Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Yesterday we exposed budget shopping app Wish selling a range of child sex dolls. We were pleased when the company responded quickly, promising to remove the child sex dolls and take action against the sellers. But then we learned more.

How long have Wish known about child sex dolls?

The response from Wish on our Facebook page suggested they were not aware of the items that had “made it onto [their] platform” and that they were committed to removing such items “when [they] find them”.

But what about products they have verified for quality, like this sex doll complete with a blue tick? Did they know about them?

Yesterday we learned Wish has been selling inappropriate products for some time. One woman recounted deleting the app after being confronted with plastic vaginas for sale, one of which was a ‘child’ model. Another woman commenting on our Facebook page described how her twelve-year-old son using the app was confronted by ads for sex toys, despite providing his age upon sign up.

Child sex dolls were only the beginning

Since releasing yesterday’s blog post, we have discovered a substantial array of disturbing products available for purchase on Wish. In addition to child sex dolls, we have found realistic silicone replica vaginas, female torsos and backsides, replica female mouths and throats, disembodied child sex doll legs, feet, and heads for sale, all for men’s sexual use.

Activist Melinda Liszewski documented the chilling range of lifelike replica body parts for sale on a Twitter thread, noting the rave reviews from male consumers. View the images here- Warning, graphic content.

We have also discovered hidden spy cams for purchase alongside imagery depicting a man secretly filming a woman as she undresses. This criminal violation of women’s privacy is now a popular genre of pornography.

Wish is a major international company, with over 30 million followers on Facebook alone. The app is rated 12+, appropriate for users aged twelve and up. How could a major company be so negligent? And what are they doing about it?

It's not enough to simply remove child sex dolls from sale. All of the replica body parts modelled on the bodies of women and children for men's sexual use must go, and Wish needs to implement a policy to prevent this happening ever again.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Report individual items at report-abuse@wish.com 

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter. 

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

Update: Wish promises to remove child sex dolls from sale, but what about other replica body parts meant for men's sexual use?

Wish has responded in the comment thread on our Facebook post as follows: 

*  *  *

Content warning: This post contains content that may be distressing. 

Budget shopping app Wish is selling a range of child sex dolls for men to simulate sexual abuse.

The dolls, which are designed to look like pre-teen girls, are often between 100 and 130 cm tall, with emphasis on their “flat chest”. They are deliberately posed in such a way as to emphasise their youth and innocence, shyly looking away from the camera and tilting their heads in a childlike way. Their vulnerability is accentuated in images of them sitting cross-legged on a bed in their knickers, or naked in the bath. There is a suggestion of sexuality, with singlet straps falling off shoulders, fingers lingering over mouths, or shorts pulled down to reveal themselves. 

Product descriptions of the dolls emphasise how “real” they feel:

“Buying a sex doll can be a daunting task at first, but understanding the various types and benefits of each will make your decision easier. Sex dolls are made with natural, safe, real silicone so that each gorgeous girl feels real.”

Even sex dolls with large, porn-inspired out of proportion breasts still appear very childlike. One wears a cropped Pikachu t-shirt, from the cartoon Pokemon.

These items exist to aid users in their fantasies of raping children. The very sale of these dolls is an endorsement of paedophilia. Why is Wish promoting crimes of violence against children?

Wish is not an obscure website. Its Facebook page alone has almost 30 million followers. A major shopping app recommended for users aged 12 and above is profiting from the sale of child sex dolls. We cannot accept this.

Call to Action

Delete your Wish account.

Contact Wish on Facebook, Twitter, or via Customer Support (if you have the app).

Got an iPhone? Hop on the App Store and leave a review, or contact the App Store on Twitter.

If you have an Android phone, visit Google Play to leave a review or report the app, and contact them on Twitter.

In response to the global outcry over the children’s film Show Dogs, the Australian Classifications Board issued a media release. This was after the production company had promised to withdraw the film and re-cut it to remove the offending scenes, however, only minimal content was removed, with scenes featuring the dog Max having his genitals touched against his will remaining in the movie. Classifications Board referred to the scenes in question, involving the dog Max having his private parts touched against his will, as scenes that ‘may cause offence to some viewers’:

The Board is aware of social media commentary over the past couple of days that a scene or two in Show Dogs, may cause offence to some viewers, who are of the opinion that the touching of a dog character’s genitals, and the accompanying dialogue, may promote acceptance of grooming of children for sexual exploitation.

Reducing the issue to mere ‘offence’ is problematic. The concerns from parents, survivors, child advocates and organisations dedicated to fighting against child sexual abuse are not that individuals will be ‘offended’. They are about the disturbing and dangerous messages to children about sexual touching when the main character, Max, must put aside his discomfort and endure having his private parts touched, after which he is rewarded.

The Classifications Board assert that context is crucial, and on this basis suggest that scenes of the dog having his private parts touched against his will were assessed as thematic content. They went on, saying, “There is no suggestion in the film that the dog is a metaphor for a child.”

Long-time activist and Collective Shout supporter Melinda Liszewski addressed these sentiments below:

“The concern about the movie reflects a community putting thought into the media created and designed to be consumed by our children.

“This practice of inspecting genitals is common in dog shows, but there are a lot of other things about dog shows that I’m sure aren’t in the movie. The writer made deliberate choices about what to include and what to leave out. The scenes in question were included to get a cheap laugh, but this is where lack of consideration for their target audience comes in. Consulting with anyone specialising in child development, child psychologists would go a long way. They can spot issues others wouldn’t immediately recognise. Really important issues.

“So we can't say this is a realistic true to life depiction of dog shows, or dogs. They're anthropomorphised dogs. We have assigned human personalities, reactions, feelings, goals and fears. These are talking dogs. These are characters that exist for the children to identify with, to go on a journey with, to overcome obstacles with through this story.

“These dogs are not reacting how a dog would react, they are reacting how a human would react in the same circumstance. This is portrayed for an audience of young children. The statistics say one in five children will be sexually abused in their life so we know that in the audience of children viewing that film, some of those children are abused children. The idea of 'going to a happy place' while enduring unwanted touching is called dissociation. We are not doing children any favours by normalising the idea that people - again, the dogs are humanised - enduring unwanted touching is normal.

“My conclusion is this – it’s not a good thing if some children don't give this a second thought. This shouldn't be normalised and used to get a cheap laugh.”

Response from cinemas

We are pleased to report that several Australian cinemas have responded to community concern over the messages in this film. The film is not being promoted by Cineplex, Village Cinemas, Grand Cinemas, Dendy Cinemas or ACE Cinemas. Majestic Cinemas have confirmed they will not be screening the film, and Deny have told us that at this stage they have no plans to release the film.

The following cinemas have failed to respond to community concerns over the movie, still promoting the film despite being informed as to the issues: Hoyts, Event Cinemas, Palace Cinemas and Wallis Cinemas.

Both Wallis Cinemas and Hoyts have referenced the re-cut, yet neither of them will clarify whether the film is to be re-cut for a second time to remove all scenes where the dog submits to unwanted genital touching, or if they are referring to the initial and unsatisfactory cuts which still included scenes of unwanted genital touching.

Contact your local cinema here, and let us know how you go!

Collective Shout has called on Australian cinemas not to screen the children’s movie Show Dogs over concerns the film grooms children for sexual abuse.

In response to the global outcry from parents and child advocates, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the offending scenes. However, the film has been re-released with only a minor portion of the troubling scenes removed. This is not good enough, so now we’re calling on Australian cinemas to take a stand against child sexual abuse and refuse to screen the film. 

At this stage, the film is being promoted by Hoyts, Event Cinemas, Palace Cinemas and Wallis Cinemas. The film is currently not listed on Cineplex, Village Cinemas, Dendy Cinemas, Grand Cinemas and ACE Cinemas websites.

So far, we’ve had responses from several cinemas. 

Hoyts has claimed the film “has not confirmed its release date for Australia” and that they do not have any information about the film being shown on their screens yet- however, the film is currently being advertised on the ‘Coming Soon’ section of Hoyts’ website with a release date of 5^thJuly.

Dendy responded as follows:

Show Dogs has not been confirmed for any of the Dendy Cinemas sites. We are not planning on showing the film at this stage. 

We need your help.

Help us keep the pressure on, and let these cinemas know you don’t want them to screen Show Dogs.

Contact your local cinema here, and let us know if they respond.

We are writing to you in regards to the children’s film Show Dogs, due for release 5 July. Upon its release in the US, it attracted substantial criticism from parents and child advocates over concerns of “grooming” children for sexual abuse.

The film tells the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a ‘zen place’. When he submits and allows his genitals to be touched, he is rewarded by advancing to the next level of the show.

In response to the global backlash, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the scenes in question. The film has been re-released, however the scenes remain, with only the encouragement to ‘go to a zen place’ (essentially, to dissociate) being removed. The meaning remains intact, that unwanted sexual touching is to be endured and may be rewarded.

*UPDATE: CNN has reported the film will undergo edits to remove the objectionable content!* 

Child advocates have accused new kids film Show Dogs of sending “a troubling message that grooms children for sexual abuse”. The film was released in the US last week, and is not scheduled to be released in Australia until July.  

The film follows the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a ‘zen place’. When he does this, he can advance to the final round of the dog show.  

National Center on Sexual Exploitation has called on distribution company Global Road Entertainment to halt the distribution of Show Dogs in movie theaters and recut the movie:

“The dog is rewarded with advancing to the final round of the dog show after passing this barrier. Disturbingly, these are similar tactics child abusers use when grooming children — telling them to pretend they are somewhere else, and that they will get a reward for withstanding their discomfort.

“Children’s movies must be held to a higher standard, and must teach children bodily autonomy, the ability to say ‘no’ and safety, not confusing messages endorsing unwanted genital touching.”

From News.com.au:

Reviewers, too, have expressed their discomfort over the scenes in question.

Slate writer Ruth Graham called it “unsettling on several levels”.

“First, this is a children’s movie in which the protagonist’s success depends on withstanding a stranger touching his genitals even though it makes him uncomfortable,” she wrote.

“The movie’s solution to Max’s discomfort with the inspection is not to empower him to escape it somehow; it’s to have him learn to checkout mentally while he endures it, and to make no outward sign of his humiliation. It is not paranoid to say that this is a bad message for kids.”

Writer Jenny Rapson echoed those sentiments in a blog post on For Every Mom: “Max’s success is riding on whether or not he lets both his partner (for practice) and a stranger (the competition judge) touch his private parts. IN A KIDS MOVIE. WHAT??? Newsflash, folks: THIS IS CALLED GROOMING and it’s what sexual predators do to kids!”

Writer Terina Maldonado wrote on family film blog Macaroni Kid that “during the movie, I kept thinking, “This is wrong, it doesn’t need to be in a kids movie. Everything else in the movie is good fun except for this.”

In response to the outcry, Global Road Entertainment, co-producers of the film released a statement to CNN:

“The dog show judging in this film is depicted completely accurately as done at shows around the world; and was performed by professional and highly-respected dog show judges,” the statement said in part. “Global Road Entertainment and the filmmakers are saddened and apologise to any parent who feels the scene sends a message other than a comedic moment in the film, with no hidden or ulterior meaning, but respect their right to react to any piece of content.”

One of the writers of the film has spoken out against the scenes in question, claiming that they were written into the script by of the “13 other writers” who worked on the movie.

“[I] didn’t get to see the film until it was in its final stage of completion, and had zero say in creative choices the second I signed away the rights to my work.”

“I absolutely condemn any suggestion or act of non-consensual touching in any form, as well as disassociation as a coping mechanism for abuse of any kind. I understand and empathise with the parents’ and groups’ concerns regarding the message the movie may impart,” he said.

Children’s charity Bravehearts is also calling for a ban on the Australian Classification Board to ban the film:

Bravehearts is responding to reports this children’s film contains multiple scenes where a dog character must have its private parts inspected and manhandled. When the dog feels uncomfortable and wants it to stop is then told to just go to a ‘zen place’ and is later rewarded for his consent by being advanced to the final round of the dog show. This message is not only wrong, but it promotes acceptance of grooming and goes against the very basic principles of child protection.

The charity asked supporters to urgently contact the board at enquiries@classification.gov.au and Senator, The Hon Mitch Fifield at Minister@communications.gov.au.

Cineplex Theatres have already pulled the film:

Be sure to follow our Facebook page for further updates.

***"Trigger warning: child exploitation'' 

Twenty men across Victoria have been arrested over child exploitation offences, with police seizing photos and videos of children and babies being tortured.

Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton told the Herald Sun that each month hundreds of Victorians shared millions of images of child abuse material.

“We know there are links between this type of online activity and contact offending, so it’s important that we target anyone prepared to source this type of material in any way,” he said.

Source: Victoria Police 

Mr Patton said the material showed children, and even newborn infants, in sexually provocative poses and in pain.

Writing in response to the Royal Commission into institutionalised child sexual abuse, Collective Shout co-founder Melinda Tankard Reist said:

There is deep distress in the community that defenceless children are used in such evil ways. But the broader culture that encourages the abuse of the children goes unaddressed. The same loathing that is directed toward child sexual abuse has not been extended to the mainstream promotion of paedophilic fantasies for profit.

Melinda Tankard Reist pointed out that this abuse of children was also driven by a culture that normalises and eroticises child sexual assault. 

We’ve exposed mainstream retailers for their promotion of child sexual abuse. Bookworld was forced to withdraw hundreds of rape and incest titles, many of which portrayed the rape of girls by their fathers as erotic and desirable.

After months of campaigning against Amazon in 2010, they finally delisted ‘The Paedophile’s Guide to Love & Pleasure”, a book written by an actual paedophile endorsing sexual crimes against children. Amazon continues to attract criticism for its sexualised content involving children and babies, including sexy nurse outfits for toddlers.

Australian sex shops sell replica vaginas for men’s use, modelled on the bodies of little girls and promoted as “fresh” and “innocent” with intact hymens. Chemist Warehouse sold the ‘Virgin Palm Pal’ men’s sex toy until we exposed them in 2015.

Major retailers sell sexualised clothing for girls, including padded bras, and advertising features children posed and styled in increasingly adultified ways, inviting us to see them as older than they really are.

Service stations around the country sell ‘barely legal’ style porn magazines featuring girls with braces and pigtails.

As Melinda Tankard Reist concludes,

We are destroying the cultural norms that once taught male adults that children’s bodies are off-limits to sexual use. We cannot fully address child sexual abuse until we reject a culture that glamorises it.

Campaigners and survivors of sex trafficking are celebrating what has been dubbed “the most important anti-trafficking legislation in a generation”.

According to the National Centre on Sexual Exploitation, despite investigations by the U.S. Congress, websites that facilitate sex trafficking have not been held to account. New amendments to the “outdated” law, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) would allow victims of sexual exploitation to pursue legal actions against these websites and aid prosecutors in bringing charges against them.

A still image from the 2017 documentary I am Jane Doe.

As reported in the Washington Post:

The legislation arose as Congress learned that its current anti-trafficking laws could not be applied to websites like Backpage, which host thousands of ads daily for female and male prostitutes, some of which are children being trafficked by adults. Backpage has successfully cited the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from liability for material posted by third parties, to evade both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

Congress launched an investigation into Backpage which showed that its operators helped customers modify their ads to delete references to teenage prostitutes, yet still allowed the ads to run. The Washington Post then reported that Backpage used a company in the Philippines to solicit both prostitutes and johns from other websites, and created new ads for the prostitutes.

In response to the amendments, various major sites have implemented significant changes:

Cityvibe shut down completely, the Erotic Review, the “Yelp of the sex trade” where men rate their experiences with trafficking victims, shut down advertisement boards in the United States, NightShift shut down to review policies, VerifyHim shut down its “newsreel,” Craigslist personals section was shut down, Reddit’s prostitution-related “subreddits” were marked private and the site instituted new policies banning the sale of sex acts and drugs, Google reportedly deleted its publicly shared commercial sex-related advertising, WordPress.com reportedly removed its commercial sex-related advertising sites, Paypal reportedly disabled advertised accounts for commercial sex-related payment, Rubmaps, Erotic Monkey, and USA Sex Guide had extended maintenance periods over the weekend, suggesting upcoming changes due to the new law, Microsoft is issuing new Terms of Service effective May 1st covering all of its platforms, including Skype and Xbox, to urge users not to use the services to share pornography or criminal activity. Read more.

This is a massive victory for survivors of commercial sexual exploitation.

See also:

Watch the trailer for 2017 documentary I am Jane Doe

Backpage’s Sex Ads Are Gone. Child Trafficking? Hardly. New York Times

Despite the advancements made in the battle to bring child sexual abuse to the forefront of public discussion, it seems society still has a long way to go when it comes to reporting on child exploitation with dignity and respect.

Take a moment to think over a recent article you’ve read on child sexual abuse—and now ask yourself, how did they describe the crime? Did the article report on a toddler being raped by an adult, or was it inferred that the offender ‘had sex with’ the child? Was the young trafficking victim reported as a ‘child prostitute,’ or a victim? Did the TV program you watched the other night report that an underage boy was taken advantage of, or that he was really ‘in a relationship’ with his abuser?