I think some definitions ought to be made between the various interrelated products out there. For instance, the distinctions between toys, devices, and robots. And if we can judge our comfort levels with these toys, devices, or robots by examining our relationships with these items.
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.
You want to know about the sort of person who would buy one of these? I'll tell you, because I am one. I'm 40 years old. I'm horribly shy, and have never been good at meeting new people, especially women. I grew tired of rejection and of the "I only like you as a friend" speech a long, long time ago. I'm not rich, and I'm not handsome. I don't like drama, or all of the lies and bullshit that go with a relationship. I'm honestly happier without a woman than I have ever been while in a relationship. I don't hate women. I don't want to rape or do violence to anyone. I'm just not cut out for relationships, and I'm not someone who can just go out and hook up with someone. Even though I haven't gotten laid in at least 12 years, I'm not about to hire a prostitute, for a variety of reasons. I would, however, buy one of these dolls, or something along these same lines (the ones from this particular, horrible looking web site actually look kind of nasty). I'd buy it simply for the imperfect illusion it would provide. The illusion of having another person to touch and tot ouch me. The illusion that someone other than myself were willing to have sex with me. You can scoff and denigrate me and others like me. I don't really care too much what you think of me. But just because I might buy something like this doesn;t meake me a beast, or a monster, and it doesn't mean that I'm some sociopath who wants to hurt other people. It just means I'm a bit lonely, and would like some kind of companionship on occasion, companionship that I have never found out in the "real world".
I think this is unfortunate. Dave-cat (I think that's his name) from "Guys and Dolls" I think is the sort of person who does get a semi-therapeutic benefit from his Real Doll. But then you have your George Sodinis of the world. Although I'm not sure how fair it is to drag him into this as he didn't have any sort of doll (although I don't know too much about the case)
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."
labeled promoted this comment
Lizard in the Wires now with even MORE metal in the face! was starred
Lizard in the Wires now with even MORE metal in the face! was unstarred
I don't think Kate was saying that all men, all the time, cannot differentiate between dolls and women. I think she was using shorthand for the "unhinged" ones. I doubt anyone here would argue that every last man (and I also doubt that most people would argue that it's a majority of men) just wants sex and uses these dolls to simulate rape.
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.
In general, my opinion on the sex other people have can be summed up by saying "I don't care about your boring sex life." (thanks Twisty)
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.
@kithkin: and also, the idea of entitlement surrounding discourse like "get a man through a dry spell". this language carries with it an assumption that a "dry spell" is abnormal and that sex from women on a regular basis is something to which a man is entitled, and furthermore, that a man "needs" something "to get him through it", as though coping with the lack of readily available sex is something that he cannot be expected to endure.
So the real difference between the dolls and the women is their inability to reject creeps? Because I think someone's humanity is more than the discernment between who we want to fuck. Plus, it's assuming that these men are unfuckable because they're scary gym-shooters. Maybe they're just LONELY. Maybe they just want simple SEX and don't want to go through all the social graces. Maybe they just want to get off. Maybe they have strange, dirty, unmentionable kinks that they know would not be acceptable to any living person, so they choose a non-living object to share those kinks with.
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.
@PreposterousHypothesis: I am confused as to how you can say that "someone's humanity is more than the discernment between who we want to fuck" and then compare masturbating with a sex doll to actual sex and validate an inanimate object as a useful cure for loneliness. That's giving humanity to something that doesn't have any
Also, I don't know any women who tell someone to "fuck off, creep" without good reason
@PreposterousHypothesis: I think that you had it right with "lonely." I have read and watched a lot of documentary about the real doll phenomena, of which this is just an extension. I found that most of these men are not objectifying women, they have simply been unable to cultivate a legitimate relationships due to social phobia, excessive shyness or awkwardness, and just have given up, and come to see this as a less than adequate yet better than the alternative choice. They impart personalities on the dolls and treat them with respect. They dress them up and care for them. There are exceptions, but aren't there always? Yes, I have read about the man who wanted a real doll version of his mother and another person who wanted a dog made, several wanting children versions (all requests denied by the manufacturers), and the aforementioned are clearly pathological, but for the most part, it is loneliness. And these men should not be shamed, rather, their pain acknowledge. This trend is more sad and tragic than a pathetic display of men continuing to objectify women in increasingly bizarre ways. I believe that for the vast majority, if these men could (or thought they could) have a real relationship, they would. If you lack sympathy with the men who resort to this, watch Lars and the Real Girl...which does position these dolls as a transitional object; however, the tenderness he shows for his "girlfriend" is as heartbreaking and real as any human to human relationship.
@booter26: I think the answer lies not in cultivating a "relationship" with a doll - that's one-sided. It doesn't help the real problem. These men should be encouraged to address the root of their problems and make real human connections. Many men who believe they are plain old undesirable for whatever reason are actually not. As if women don't have weird kinks/fantasies? As if there are no awkward, socially isolated women?
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.
@boxspelunker: I don't think we disagree here, though I may have been unclear in the initial post. I was only hoping to provide an alternative, more empathetic perspective to what I thought was an overly condemning opinion expressed in the article and some of the comments. I think everyone should be encouraged to foster a relationship with a real person. I may be wrong, but I don't think anything I said implied that women are exempt from social awkwardness; only that despite your sex, it is more difficult to connect with others, even others who are awkward and socially isolated, too and that some people see this as an acceptable substitute. Certainly there is the potential for some of these men to have a relationship, and something along the lines of cognitive behavioral therapy might be helpful, but I cannot bring myself to condemn this as "wrong." Maybe it is abnormal (and who's to define that?) or disordered. I wouldn't encourage socially awkward men to take a real doll over a real woman, only that I don't think it's usually their first choice.
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.
@booter26: Sorry, I guess a little more of my general annoyance got directed at you than I meant. You didn't specifically say that there weren't lonely, socially-awkward women, but I feel like that's one of the underlying assumptions - that these men cannot find a girlfriend/wife/fuckbuddy/whathaveyou because they are too weird, when there are lots of strange ladies out there :D
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.
I actually had an in-depth conversation with a male friend about a week ago about why he (and I to be honest) found it slightly creepy for men to own things like fleshlights than for women to have vibrators. We hit 2 main points
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
Are you kidding me? What is the difference between a penis shaped Vibrator and a plastic, breathing, sucking toy that you can dress and sit at a table and pretend is a real Girl?
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.
I think the post is way off base. I don't see any reason to believe that there is any connection between owning and using dolls and violent behavior. Not only does using a doll not necessarily indicate an aversion of human contact (to me, it seems analogous to purchasing a very hi-tech vibrator), but different people have different reasons for choosing an inanimate object. The post even hints at that!
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.
A little OT but, watch Lars and the Real Girl. I wrote a paper on the movie and the way in which the main character succumbs to, but is eventually cured of, a delusional disorder because of a "sex doll." The doll becomes a member of society and transforms the lives of everyone in the small town. The movie sheds an unexpected viewpoint on coping with mental illness, and what it is like to watch someone you love become immersed in the crippling disease. It changed my perception of these so called sex dolls and opened my eyes to ways in which they can benefit a person in need of companionship.
@LindsayC: doctoral hilarity ensues: Oh I completely agree with you. Like with most movies, Hollywood delivers an extreme example on the topic but I just put it out there as different way of looking at it.
Personally, I've always watched the trend from crude blowup doll to Real Doll and beyond with much interest and open-mindedness, and I think I pretty much continue to do so.
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.
@labeled: Agreed, and that's why I mostly just feel interest and amusement and "Whoa, that's cool!" at sophisticated sex dolls.
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.
@cand86: Oh, but they're out there anyway, and there's just no way to say that the proportion of misogynistic doll-owners is any higher than run of the mill misogynists trying to get in your pants at the average bar (imagine a strikethrough through bar, with "everywhere" instead).
@colormeroutine: First guess? Because they could. I just don't make the leap that making it AS life-like as possible equals a failure to actually make it think/real.
Rosie the Robot was the bomb. Roomba? Still cool and gets the job done, but not nearly as neat.
I realize that everyone is into their own things. I realize that what's right for me might be weird to others, and vice-versa. Ultimately, these "dolls" creep me right the fuck out. I find it strange that someone'd pay thousands of dollars for a fake human to have their way with. OTOH, women buy expensive vibrators to have their way(s) with. So. Personal feelings aside, what makes one "worse" than the other? As far as the rape argument goes, i.e. men who buy these are substituting a real woman with a doll they can abuse or whatever, well, women buy fake penises that are always available, always hard and can be used at a moment's notice. So what, really, is the difference? I dunno. Just my $.02, that's all.
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...
"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?
@fyngyrz: I AM PROBABLY FEEDING THE TROLL. I am sorry if that is the case, but "fyngyrz" seems familiar?
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.
@boxspelunker: You're totally off base. Sex toys are just sex toys, fantasy applied or not. Using them isn't creepy; but being overly concerned about them certainly is. Also, the bit about throwing some sex was a rhetorical device designed to make you think (didn't work, obviously) consequently attempting to rationalize it away is absurd. My *point* (also stated explicitly) was that objects and fantasies about objects are fine. The bit of yours about dating socially awkward folk is silly – those variations occur in sophisticated folk, too. As for the rest, you're wobbling between politically correct nonsense and psychobabble. And btw, if I say "female", I mean female. I reserve the term woman for those who demonstrate development beyond the average spawn of toxic 80's pseudo libbery. Respect is not given. Respect is earned. When we're talking about people who are concerning themselves with the details of other's sex lives in a repressive manner – no matter if they resort to psychobabble or not – we're talking, at best, about really lame, dysfunctional males and females.
"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.
I love this article. It shows that the odd anxiety and distrust us guys have long held over women's sex toys is just as easily felt by women in the opposite situation.
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)
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)