider whether they do have a desensitising or inflaming influence on the young men who do go onto commit violence.

Cf also the men who watch strangulation "porn" and then go on to strangle women to death. Examples on this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332144-Why-is-he-crying-Laura-Huteson-death

And this young lad - who killed his stepmum Fiona Scourfield - who'd been obsessively seeking out "gore" images online. He tried to upload pictures of his stepmum dying to a gore site.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/horrific-details-murder-unfailingly-kind-15151775

I have zero doubts that sex robots will allow some men to exact fantasies on a lifeless female form, which they will then want to re-enact on something a bit more realistic.

Men who consume porn are shit in bed, to put it mildly.

I have a lot of issues with pornography, men getting ED isn't one of them. Primarily, I take issue with its production being potentially exploitative and, in some cases, it serving as instructive for abuse.

So, unless there is a study that unambigously proves that there is no negative impact of regularly using such dolls on men’s ability to understand and honor consent, this is just another irresponsible act that risks women and children safety.

As above, I see these as less harmful because they aren't instructive, that is, what the user does is purely of their own making. Any artificial sexual aid can be potentially harmful to relationships, for both men and women:

www.mazewomenshealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Dr-Bat-sheva-Marcus-Medical-Journal.pdf

I used this link because it lets you read the entire article without an academic registration, if you have one the pubmed page is:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205230

Please don't misunderstand, I find the idea of someone using one very unpleasant but I don't identify them as being specifically or exceptionally harmful.

why do you think serial killers often start with cruelty to animals?

It's predictive but I'm not aware of any studies that demonstrated it being contributory. Could you please provide a citation?

Gronky, why do you think serial killers often start with cruelty to animals?

Because violent male pattern behaviour escalates.

It is quite simple, really, Gronky. Men who consume porn are shit in bed, to put it mildly. Bad enough. Now, introducing stuff that does even more, and even more intensely conveys the experience that women are there to serve male sexual needs unreservedly and silently will do nothing to make this better, but has great potential to make it worse. So, unless there is a study that unambigously proves that there is no negative impact of regularly using such dolls on men’s ability to understand and honor consent, this is just another irresponsible act that risks women and children safety.

Being accused of stalking for simply visiting another thread and reading it and referring to it, is quite funny. By that measure we mums here stalk each other regularly. Oh well.