Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:38 AM
Thu Nov 12
67 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/16/09
A "toy" I would define a dildo or some sort of artificial organ, inanimate, and fairly non-mechanical. I would even classify an inflatable doll as a toy. For the most part, these items are for play purposes and they can be made more lifelike or not as much. People can get attached to their toys but it's unusual to assign a human personality to the toy (even an inflatable doll).
A "device" I would classify as a vibrator, a Fleshlight, or Sybian or comparable sex machine like the ones at the Kink studios. More technically complicated, these devices have electro-mechanical features for the user. These devices serve a function for the user; as a microwave serves to heat food, a sex machine serves to stimulate the genitals. And this device is not supposed respond to the human - it's has defined movements but no intelligence.
A robot I would classify as an artificial life form. Like Sony's Ai-bo robot dog that can respond to commands and perform tricks to entertain lonely Japanese elderly, this German sex doll is not a doll, it's a robot. It has a level of artificial intelligence, as it has sensors programmed to respond to human actions. It is intended for a human to develop a relationship with it.
Now let's take the example of the robot dog a little further: A "toy" dog could be a stuffed furry cuddly dog or a pose-able plastic model dog. A doggie "device" would be one of those mechanical dogs which you wind up (or stick a battery into it) and it would walk a bit and bark repeatedly until its electricity ran out. This robotic "Ai-bo" dog is an actual artificial replacement for a dog that has intelligence programmed into it. And "replacement" is the KEY word here.
The Ai-bo dog did not catch on in the US because, why get an expensive robot dog when there's an abundance of shelter dogs, and an abundance of homes with yards? However, in Japan the Ai-bo has sold well because space is a premium, and honestly, a real dog would be harder to raise in Tokyo.
The point of my treatise is that the evolution of technology inevitably will supply more lifelike and more intelligent replacements for humans. But for our society's sake, we humans must make rational and moral decisions (decisions that robots cannot make) that determine the proper use of these products and develop our relationships with these products accordingly. For example, a Japanese society that buys the Ai-bo robot dogs should not view that as an excuse to neglect abandoned dogs who may need real homes. Similarly, a hypothetical society with men who might buy these robot women shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are real human women out there too who can use companionship.
We can't stop technology from developing more & more lifelike replacements. However, we can use the technology wisely to enrich our lives and our real-world interactions with each other.
09/15/09
09/16/09
09/15/09
Part of me wants these to be sold, mostly because I want robotics to progress, but only with a doctor's note or something.
I'm sure there are people who could benefit from them, not totally unlike the robotic seal pup that visits Japanese old folks homes.
Part of me always wonders if this "men can't tell the difference between an object and a woman" is the same as the old "kids can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality."
09/16/09
09/15/09
I don't see this as an equal thing to vibrators, dongs or dildos. How much does the average person spend on one of those? Probably $30-$200? While $200 seems totally outrageous to me, that's a tiny fraction of what one of these dolls costs. You either need to be quite rich or taking out loans to get one of these dolls. This isn't a casual buy - you can't just pop on down to the porn store (online or brick-and-mortar) and pick one up on a whim. These are huge investments. I can't possibly see these as a standard "treatment for loneliness". How many people have that kind of cash?
Also, normal vibrators do not simulate a person. They do not breathe, orgasm, have pulses (other than vibration pulses, but I do not think they are anything like a human pulse), get dressed up, or often even look like human parts (some do, I don't deny that). I don't think there is a strong parallel between "standard" vibrators and robotic sex dolls.
I don't even think there's that big of a parallel between blow-up dolls and robotic sex dolls. The difference is the price and the realism. This doll is intended to be as lifelike as possible, and as unlike a doll as possible. That's not just a way to get an orgasm - that's a very specific kind of thing. Most people have no real issues with using not-doll sex toys, and many are creeped out by this kind of thing.
Though I have to say that most of their dolls are ridiculously fake-looking. They're oddly proportioned, and wobbly.
09/15/09
But you know what? When your boring sex life directly victimizes and threatens me, then I care. And let's not kid ourselves, that includes quite a bit of male sexuality. It's not the fault of individual dudes, it's the fault of the patriarchy that wants to keep women dehumanized so that those in power can keep us from getting any of our own. When sex--sex from women--is a commodity, then my body when I'm in public is property. I don't have autonomy in a culture that encourages this. And as these robots get closer and closer to the real thing, only with an actual, total lack of autonomy, then the distinction gets even blurrier.
When products cater to fantasies that, if carried out in real life, are harmful to women (such as the fantasy that sex with women is a right and not a privilege), the line between appropriate and inappropriate is liable to vanish. And there are plenty of justifications: men are lonely, it's not hurting anyone, but as things progress you forget those justifications. And, like Kate says, when men buy these robots to "get through a dry spell," the mentality gets really close to the mentality of True Forced Loneliness people. And those people can and do become violent, and their misogyny is vitriolic and frankly dangerous.
I'm not talking about you and I'm not talking about your Nigel. I'm talking about the patriarchy and the systemic misogyny and entitlement men and boys are taught for their whole lives.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
Or maybe they've just been downtrodden by too many women saying "Fuck off, creep" when they haven't actually been doing anything creepy.
I think there's a world of difference between objectifying real women and attributing sexual characteristics and desire to objects. I don't think it's constructive to conflate them. Obviously these men know the difference; they don't have real women in their lives TO OBJECTIFY.
09/15/09
Also, I don't know any women who tell someone to "fuck off, creep" without good reason
09/15/09
09/15/09
The internet is a great way to meet people like yourself. Not always the safest, but there are ways to deal with that, as well. I am absolutely certain that the majority of these men, if they are truly just awkward and not abusive or desire the dolls to maim because they can't do it to real women, could overcome the problem. Encouraging them to bury themselves in their shyness isn't helping them; it's ensuring that they continue to suffer.
09/15/09
And also, why are we to assume that they're suffering? That may have been implied in my initial post, but many of the men I have seen profiled have made a life for themselves that is satisfactory to them. It's not ideal, I wouldn't want it for anyone, but better to have something than nothing, if nothing is what you have resigned yourself to.
09/16/09
I guess I assume that they are suffering because they seem unhappy with only dolls, and express a desire to be with a living person, yet are unable/unwilling to make that sacrifice. I don't think they need to suffer - I am often quite happy when I am alone, but I feel like they're not actually happy with the dolls. The dolls are just stand-ins for a real person that they can't have because she doesn't exist.
09/15/09
1) Most vibrators don't try to look like realistic penises.
2) Masturbation is easier and more simple for men, so female sex toys seem a bit more "necessary" while male ones seem more gratuitous, or more like a substitute for sex than just masturbation
What freaks me out about these dolls is exactly that. It's like your own imagination isn't enough, so you seek out something more "real", and I could see this line of approach starting to blur the lines between fantasy and reality pretty easily
09/15/09
One is merely a source of stimulate to a specific body part. The rest is solely in the mind of the user. The other is an object that is a surrogate for actual interaction and intimae human contact. I think there is a direct correspondence between a person who has a tough time with people and harbors hostility for that discomfort and someone whacking off. Lots of men and women use hand held toys to get off.
The other is a prop for a dark and solitary fantasy life.
I have a sex slave in a box under my bed/basement thing is a whole different level.
09/15/09
Trying to make a strong connection between these dolls and violent behavior predicated on arguments that are based not on facts and figures but on your own anecdotes and intuition is not particularly helpful or interesting.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
(seriously, people...to each their motherfucking own)
....and with that, where IS my Rock Star dildo vibrator...???
09/15/09
But "There's a big difference between wanting to simulate the bullet points of real sex, and wanting to simulate every last detail save the humanity of the person you're screwing."
THIS. This is definitely an important aspect to point out, one that *does* raise the hair on my neck a bit.
09/15/09
09/15/09
I wouldn't judge a guy for having a Real Doll (I actually think that'd be pretty awesome- can you say threesome w/o messy emotional entanglements!), but I KNOW there are guys out there justifying their ownership with misogynistic claims about women, and that's where I start to feel all squirmy.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
Rosie the Robot was the bomb. Roomba? Still cool and gets the job done, but not nearly as neat.
09/15/09
Also: How would you clean it? When you were, um, done with it? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really curious. It's an expensive piece of technology; I wouldn't think it'd be like a soap-and-water-and-air-dry sort of thing...
09/15/09
09/15/09
"Taking the objectification of the human female to its scary but logical conclusion."
No, you silly person. Taking objectification of an *object* to the bedroom in a completely unscary and perfectly reasonable way. Just like a dildo or a vibrator or a well lubed toothbrush handle up your butt at the right time. These are all objects, it's all fun with objects, and there's nothing at all wrong with it.
When a guy does this to a *woman*, then it's time to be concerned about the guy.
But when a woman confuses these *objects* with women and starts to think that its time to control or judge based upon them... well, then it's time to be concerned about the woman. If that's all they think they have to offer, that's pretty damned sad on their part.
And furthermore, if they're so blinking concerned about it, why don't they get their sweet little selves down to the local hangout and throw some poor, lonely, socially retarded guy a lively session of real sex and show him what a squirming, hot, horny female has to offer over a never-living plastic shell?
Oh, wait, they want to make choices and kiss off the ones they don't like, right? Ok, fine. Then leave these guys to their vague-shadow-of-a-woman's-shape... objects and try to keep your repressive opinions in your *own* bedroom.
Don't be telling other people it's "creepy" for them to play with toys when you won't give them the real thing. And you *know* the truth is a lot of these fellows are *never* going to get the real thing, because your standards are just too high for that, aren't they?
09/15/09
There is a difference when people humanize their sex toys. If someone humanizes the sex toy, it is no longer just a toy. Even if that someone is a woman.
It is not anyone's responsibility to "get their sweet little selves down to the local hangout and throw some poor, lonely, socially retarded guy a lively session of real sex and show him what a squirming, hot, horny female has to offer over a never-living plastic shell?"
First off, using the term "female" is kinda frowned upon here. It is usually used by people who tend to dehumanize women and see them as an encoded hive mind to crack. So... maybe "woman" would have been a better choice?
If the lonely guy never shows interest, how is anyone supposed to know he is interested? I have dated and befriended socially-awkward guys (and gals, but they are not the point of your post and I will connect it in later). Some of them were really quite nice. Some were not nice at all. Some were downright dangerous.
Some socially-awkward people are that way for a reason. They are not all the same. Some people are scary and mean. Some are just really, really shy. It is no one's job to fix them. Deep-seated shyness like the kind we tend to see in connection to RealDolls and other high-end sex toys isn't going to be solved by a random session of sex. That requires a lot more, and a ton of work on the shy person's part. No one can do that for them.
10/03/09
10/03/09
One more thing. You said:
"There is a difference when people humanize their sex toys. If someone humanizes the sex toy, it is no longer just a toy. Even if that someone is a woman."
No. That's called "having a fantasy." There's nothing wrong with it, the toy is still just a toy. Because nothing in that relationship involves another entity, no matter what the individual's fantasy presents, and no matter what an onlooker thinks.
The time to concern yourself with matters of this nature is when such fantasies apply to another party – a real person – in a way that disturbs their liberty or health. This is, by definition, not the case here. As Jefferson said, no one's pocket has been picked; no one's leg has been broken. The presumption of mindcrime is the symptom of a defective onlooker.
What we have here is an unhealthy (and creepy!) tendency for people to criticize acts of others that they have no business whatsoever sticking their nose into.
09/15/09
It's none of my business what people do with their fetishes and sexuality behind closed doors. Enjoy your dildo, but don't argue that male sex toys simulate rape. It's ridiculous.
You criticise the 'transitional therapeutic object' theory. Why the fuck bother, it's bullshit designed to hide the desperation guys feel when buying sex toys. As men feel terrible if they can't get laid, buying a sex toy is a fucking hammer blow to the ego. Thus people make up phrases like this so men can say, 'yeah, I'm just transitioning, I'll find another girl soon enough.'
Women see it as empowering to go single (and the media often portray it that way), so buying a sex toy is a source of pride, that can be giggled about with girlfriends. That will never be the case with men. If you don't have a woman in your life, your life is forfeit. It's what we're told, and how we feel.
And as for 'the primary distinction becomes her capacity for consent', I'd like to meet a sex toy that consents. No-one has to consent in our fantasies, they're fantasies. This is feminist nonesense of the highest order. Now, where's the order form? (Jokes, people)