In the entire study, Brown and Shelling identify in their report no evidence that supports any of these speculations regarding the consequences of dolls that resemble children's ownership. The report explicitly states this in the sections on the negative effects of ownership of dolls (i.e. encouraging sexual violence) as well as the legal moralism view of philosophers was mentioned in the discussion of effects of dolls on the subject of objectification and de-sensitization that involve child abuse. In a brief portion of the report they examined the possibility of mini sex doll playing an important role in preventing sexual assault, highlighting the lack of evidence which directly test this theory.
It's remarkable, then in light of this apparent deficiency of evidence-based data it is remarkable the fact that Brown and Shelling come to the conclusion:
The rationale is to believe that the use of cheap sex dolls may increase the risk of child sexual abuse through disensitizing the user to the emotional, physical and psychological trauma that child sexual abuse causes and allowing the abuse to be accepted within one's mind. perpetrator. However there isn't any evidence of therapeutic benefits through the use of dolls for child sexual abuse.
What is most shocking here is not the notion that it's possible to infer some degree of risk for sexuality for those who own sex doll that look like children (see for example). Instead, it is more worrying, and possibly illuminating of this particular area of research the fact to note that the conclusion made in conjunction with one that concerns their lack of therapeutic value given the complete absence of evidence to support either side.
