« "Desperate Housewives" Redux | Main | It's Ghost Hunting Wednesday!! »

October 11, 2005

Real Creepy - Real Dolls

I see that Jessica at Feministing and Amanda at Pandagon are as weirded out by Real Dolls as I have always been. In case you've been living in a cave, Real Dolls are synthetic, lifesized, anatomically correct, human females. There is one male real doll. They aren't cheap. They cost about $6,000.

A character on Nip/Tuck had a Real Doll made based on her, and she wanted the doll's labia to look "prettier". She had one of the plastic surgeons examine her own vagina and labia to reconstruct the doll. It was a rather bizarre episode, but that entire show was bizarre. I think that episode of Nip/Tuck helped to bring more attention to Real Dolls.

I have always been suspicious of the type of men who would buy a Real Doll. These dolls aren't cheap. I always figured that a man who could not accept a real woman with her own needs, her own personality, and her own desires would want to masturbate with a lifesized piece of plastic. Some have tried to compare men who own Real Dolls to women who use vibrators. There is no comparison. Women don't have pretend relationships with their vibrators. They don't call them by made-up names or refer to them as "he". They don't cuddle with their vibrators. They don't buy other vibrators to keep their main vibrator company. They don't call their vibrator "my boyfriend". That's what owners of Real Dolls do.

Real Dolls don't talk back. Real Dolls never get sick or upset. Real Dolls never have their own needs that they'd like to have met. Real Dolls don't want to be treated like decent human beings. I learned I wasn't too far off the mark. Amanda and Jessica link to a Salon article about Real Dolls. Some of the interviews made my hair stand on end. Here are some samples:

When Davecat was a child in a department store, his mother emerged from a dressing room to find him talking to a mannequin who was wearing a short tennis skirt. "I was trying to chat her up," he says. "I remember the beauty of her stillness." With Sidore [his Real Doll], he's gotten past just chatting: "I like having her in bed beside me, holding her, cuddling her," he tells me. "I like to sleep with my doll. I'll be blunt: She's a girlfriend."

---

While Ginger has shared [Gordon Griggs'] bed every night since she arrived in 2000, her pal Kelly sleeps on a beanbag chair. "I ordered Kelly so Ginger would have someone to keep her company while I was at work. Kelly has a neck bolt so I can stand her up in the shower so she is easier to clean. But Ginger is still my favorite. It's ok, Kelly understands," he writes.

When I ask Griggs how having Ginger and Kelly has affected his life -- if perhaps he feels more confident -- he writes, "I don't like being around people at all now ... the less human contact I have the happier I am. Yes, I do feel more confident. I realized not long after I got Ginger that I don't really need anybody ... I feel safer and more secure knowing that I will never waste my time and money on another human female that just wants to use me." He adds, "I don't have a lot of human friends and only 2 of them have seen Ginger and Kelly, and none of them or anyone else have or will ever lay a hand on them while I am living."

Davecat says she's a girlfriend? I don't think so.

This part of the article really made me squirm. Slade Fiero repairs Real Dolls He sculpted Charlie, the only male Real Doll. He's mentioned how some of them had been mutilated.

Some of Fiero's stories are the stuff of horror films. He once got an e-mail from two garbage collectors who found a Real Doll hacked to pieces in a dumpster. One owner sent Fiero a mutilated corpse of a doll. "The jaw in the doll was still in her skull, but behind her neck. Her hands were ripped off and fingers were missing. Her left breast was hanging on by a thread of skin, like your bra strap," he tells me, gesturing at my shoulder.

Another time, an Asian undergraduate student at a university in California dropped his 1-year-old doll off for repairs. Fiero says the young man told him that his parents bought him the doll so that he would stay at home and study rather than go out chasing women. Fiero's photographs of the damaged doll make me cringe: Her leg was torn off, revealing the steel hardware of her hip joints; an arm hung by an inch of silicone flesh; two fingers were severed; and the cleavage between her buttocks was torn into a ragged crevasse.

"Her vagina was so blown out," Fiero told me. "I was appalled. I couldn't believe someone could fuck something like that up so quickly. It blew me away. How could somebody be so callous?

"I was offended in so many ways," he continues. "He put her feet behind her head and reamed that doll with whatever cock he's got. He fucked her violently. She was achieving positions she shouldn't achieve or be forced to try. Her vagina and anus were a giant gaping hole."

Fiero says he'll never again make repairs for the student, who he now refers to as JTR -- Jack the Ripper.

Matt McMullen, who makes Real Dolls, said that he gets lots of requests for child Real Dolls. That's just sick. Thank God he won't make them.

I have to agree with Amanda that, while some of the talk was downright scary, I think a lot of the guys who buy Real Dolls are lonely. That's the price of patriarchy - in Amanda's words, "they've bought into the cultural lie that they are entitled to relationships with women that are perfectly compliant and have no needs of their own and since they have expectations that are impossible to meet, they are, well, pretty screwed up."

I have written about Real Dolls before on this blog. This is what I wrote the last time. Here's the original link. You should go to that post to read links I've included that I've left out of the copy here.

Most reading my blog either don't know or completely forgot that I had written about Real Doll a few months ago. These are life-sized adult sex toys that don't look one bit like Blow-Up Betty. They look very real. If Leigh Ann (Flea at One Good Thing) had one of these dressed in a business suit sitting next to her table at that Women's Fair, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference that the sucking-on-a-lemon organizers made her cover the sex toys on the table with a cloth. The curious would have flocked, peeked, purchased sex toys, and paid for her trade show participation fee a thousand times over.

I thought the dolls pictured on the web site were quite impressive, but they left me feeling very uneasy. They looked human but something was seriously off. Their expressions look completely devoid of human emotion. For that very reason, I have never liked Barbie dolls, especially the first Barbies on the market, the ones with the remote, high fashion model expressions. They scared the hell out of me. When I was a kid, I had imagined dozens of them jumping down from their shelves at my cousin's house (she must have owned every Barbie in existence), arms outstretched, faces in that permanent Botox freeze, chasing me on their little stick legs with knees that don't bend. Imagine a prettier Zuni fetish doll from that infamous Trilogy of Terror segment and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

Dave Bryant described this phenomenon in his article about The Uncanny Valley, a term coined by Japanese roboticist Dr. Masahiro Mori. Bryant describes the valley as representing "the point at which a person observing the creature or object in question sees something that is nearly human, but just enough off-kilter to seem eerie or disquieting." The graph upon where human and human-like creatures sit first rises to a peak where the individual sees something human enough to arouse empathy, like a beloved baby doll. From there, the peak drops below a center line, into the valley. This is where the stuff of nightmares reside: zombies, corpses, prosthetic hands, and - for me - Barbie. The graph then rises out of the Uncanny Valley and moves above the center line, where all human beings reside.

Dr. Mori believed that movement contributed more to the feeling of unease and being "not quite right" more so than appearance, which would explain the creepy-crawly feelings I used to get over imagining Barbie, with her lack of elbow and knee joints, attempting to walk, run, or grab.

So when I read Grant Stoddard's article in Nerve about his experience with a Real Doll, my worst fears about the lack of humanity in these dolls was confirmed when I reached the following paragraph about his visit to the company that manufacturs the little terrors:

I asked the receptionist for the bathroom, and he pointed me down a long, dark corridor. Halfway there, I noticed a door was ajar and poked my head in. What I saw gave me a jolt. Dozens of Real Dolls were hanging from the walls by metal hooks in the back of their necks. They stared blankly at each other and at me, their mouths agape. It looked like a mass lynching at the Playboy Mansion.

I wandered around the room, mindful of the prominent "Do Not Touch" signage. This was my first face-to-face encounter with Real Dolls, and I was taken aback by how realistic they seemed. All the major races and pubic hair options were represented. I walked back to the reception area.

Real Doll, obviously, cannot move unless you move her yourself. Her expression - well, there really isn't one. She is dehumanized, all the while looking and supposedly feeling very human. And men get to fuck her.

The whole idea makes my skin crawl.

If you want to read a story that will remind you of Real Dolls, and get very creeped out in the process, read Wish Girls, at Fishnet.org. Fishnet is an erotica story web site. Just to warn you, the story is porn, but it is very well written. I sounds like science fiction. The main character and his relationship with the "Wish Girls" will remind some of Real Dolls.

Here is the opening of the story.

Max opened his bedroom door, and there they were, his wish girls, sitting primly on the bed with their legs crossed, looking up at him through lowered lashes. Allison (the blonde) and Stephanie (the brunette), wearing the modified cheerleader outfits that made him cringe with inward embarrassment now whenever he saw them. The wish girls were fresh and perky and eager as always. "Hi girls," he said, tossing his coat onto the chair and dropping his bag. He'd had a hard day at the bookstore, and more than anything he wanted someone to listen to his troubles and make him dinner, but those were two things his wish girls wouldn't do, couldn't do, hadn't been made to do, so he'd have to be satisfied with the services they did offer.

Stephanie and Allison were seventeen years old, and had been for the past fifteen years, never changing. They wore yellow-and-red uniforms which resembled the ones worn by cheerleaders at Max's old high school, but altered to titillate the perpetually-aroused fourteen-year-old he'd been when he wished them into existence. The tops of the outfits were tight and thin and clinging, and Allison and Stephanie's ever-erect nipples stuck through visibly. There was a round keyhole cutout in each bodice, revealing the full sideswells of their firm high breasts, and the skirts were so short they hardly qualified as garments. The wish girls wore no panties, and even with their legs demurely crossed he could see the curling of their pubic hairs, blonde and black. They wore knee socks over their smooth, lithe legs, and Max felt a bit like a dirty old man for admiring them. The wish girls had been older than him when they first appeared, but they hadn’t aged as he did.

Read the whole thing. It's very good.

Posted on October 11, 2005 at 09:29 PM | Permalink

Comments

You know...I'm not all that sure what the fuss is about here. Women have been using sex toys since the dawn of civilization. And most of them look way WAY bizzare. Remember the early 20th century implements that were made from polished brass? YOIKS!

But sex toys for women were clearly invented to make up for the short comings (HA HA HAAA, get it? "SHORT" "CUMMINGS?!"...aaaah, nobody gets me) of men. Well, what goes around, cums (hee-hee) around. The most bizzare of the bunch is the motorized (no, not vibrating but MOTORIZED) version of a pleasure machine for women who like it rough. You put a dildo on the end of the working piston of this machine and hold still while it does all the-in-and-out for you. It has an almost industrial look. Shit, I was looking for a ripcord on this sucker.

Whover came up with this Real Doll idea clearly catered to men, although there is a real doll for women too, just not that much of a selection. But the same premise that held for women, holds for men.

There was also the female robot created by a japanese inventor which looks like a real doll, but walks, talks and moves. A few years from now, if one were so inclined to get the two inventors together, imagine what a real doll could be programmed to do...mmmmmm!

I think it goes to the ingenuity of men actually. If we're gonna make a sex toy for ourselves, then by-gum we're gonna make the best damn sex toy around. With the union stamp to boot goddammit. If it, and modern-day women's insensitive attitudes toward men these days, happen to make you girls obsolete...oh well...viva la technology!

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 12, 2005 12:06:19 AM

Masculiste: as many people, both women and men, have already pointed out, women who use sex toys don't pretend that these toys are their "boyfriends" or that they're having any sort of meaningful relationship with them. They generally use them as masturbatory aids, not substitutes for sex with a partner, and they usually don't consider them *superior* to real, human contact.

These men are obviously full of hatred for women, and so averse to the idea of dealing with a living, breathing human with thoughts, desires and will of her own, that they are locking themselves into a sick fantasy world, where inanimate mannequins are "better" than real, live women.

If I met a woman who went on like that about her freaking vibrator, I'd be scared of her, too.

And, btw, did you not notice the parts where these dolls were being mutilated in very frightening ways? I'm sure a lot of people think that if these guys are ripping up dolls, well, who cares, it's probably a good thing that they're letting out their aggression on something inanimate. But I'm not so sure that they won't eventually move on to venting their rage on real women.

And even if my fears don't pan out, that level of obvious hatred towards women's bodies is disturbing enough.

These aren't merely guys who are looking for ways to get themselves off when they're between partners, these are seriously sick people.

Posted by: Crys T at Oct 12, 2005 6:48:32 AM

do these dolls cook?

Posted by: steve at Oct 12, 2005 7:20:02 AM

"These men are obviously full of hatred for women, and so averse to the idea of dealing with a living, breathing human with thoughts, desires and will of her own, that they are locking themselves into a sick fantasy world, where inanimate mannequins are "better" than real, live women."

No they're not. And let's not even go there. If people think it's creepy, fine, but let's not 'project' a pathology here where one doesn't neccessarily exist.

These are guys who simply can't get laid or worse can't find a partner. Maybe they're simply not emotionally equipted to handle a relationship. Like my late cousin who was permanently disabled as a result of a work-related accident. No woman wanted to get close to him. His loneliness drove him to suicide. There ARE such men. Deformed or disabled men, or severely lacking in the equipment department. There are certainly men who would be better served to get some counselling, but that is NOT to say that these are women haters. Besides, woman haters would beat the thing to a pulp, destroy or otherwise damage the thing. Who's going to destroy something that costs $6,500. or more?

And HEY, let's not forget the women who own them. Lesbians, or young women exploring their sexuality to determine if they may be lesbian. What's so wrong with that?

When I first moved to Chicago, one of my neighbors owned a Real Doll. His girlfriend and him used to have 3-ways with it. Women LOVE them when they get a close-up look at one at get-togethers. They ALWAYS feel it up and probe it, and they ALWAYS get turned on.

Everytime I visited them, they had it dressed in a different outfit. It was an asian version so sometimes it was a geisha, sometimes a school girl, a punk rocker, a housewife, and yeah Steve, sometimes as a chef. Hell, they even put work clothes, a hard hat and a toolbelt on the damn thing.

The point is that it's nothing more than a more pleasant looking mastubatory device. Nothing more. And it says no more about the owner than it says about a woman who keeps her closets full with sex toys of every imaginable size, shape, or variation. We're living in the 21st century people. Sooner or later someone was bound to come up with a better jack-off machine.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 12, 2005 9:10:27 AM

As an ammendment, certainly the guys described above sound like sickos.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 12, 2005 9:15:19 AM

I had three reactions to that Salon Article.

1. If you are going to reference a rock song in the title of this sort of article, clearly the appropriate one is "Fantastic Plastic Lover" by Jefferson Airplane.

2. It's also clear that that the author of that article saw these men as creepy as hell, but equally clear that she did not want to come out and say "These guys are creepy as hell."

3. These guys are creepy as hell.

Posted by: Bryant at Oct 12, 2005 9:25:59 AM

Michael: "There was also the female robot created by a japanese inventor which looks like a real doll, but walks, talks and moves."

Actriod! I wrote about it. Here's the link. I even included a picture.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 12, 2005 11:11:02 AM

/rolls eyes/ Suuuuure, Masculiste: guys who go on about how lifeless hunks of plastic are better than real, breathing women, not to mention those who--as described in detail in the article--engaged in pretty disturbing mutilations of the dolls, are IN NO WAY woman-hating. Please, what rubbish.

"Besides, woman haters would beat the thing to a pulp, destroy or otherwise damage the thing. Who's going to destroy something that costs $6,500. or more?"

Err...some of them HAVE done exactly that. In, as I said, pretty disturbing ways. Read the full articles for the details.

"let's not forget the women who own them. Lesbians, or young women exploring their sexuality to determine if they may be lesbian. What's so wrong with that?"

There may be a small number of women who own them, but....come on, we are talking TINY numbers here. And quite frankly any woman, lesbian or straight, who lays down that much cash on a doll rather than try to make contact with another human being probably has some serious issues, as well. But once again, let's not get into the game of pretending there are masses of women out there buying these things. We all know, and I'm sure the company that makes them would be happy to confirm this for you, that nearly all the buyers are MEN. Why the hell do you think that while there are tons of different female models of doll, there are only one or two male versions? And who's to say that it's even all women buying the male dolls?

"Women LOVE them when they get a close-up look at one at get-togethers. They ALWAYS feel it up and probe it, and they ALWAYS get turned on."

My rosy-pink ARSE. You are saying "ALWAYS" based on, what?, a couple of encounters with what is a TINY number of women, who in NO WAY could ever be considered representative of women in general. You haven't conducted some sort of full-scale survey with a random sample of the female population.

"The point is that it's nothing more than a more pleasant looking mastubatory device. Nothing more."

I refer you again to the full article, in which a psychologist disagrees with your above statement in no uncertain terms: 'Tucker dismissed the notion that Real Dolls are no different than women's dildos or vibrators because lifelike dolls, unlike vibrators, are simulated humans -- they have what he called "pull." "All of the stimuli are telling you it's human," he says.'

And notice there: Tucker is a "he", so please remember that when responding, ok?


Posted by: Crys T at Oct 12, 2005 1:34:35 PM

Crys T: "There may be a small number of women who own them, but....come on, we are talking TINY numbers here."

The article said that while there were a few women who bought Real Dolls, the vast majority were men. I don't know who buys the male doll. I suspect that would appeal to gay men, not straight women. That's just my opinion. I don't have anything to back it up.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 12, 2005 1:59:25 PM

"I refer you again to the full article, in which a psychologist disagrees with your above statement in no uncertain terms: 'Tucker dismissed the notion that Real Dolls are no different than women's dildos or vibrators because lifelike dolls, unlike vibrators, are simulated humans -- they have what he called "pull." "All of the stimuli are telling you it's human," he says.'"

My fat olive colored ass! Are there nuts who are going to take out their twisted fantasies out on these things? Sure just like they do during the act of sex with an actual woman! Are there young adults who are going to twist and dissect these things to fulfill their prepubuscent lust? Absolutely.

But show me a study, show me stats, show me empirical evidence... Again, no dice.

Is this a weird story about weird shit? Absolutely. But don't project your disgust over an entire population. Do you have ANY experience with owners of Real Dolls? Hell no! If you did, you would've cited it by now. I have. And I've never met a women or man who saw one or touched one who wasn't turned on by one. Does it get the user off? Sure, for whatever reason, it does. THAT'S the attraction.

Dildos don't talk, they don't hug, they don't complain...they simulate the size and the shape of a penis. Women who use them don't care for any contact beyond that. Men who use Real Dolls may require more and can't get it from the real thing. But it's a momentary mastubatory act that physically fulfills more to the male user than a dildo does to a female user. But the principle is precisely the same.

This Tucker guy is ONE psychologist. Leave us not forget, psychologists are NOT doctors. He certainly does not represent the entire psychological or psychiatric field. And to date...I've heard of absolutely NO studies that have ever delved into the pathology of sex toys and the people who use them.

Be sickened if the topic sickens you. I can understand that. Orgies and daisy chains sicken me. But just because I'm sickened doesn't neccessarily make those things sickening.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 12, 2005 7:29:26 PM

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Masculiste's conclusions, I do think that it's unfair
unfair to attribute some pathology to guys who purchase these things. It doesn't appeal to me, but there are many lonely men out there who may have decided that this is the only possible sexual, and yes emotional, companionship that they can possibly have. It's as least as likely that these men have abandoned hope for a real relationship, which is sad and pathetic and unfortunate, as that they have some sort of psychpathology.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at Oct 12, 2005 10:47:53 PM

"But show me a study, show me stats, show me empirical evidence... Again, no dice."

Though of course you can swan about claiming that ALL women get waaaay hot just looking at Real Dolls and that's just a-okay. Some of the very guys interviewed in the article were backing up the points Tucker made!

"Dildos don't talk, they don't hug, they don't complain...they simulate the size and the shape of a penis. Women who use them don't care for any contact beyond that. Men who use Real Dolls may require more and can't get it from the real thing. But it's a momentary mastubatory act that physically fulfills more to the male user than a dildo does to a female user. But the principle is precisely the same."

Wrong. One principle involves masturbating to orgasm. The other, as you yourself say, involves "requiring more". If there's "more" required, by very definition it is NOT the same. And, again, read the damn article. Some of the guys interviewed make it QUITE clear that this is IN NO WAY about "momentary masturbatory acts" but full-on substitutes for interaction with real human beings. Women do not, except in jest, claim to have "relationships" with their sex toys. The guys who are buying these dolls do. The principle is IN NO WAY the same.

There may be some men who use the dolls just to jack off with, but we're not talking about them: we're talking about those ones who, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, use the dolls as "companions", not sex toys.

And, let's be totally honest here: if all a guy wants is something to jack off with, there are far, far cheaper and easier alternatives for him. Laying down that sort of cash on a mere sex toy seems dodgy to start with.

Show me a woman who isn't seriously fucked up who has spend $6,500 on a vibrator and you might have a point about there being an equivalance.

Alexander, shutting yourself completely off from real human contact out of fear or despair is indicative of some sort of mental illness. I don't say we shouldn't have compassion for people who do so, and I'm not saying they shouldn't have help made available to them. But I don't see how pretending that there's nothing wrong with them serves anyone, especially them.

Posted by: at Oct 13, 2005 11:43:08 AM

Wow. Where to begin? Well, first of all, I don't think this is an issue of "sex toys". Some guys spend spare cash on bass boats or Harleys; if some guys want to spend $6500 on some artificial pussy, I'd say it's their business. A little freak-ay? Yep. But pretty much harmless.

But when it comes to naming the damn thing, and holding conversations with it....whoa, Nelly....I'd say by that time the individual has gone beyond just a little kinky. And Davecat going on about how women have done him wrong, so from now on he's sticking to his RealDoll, well yeah---I think that's crazy. I mean, I've had some real shit-for-luck when it comes to relationships, but I still can't imagine blaming the entire male gender---practically half the human race---for the actions of a few individuals.

And I can't help but think that the real issue these guys have is control. It's not that they can't attract a woman; it's that when they do she always turns out to have her own pesky ideas, thoughts, actions----life! She farts in bed. She picks her teeth at the breakfast table. She isn't available 24-7, because she has other obligations in life than her boyfriend. Maybe she even *gasp! perish the thought!* voted Republican in the last election. But not RealDoll. She'll always "speak" the way Davecat wants her to, look the way Davecat wants her to, "cook" the way Davecat wants her to....

Point being, that actual relationships are messy. Actual people are messy! You have to actually communicate with real people, which can be difficult at times, because real people bring their own pasts and their own minds with them. That's why I find the "iDollators" creepy. It's not just a "better jack off machine" to them; it's companionship. With an inanimate object. Combined with a hostility toward real, live people.

And I'd feel the same way about some woman who bought a RealDude, gave "him" a name, "talked" to him, and went on and on about how perfect "he" was, and how shitty real men are.

Posted by: La Lubu at Oct 13, 2005 1:54:15 PM

One thing about this blog...it's always an education. LOL

I had never heard of these dolls. Clearly my life in the Pacific Northwest has sheltered me away from some creepy-ass stuff.

Yikes.

Posted by: carla at Oct 13, 2005 9:04:44 PM

Live and let live? Although, thousands of dollars for a plastic wank... I dunno. And mutilating the things is way scary.

Still, as long as they're hurting no one, I don't see how it's anyone else's business.

Posted by: Sigmund at Oct 13, 2005 11:09:50 PM

Whatever happened to boyfriend pillows, or the inflateable male companion torsos that one could put in the front passenger seat of the car?


Posted by: CaptDMO at Oct 16, 2005 10:26:23 AM

I've read about "boyfriend pillows" and "boyfriend torsos" on the Internet, but have never actually seen one in real life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "boyfriend torso" supposed to be some kind of carjacking deterrent---the bad guys were supposed to see a "male" body in the car, and pass that one by in order to find an unaccompanied female?

But yeah, both of those items give me the creeps, too. Weird, weird weird. And any woman who would say, pour a second cup of coffee for her boyfriend torso while chatting about her hard day at work, would be right up there with Davecat on the "getthefuckouttahere" scale.

Posted by: La Lubu at Oct 16, 2005 1:09:56 PM

"Whatever happened to boyfriend pillows, or the inflateable male companion torsos that one could put in the front passenger seat of the car?

Those were not for purposes of sex...The inflatable torsos for instance were used in places like California to be able to drive in the carpolling lane w/o actually having another passesenger.

AND there is a big difference in a pillow versus a full-blown human-shaped woman doll that one takes in the shower or other places for sex...

The whole male attraction to these dolls is quite creepy...probably similar to what men did with sheep...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 16, 2005 1:40:23 PM

I remember "boyfriend torsos", but I have never heard them called by that name before. Yes, they were meant to deter carjackers and the like. I remember reading that those things were used by people who wanted to drive in the carpool lane, as NYMOM said. I don't think they were around for long. Another fad that didn't last.

I wasn't surprised that Real Dolls were included in the plot of a "Nip/Tuck" episode. That show is weird, weird, weird, but fun to watch in a train wreck sort of way.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 16, 2005 3:26:00 PM

Howard Stern had one in his office for nearly a decade before Nip/Tuck went for it.

What irritates me the most is that Nerve magazine is both treated like a legitimate Alter.net affiliate andis even hotlinked incessantly by feminists these days. Nerve is every bit as much patriarchy as George W.

Posted by: Rich at Oct 16, 2005 3:33:39 PM

Oh, please. A Real Doll is just a Real Expensive Form of Masturbation. I don't own one,
but I think I can understand the appeal... Sexual release without the headache and
heartache of a real relationship... sounds good to me. Meaningful relationships are not
for the unhardy... ask anyone who has had or is in one. It ain't easy. Real Dolls are
like oil changes... they're messy, but need to be done.

Posted by: HeadlessHorseman at Oct 18, 2005 2:17:15 PM

I can't believe I'm defending these people, specifically the violent ones, but:
1) Perhaps they more than anyone else mentioned are clear on the fact that the dolls are just that and not people. If I'm having sex with a person (which thus far has been 100% of my sexual experience) I'm not going to be overly violent, twist or bend her into impossible or even unlikely positions, or mutilate her; if I wanted to have the kind of sex where I could do that, or even where I didn't have to care whether I did that or not, a piece of plastic would be ideal. Conversely, if I'm having sex "with" (to? at? in?) a RealDoll, I am, indeed, not going to care how it affects "her."
2) If this is these peoples' sexual fantasy -- if they get off on violent mutilation -- it is orders of magnitude better that they get dolls for that purpose, and stay far the hell away from real women.

Also, Masculiste: 3-ways are different, somehow, and not just because it's harder for a man (well, me) to talk a woman into having sex with me and my girlfriend than just with me. At that point I think it is reasonably similar to a vibrator, aside from the "pull."

Posted by: Hershele Ostropoler at Oct 19, 2005 8:40:39 AM

"Also, Masculiste: 3-ways are different, somehow, and not just because it's harder for a man (well, me) to talk a woman into having sex with me and my girlfriend than just with me. At that point I think it is reasonably similar to a vibrator, aside from the "pull."


I hate to point out the obvious here but it's pretty impossible to have a 3-way with two women if ONE is a doll...

It should be clear to even the least imaginative amongst us why a 3-way with a doll and two men is possible and the opposite just wouldn't work...

Let's all just think about why for a moment here...

This idea coming from Masculiste who CLAIMS to want to be married and have more children someday does NOTHING to help in that area...

Actually it paints a rather sad picture of him, one not at all attractive to women he might be seeking to have a serious relationship with...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 19, 2005 9:40:53 AM

"Real Dolls are like oil changes... they're messy, but need to be done."

This sort of thinking said so much more about men then women and guess what, none of it good.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 19, 2005 9:43:10 AM

Actually, on reflection, I can't envision how an interaction involving me and a woman and a doll would be different from one involving me and a woman who was willing to touch it in addition to intercourse.

Posted by: Hershele Ostropoler at Oct 19, 2005 10:40:49 AM

I wandered here from the Carnival of Feminists. Something occurred to me after the initial frenzy of discussion about this article that happened on several blogs.

What is the difference between someone having an invisible 'friend' that they have breakfast with, etc. and someone having a plastic physical representation of that 'friend'?

If some woman had an imaginary poolboy/rockstar/power politician 'boyfriend' that she watched tv with or played video games, that would be considered creepy and odd. If a man had an imaginary cheerleader/pron star/supermodel 'girlfriend' that he watched tv with or played video games with, that would be considered creepy and odd. Why should the fact that there is a very expensive piece of plastic representing the imaginary friend change it into being something less creepy and odd?

Posted by: redbraidy at Oct 19, 2005 2:23:56 PM

I don't think these dolls are creepy in and of themselves, and I see a lot of negative projection going on towards anyone who would own one. To me, it seems like the original article was aiming to be about creeping people out with this particular wacky subculture of Real Doll users, and boy isn't it interesting and novel, lets have fun feeling superior to all these sad freaks. Now, if you want to take the people profiled in the article, yeah, one would have to agree that there is some unhealthy stuff going on, but I strongly suspect the people profiled were choosen because of the "creepiness" factor they had, and the boring ones were passed over, or not posting on internet forums about thier sex toys.

Why is it that if a man does not want or can't have a relationship with a real woman, he must hate them? Maybe he simply doesn't want the bother, because he doesn't think it is worth the effort? Maybe he is terminally shy or has some kind of inferiority thing going on? It seems there are options other than automatically assuming some kind of sick, twisted, evil hatred.

The key for me is the part where you list off a bunch of negative "creepy" stuff and then just say "That's what owners of Real Dolls do." Hmm, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. I mean, the article shows that there are individuals that do at least one of the "creepy" things you mention, but you paint it as if this just sums up each and every one of the freaks.

Do people use sex toys? Well, obviously. Has anyone ever been lonely and curled up with a pillow or blankets as if it were somebody to be with? Well, I will admit to it at least. Don't know if that makes me creepy... As far as buying more than one Real Doll, hmm, well, it would be expensive (and would this be less creepy if it cost less?)... At that point it starts to seem like guys playing fantasy doll games, but with less tea parties than the stereotypical 5 year old gal with her dolls. They say you are supposed to grow out of that... Maybe you can name Aibo, your little Sony robot dog, and think he does cute tricks, or play with your cute little Nintendog, or play some D&D or Vampire: The Masquerade/Requiem. Not to say the latter examples are exactly equivilant to the former, but I think they help take some of the edge off this initial assumption of freakishness. Is it that combining all of these things into 1 device that makes it so bad/wrong?

So, yeah, I can see that there is clearly creepiness out there, but I think it is a little too harsh to paint every Real Doll owner as some kind of sick or bad guy out of hand.

Posted by: VividLife at Oct 21, 2005 12:46:47 AM

Uh, vividlife, did you read anything at all? Try it sometime. What's creeping everybody out is the fact that a lot of these guys prefer a hunk of woman-shaped plastic to a real woman, which gives a really good idea of what they want in a woman: a hole.

Also, a longer version of the Salon article shows it's not a case where both men and women buy the dolls. They've sold eight male dolls to some 3,000 female dolls. Some of those male dolls were sold to gay guys.

We'll just listen to you speculate as to the bad motives of the Salon writer and speculate as to the harmless motives of the RD owners while you comment on our 'projections.' Yeah, try examining your own projections first.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 21, 2005 11:01:54 AM

Ginmar,

Please, with the shallow barbed sarcasm... Yes, I do read, though I know you are just rhetorically insulting me.

I have no problem if people are creeped out. My point was that clearly in the main article we are all commenting on, the Countess (this is the only article I've read here) lists off a bunch of creepy stuff and just says "That's what owners of Real Dolls do." Can't you see how prejudicial that is? Can't you see that it is an automatic assumption of the worst of these people? To just say that they must all hate women. It's about on par with saying lesbians hate or resent men.

Now, I'm not saying that the Salon writers had evil intentions or anything, I just think that the writer stumbled on an interesting subculture and tried to write an entertaingly weird aricle about it. It has vibe like some reporter reporting on the early punk rock scene or something, and they focus on the weird hair, piercing, tattos, and the guy who lives in a box and smashed windows, and the kids are absolutely crazy, this is so different from our experiences as normal americans, etc. All along, the overwhelming majority are just regular misunderstood kids, or whatever.

Also, in my post, by no means do I say that all Real Doll owners are healthy folks being persecuted, or anything wacky along those lines. At least twice I mention that some behaviors seem a little off, and agree with the Countess that the people in the Salon article are a messed up a bit, to various degrees. I'm sure there are Real Doll owners that fit every creepy and bad thing we have seen said. Some that hate or resent women, with some messed up repressed lonliness, etc. What I disagree with is that we would take this article and use it as our sole evidence to trash everyone who owns a Real Doll. Not Fair. Not Nice.

In your 2nd paragraph you mention that it is not the case that both men and women buy the dolls. I will accept that. I never made any claims about women wanting the dolls or anything along those lines. Then, that some of these guys prefer a Real Doll to a real woman can say a lot of things. It just doesn't say one thing: "These guys are just shallow sickos who want a warm hole". They could be messed up and suffering in other ways that I think deserve a little more compassion than what I've seen displayed here. Even if some guy does just want some woman shaped warm hole to plug, I don't see why that is so reprehensible if he is using a doll to do it.

What would be really creepy is if he was cruising clubs, bars or laundromats emotionally manipulating women, setting up false pretenses so he can get laid and leave the woman behind, maybe with a child or disease, off to his next conquest. Turns out that is a lot more common than guys with Real Dolls though.

Posted by: VividLife at Oct 21, 2005 6:40:08 PM

"What would be really creepy is if he was cruising clubs, bars or laundromats emotionally manipulating women, setting up false pretenses so he can get laid and leave the woman behind, maybe with a child or disease, off to his next conquest. Turns out that is a lot more common than guys with Real Dolls though."

Well you're right, of course. The Real Doll is a better alternative then the scenario you just painted.

Actually looking at it from that perspective now, I think we should just start giving the darn dolls away to men for free...


Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 21, 2005 8:21:53 PM

NYMOM said-"This idea coming from Masculiste who CLAIMS to want to be married and have more children someday does NOTHING to help in that area...

Actually it paints a rather sad picture of him, one not at all attractive to women he might be seeking to have a serious relationship with..."

Oh please...

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 21, 2005 9:26:35 PM

"Oh please"

Well I can tell you right now as I work around a lot of young people that the LAST thing a girl wants to know is that a guy she's interested in is keeping one of these 'real dolls' laying around in the bedroom or the shower or something...

TOTAL TURNOFF...

When I was seriously dating, I would have run out the door at the first sign of it.

I can see having a dog or a cat if you're lonely, spenting time on the internet or in dating services, even a few Playboy magazines...

I can NOT see a real doll hanging around the shower as a normal response to this and most women I think would be extremely wary of any man who thought otherwise...

Like I said before...a totally unattractive picture of you emerges due to this real doll revelation...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 22, 2005 1:58:32 AM

First of all, I don't have a Real Doll, I have girlfriends. Secondly, I don't need an image of you with a Real Doll...an unattractive picture of you has already emerged.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 22, 2005 4:30:27 AM

"First of all, I don't have a Real Doll, I have girlfriends."

Then why did you know so much about them?

Even claiming you had witnessed people using them numerous times and knew many women who were turned on by them.

For someone who doesn't own a real doll, that's a LOT of information on them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 22, 2005 10:14:41 AM

Regarding VividLife's comment about Real Doll owners covered in the Salon article being "messed up a bit", I thought everyone would find it interesting that I know from the Real Dolls web site that artists supposedly have bought them to use as artist's models. So, there is at least one other possible use for a Real Doll. However, I really don't see how a Real Doll could be used as an artist's model First, they have no muscle or skeletal structure, and while they can be posed, they can't sit upright, hold out their arms and legs, or stand. The point of using live models is to draw, sculpt, or paint a real human body. Real Dolls don't have the musculature or skeletal structure that would adequately replicate a human body.

I could see buying one as a novelty, but that would be an expensive novelty.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 22, 2005 12:48:36 PM

"The point of using live models is to draw, sculpt, or paint a real human body. Real Dolls don't have the musculature or skeletal structure that would adequately replicate a human body."

Are they cheaper then real models however? As those real models who pose nude for painting classes, magazines and such get paid quite a bit.

So maybe that will be the wave of the future, with very well made 'real dolls' replacing nude models...


Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 22, 2005 1:42:35 PM

The point is...we're living in the 21st century. What once seemed absurd has become the norm. I look at kids today in the streets of Chicago and I'm appalled, yet as a kid myself, I'm sure I appalled adults during my age. Anybody watch "The 70's Show?" And what were people saying about pot during the 40's?

"Deep Throat" was reprehensible to for it's time, yet it is a classic today. NYMOM, you must remember that famous "51 Club" in New York that people like Truman Capote and Andy Warhol made famous by their mere attendance. What about punk rockers and club kids?

What seems abnormal to us through an antequated set of lenses means nothing to this new generation now. Real Dolls are no different. Leave us not forget...a happily married couple invented them.

A newer car is a better car, a computer controlled house is a better house, H.R. Giger may seem like a flake but his art speaks to a whole new generation. Remember what they said about Monet?

Things change. People and ideas change. Change can be uncomfortable, unpleasant or even painful but we're living in an advanced technological age. Nuclear fission, computers, robotics, cybergenetics, stem cell research, cloning, politics, medicine, religion, etc. etc.

What was once outrageous flights of fancy and science fiction has become science fact. It was just a matter of time before somebody invented a better jack-off machine, novelty, call it what you will.

What seems outrageous to our generation will be nothing more than a passing fancy to the next. What you and I may call deep seated sickness or neurosis is nothing more than new adventure to a younger, more open-minded generation.

Ladies and gentlemen...we are merely getting older and more out of date. And I, for one, intend to keep an open mind.

And NYMOM...coming from you, your petty insults mean precisely zilch to me.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 22, 2005 3:00:25 PM

i wandered over here from the feminist carnival...here's my two cents (or maybe a bit more):

let's not get embroiled in some useless argument over whether *all* owners of Real Dolls are sick freaks; we know they're not. it's equally useless to argue the difference over an Osaki Twister vibrator and a Real Doll - if you're equating them, you're being awfully disingenuous and enough of that. and it's also pointless to wonder about motivations, desires, blah blah blah.

but let's not ignore the fact that what these dolls allow to happen to a human subject is disturbing. for the 'right' type of mind and the 'right' kind of psychology, these dolls that simulate a woman's sex and appearance enable a further disassociation with what we would all call the 'real' world. for the 'right' kind of man, these dolls allow him to take his fantasies of control and domination into an area none of us want to visit. it encourages the 'right' kind of personality to see a woman as more of an object rather than a subject; for the 'right' kind of personality who only sees himself as subject, these dolls confirm the broken fantasy that women are things. once you begin to see women as things, not people, you can justify doing *things* to them because they are just *things.*

those personalities that find it easier to relate to things rather than other human subjects are sad, yes. but we're not talking about the painfully shy or the physically disabled; if we were i'd buy them the fucking doll myself. most of us (women) are skeeved out by that 'special' kind of personality. the dolls in themselves are 'harmless.' but where they allow a person to go sometimes isn't.

Posted by: ding at Oct 22, 2005 3:05:25 PM

"the dolls in themselves are 'harmless.' but where they allow a person to go sometimes isn't."

Now that's logic I can agree with.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 22, 2005 3:22:36 PM

That kind of money for a doll is rediculous. At the age of twelve I had been shown a photo of a blond performing oral sex on a guy. There was no one that I could talk to about the feelings it created. This was the first time I'd been exposed to sexual material. This resulted in a build up of sexual feelings that seemed so overwhelming. While in the toy section of a store, my eyes fell upon a Barbie. Secretly I saved up and purchased it without my family's knowledge. I took the doll and examined it. Without clothing, the body was clearly flawed from head to toe. Therefore, I redressed it. Never would I use one without being dressed. All the time knowing that it was only a toy that could neither reciprocate nor feel, through using it as a tool for masturbation, it solved the problem. The release I felt was unbelieveable. Barbie was the first thing that worked. My parents tore it up without even trying to really find out why I had it in the first place. This caused me to become a collector. The more I bought, the more I became interested in them as to their style. The doll became more than just a sex tool. My view of females were molded by this item. Real women are superior in natural beauty. What is inside is more important than outward appearance. There is no real value in outward beauty without the substance of character and a warm personality. I was not gender confused nor was unable to differentiate between a toy and a real female. Therefore, everytime they destroyed one, I would buy two in its place. The fact was that never did I hate nor desired them above real women. Instead of treating women as sex objects, I treated Barbies in that way. My desire had been to keep my virginity until marriage. Before marriage I had been able to reach that goal. When girls were preasuring me to have sex, the dolls allowed me to release the desires inside without fear of VD or an unwanted pregnancy. I never expected more of my wife than she could give sexually. Privately, I used the doll, if my level of satisfaction had not been met. Instead of looking for it in the arms of another, this toy was sufficient. Though having tried other things, this had always been successfully satisfying. I'd never pay thousands of dollars for any doll like the "Real Doll." My wife is better than that doll in every way.

Posted by: Gene at Oct 29, 2005 11:58:30 AM

RE:
"There may be a small number of women who own them, but....come on, we are talking TINY numbers here. And quite frankly any woman, lesbian or straight, who lays down that much cash on a doll rather than try to make contact with another human being probably has some serious issues, as well. But once again, let's not get into the game of pretending there are masses of women out there buying these things. We all know, and I'm sure the company that makes them would be happy to confirm this for you, that nearly all the buyers are MEN. Why the hell do you think that while there are tons of different female models of doll, there are only one or two male versions? And who's to say that it's even all women buying the male dolls?"

i can tell you for 100% that ALL of the male real dolls are owned by men. Over 3000 female dolls have been sold over 10 years, and over 2 years SIX male dolls have been sold, ALL TO MEN. The PR manager of Abyss creations told me this herself.
Interesting, huh?

Posted by: natalie at Nov 2, 2005 1:37:33 PM

Hersehele: "If this is these peoples' sexual fantasy -- if they get off on violent mutilation -- it is orders of magnitude better that they get dolls for that purpose, and stay far the hell away from real women."

Of course it is better to do creepy things or brutal and violent things to a realistic-looking doll than it is to do them to a real woman. But (1) just managing to be better than a rapist or serial killer is not enough to guarantee that you're not a creep; and (2) I don't know what evidence, if any, you have for the implicit claim that men who indulge in violent or pedophiliac fantasies with RealDolls will substitute that for acting out, or trying to act out, violent or pedophiliac desires on real people. This is a standard argument that you get from porn-liberals and prostitution-liberals, but the number of rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles in the real world who use violent pornography or child pornography to "prime" themselves (and, in the case of pedophiles, often to groom and then control their victims), and the number who begin their careers by using and attacking women in prostitution, ought to at least make you pause before suggesting this kind of substitution theory.

I'd be glad, personally, to make any kind of RealDoll that any man wants for any purpose at all, if I could make it a condition of ownership that the new owner had to go and live on a private island of my choice in the South Pacific, where he could enjoy the RealDoll to the end of his days but would never come into contact with human beings besides his fellow RealDoll Islanders. Barring that, though, I have trouble regarding this as obviously positive.

Vivid: "Why is it that if a man does not want or can't have a relationship with a real woman, he must hate them? Maybe he simply doesn't want the bother, because he doesn't think it is worth the effort?"

Because it suggests that, at best (1) he thinks of his sexuality as a matter of "release" for an undifferentiated appetite, (2) thinks of intimacy with a a real woman as merely "bother" or "effort" that you have to go through in order to get that "release," and (3) that therefore he prefers a lifeless tube for the purposes of "sex" that's hard to differentiate, in any relevant respect, from necrophilia. If a man thinks that way, I'd certainly rather that he do it with a doll than with a real woman (but see above on substitution theories); but that doesn't keep me from thinking that his attitude towards women, and towards sex, is profoundly creepy and anti-woman -- indeed, anti-human.

Posted by: Rad Geek at Nov 4, 2005 11:52:03 AM

"A newer car is a better car, a computer controlled house is a better house, H.R. Giger may seem like a flake but his art speaks to a whole new generation. Remember what they said about Monet?"

You canNOT replace a woman with a Real Doll.

Unless something is wrong with you...so this is not a BETTER way to do things but a more alienated way to do them.

Okay.

It's twisted, sort of like you...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2005 2:34:07 PM

First, a REAL DOLL is not the same as Barbie. Barbie is not a REAL WOMAN. To assume so shows an ignorance of fact which has been substantiated by college professors, lab experiments, and numerous other sources. The internet is full of this information for anybody who will take the time to study it. What about those who have used a shower head, a cucumber, or a massager for sexual stimulation? USE COMMON SENSE!!!! To judge a person on the basis of a toy alone shows an utter lack of discernment. I own various types of toys. I enjoy a collection of of model cars with standard transmissions. In reality I would not want one because of the need of the frequently shifting of gears. I enjoy my collection of diecaste planes. In reality, I have no desire to fly because of a fear of extreme heights. I enjoy my collection of model ships. In reality, I cannot swim. So to assume that because I use Barbie for the same purpose as those previously named items means that I am anti-woman; ant-human; or creepy is plain ludicress. How many of you have mutilated a doll? Females decapitate; cut off all of it's hair; rip off arms or legs; and other violent acts. Do we consider them normal. YES!!! However, a male that does the same is treated with a double standard. Why was the REAL DOLLS mutilated? Did they say it was because of their hatred for women? Assumptions not based upon facts are unfounded and incorrect. My opinion is this. I think that REAL DOLLS blur the line between fantasy and reality because of the anatomical aspect. These are made too much like a living female. A toy is not REAL!!! These are just lifeless manufactured item which are inferior to REAL MEN AND WOMEN. It is quite easy to sit at one's computer and judge others without putting the work in to see if it holds up to fact. I do not know why these individuals have REAL DOLLS or mutilate them. It could be that they just don't care for them any more just like females have done to their own dolls. The only thing I know is that as for me, I would not want one.

Posted by: GENE at Nov 9, 2005 2:13:54 PM

If someone wants to have a Real Doll and treat it as an object that is fine. Let them dress it up, put it in poses, take pictures of it, have sex with it whatever. That type of interaction is not sick it is play, it is just an expensive sex toy or figurine/action figure. No Problem, it is just an object. However, having constant, long term and intimate contact with an object that closely resembles a human, in the abscence of close and intimate contact with people, does not seem wise because it risks becoming delusional. When someone begins to treat or view the Real Doll (or any object) as some type of person it is delusional. Objects do not feel, respond, learn, create or behave in any ways similar to a person. To seriously treat one as a person seemms to imply some sort of significant disconnect with reality (even if the disconnect is only emotional). There is no problem if a person is emotionally attached to their Real Doll as a thing (people are attached to many material posessions), but the moment they become attached to it as a person that enters the realm of pathology. Of course if the Real Doll was a robot (artificial intelligence) that behaved like a person it would not be delusional to treat it as a person and it wouldn't be sick at all (it would probably just be immoral due to concerns related to slavery).

Posted by: Tavi at Dec 4, 2005 8:10:46 PM

If you don't want to buy a $6,000 doll, there are some amazingly realistic vaginas available. They are made of Cyberskin or UR3 realistic skin-like material. Quite amazing.

Posted by: Realistic Vagina at Mar 31, 2006 12:58:04 AM

Come on; just admit that you don’t like these real dolls because you feel they replace women. It's the next step to porn. Porn starts are compliant, they don't nag, you don't have to deal with them after you blow your load, and they appear and disappear at a click of a button (mouse or remote control). Some people are into violent porn, some like anal, some like dressing them up in construction hats... whatever the fetish, these dolls are there to provide. So when someone gets rough with a doll, it's just acting out a fetish that they would normally never be able to do.

“These men are obviously full of hatred for women, and so averse to the idea of dealing with a living, breathing human with thoughts, desires and will of her own, that they are locking themselves into a sick fantasy world, where inanimate mannequins are "better" than real, live women.”

I agree with what you said, except the full of hatred part. That’s just you being bitter about feeling replaced. Like I said, similar to porn, these dolls do the job with out the nagging or high maintenance (although I’d imagine these dolls get pretty gross after a while).

My advice, quit being such a nag. Live and let live. If someone wants a doll like this it's their prerogative. I'm sure they have their reasons and no one has the right to judge no matter how creepy it may seem. No harm is being done except to the bank account. When I first heard of these things I thought to my self "what the hell?? It’s like doing it with a corpse!” But hey, maybe some people like that. How ever nutty the fetish, it’s better for it to be done with a doll than in real life, in my opinion. And no, just because they do it with a doll doesn’t mean they will one day do it in real life. That’s like saying if someone plays one of those first person shooter games, or participates in a paint ball war, they really want to go out and shoot someone. Of course there are some sickos out there, but that’s true whether real dolls exist or not.

Posted by: rif at Apr 15, 2006 11:39:25 AM

Then I suppose you also do not agree at all when people said porn creates false interpretations and delusions of real women...
But you definately hit the right chord there, these dolls are kinda like porn. Fake and delusive...

Posted by: Jenn at Apr 26, 2006 4:45:00 AM

Of course this doll stuff is insane. The author would have us believe that the easy answer is that male patriarchy is the reason these lunatics screw latex dolls. Its not just alot of men that are screwed up. Alot of women are screwed up as well. Feminists can't decide whether they are victims or innocents standing by watching men go crazy, when in fact, the whole society is going crazy--men and women.

I'm not married. A single highly successful professional man. When my women friends see my home and learn about me, they always ask, "Why aren't you in a relationship?" The answer has nothing to do with patriarchy or misogyny anything of that sort.

The answer is that we live in a highly mobile world and its hard to get to know anyone for any length of time--to really know them, not just have a cocktail or dinner or whatever. Membership in "known" or "established" civic associations used to be a cue to what kind of person a prospective mate might be; but that aspect of society has declined. Everyone is a "free agent" now, at the bars or nightclubs where who knows who one is meeting. We have so much in this country that we don't know what we want--emotionally or otherwise. This makes relationships difficult...and they seem to falling apart quite regularly.

So, does this explain the sick-o's and their dolls? Well, these folks are off on the fringes of psychotic behavior anyway; without social limitations of any sort, they've just be nudged off further into sickoes-ville. Now, they've just got an outlet for it. And, no thanks to having too much surplus cash, they can afford to indulge their sick pleasures. But, in a society of moral relativism and growing libertarianism, on what moral ground do we judge them?

Posted by: C at May 1, 2006 12:39:00 PM

Well...married men may want one so as not to cheat on their wives and still act out some fantasies. Additionally, what if the female spouse does not have a post menopausal need to have sex as often as her virile and still potent husband does? RealDolls seem to have a real place in the marriage if it is used as a sexual surrogate so as not to offend, or beg, or badger the wife to have sex every day or as often as her husband secrelty desires to do so. I know that most guys would have sex many times a day given the opportunity. Later if you are fortunate enough to get married and find Misses Right...unless she is a nymphomaniac,..I dare say that men would wish to have sex many times more often then women care to. Thus, I see the RealDoll as an instrument to satisfy a more virile , sexually hungry spouse,..without him considering cheating on his wife, visiting strip clubs, or acting out fantasies other than in a private, non harmful way at home with or without his spouse watching; Thus, I think she would undestand why he wanted such a realistic device to remind him of her, and what he normally recieves on a weekly or daily basis already. I cant imagine masturbating in the bedroom with my hand when indeed a nice realdoll surrogate would seem to be more lifelike, and similar to that which the male spouse has become routinely accustomed to. So there is absolutely no overtone of women hating involved, but rather spousal love and the desire not to lead astray that would drive some men to immediate ownership if they could convince their wives that there is truly no competition or substitute for their warm 98.6 degree vagina...but just a temporizing measure to return the his male hormones back into check for a little while.

Most men would admit that they feel like their scrotums are full, that they are about to burst inside, that they need stroking and relief...indeed on a daily basis if not more often. Thus, Realdoll as an animated heated animated semirealistic surrogate would be very desirable, not meant to substitute for relationships, but rather to fullfill a lustful desire to have a warm ejaculation while grabbing on to something soft and feminine while doing so. That is all, nothing more or less, ...10-4 ..over and out.

Posted by: at May 9, 2006 5:42:10 PM

You all are crazy! I cant stand Men and Women making stupid shit like this. Man and women are both Overrated.

Posted by: wgfhjgfjh at May 24, 2006 1:04:06 PM