« Ask An Insufferable Music Snob, continued | Main | The ugly specter of racism in New Orleans shows itself again »

October 11, 2005

Be creeped out for the rest of your day

Posted by Amanda Marcotte at 07:25 AM

Man, I only had one cup of coffee in me before I read this.

When referring to their coital habits, Davecat uses terms like "make love" or "have sex" -- and safe sex at that. "I'm one of the rare [doll] users who uses a condom," he confides, adding that while he feels a bit cheated having to use a prophylactic, it would be too much for him to haul Sidore into the shower every time they have sex. Until Davecat can bench-press 200 pounds, he says, Sidore will have to live with sponge baths.

Emphasis mine. What they mean is, "when he masturbates into his overpriced sex toy". It's an article about something I'm sure most people have wondering--who buys those Real Dolls and are they most just misogynists or are they lonely losers? Turns out that misogyny is a good first step towards being a lonely loser. Seriously, I'm not sure what bothers me more--that some of the men have "relationships" with lifeless sex toys or that some of them go out of their way to spend thousands of dollars on a toy that simulates the way a real woman's body feels as much as possible only to go out of their way to deny that the thing is anything more than your workaday sex toy, something most of us only spend $100 on at least.

Update: Okay, two cups of coffee down, I will add that I wish that I'd been more sympathetic initially. Chalk this one up as a "patriarchy hurts men, too" post. These men are lonely losers because 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.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pandagon.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1581

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Be creeped out for the rest of your day:

» IN PENISTAN TONIGHT from The Heretik
And There Arose Among The Tribe Of The Uteri A Legend of the unreal Uteri [story]. The Peni who could not order the Uteri about did what some Peni always wanted. These Peni would mail order Uteri, if no [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 03:58 PM

» Plastic dick for $500, Alex from To Be Determined
So first I was lurking at Feministe, where I saw this: "You can be creeped out for the rest of the day, or you can bring the funny." Which led me over to Amanda's pad where I discovered that in... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 12:56 AM

» Bush drops Miers, taps Sidore for Supreme Court from Creek Running North
Special to Creek Running North: In the wake of sustained criticism from his ultraconservative base, US President George W. Bush today announced the withdrawal of his nomination of his personal attorney Harriet Miers for the position of Associate Justic... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 11:55 PM

» Bush drops Miers, taps Sidore for Supreme Court from Creek Running North
Special to Creek Running North: In the wake of sustained criticism from his ultraconservative base, US President George W. Bush today announced the withdrawal of his nomination of his personal attorney Harriet Miers for the position of Associate Justic... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 11:58 PM

» Bush drops Miers, taps Sidore for Supreme Court from Creek Running North
Special to Creek Running North: In the wake of sustained criticism from his ultraconservative base, US President George W. Bush today announced the withdrawal of his nomination of his personal attorney Harriet Miers for the position of Associate Justic... [Read More]

Tracked on October 13, 2005 02:10 AM

Comments

Maezeppa [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:41 AM:

"Fucks"? Technically, oughtn't it be "when he masturbates into his overpriced sex toy?"

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:43 AM:

True. I'm correct it.

seeker6079 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:58 AM:

New participant; love the site.

Okay, "ewwww" shivers done and coffee down, I have no comment but a theory.

That the comments that will flow on this one will move away from Creeps With Dolls (or its parallel a new category, The Guy That You DON'T Want Next Door) into the realm of male-female relationships in general.

WoodrowFan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:58 AM:

creepd out for the rest of the day?? maybe the rest of the week! That's a lot of messed up guys. And that poor Japanese student, did his parents do a number on him, or what! WOW! His pent-up aggression and anger must be overwhelming....

August J. Pollak [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:02 AM:

Okay, just to be Creepy Dude's Advocate here for a second- you're openly acknowledging that the doll is a sex toy, and yet I really doubt you'd say a girl finding a vibrator designed to provide her the best stimulation and most satisfying experience for her is her being a "lonely loser." Yeah, the doll thing is creepy as all hell but I'm pretty sure you're not against the concept of both men and women being allowed to obtain sexual gratification on their own terms. So I'm a little vague on just what you object to here other than him paying so much money for the doll. When a woman names her vibrator and talks about how it's the only way she can get real satisfaction it's not called "lonely loser" as much as a "hit stand-up comedy routine."

Of course, he IS a lonely loser, but attacking him on those grounds alone isn't really fair. If pretending a life-size puppet loves him back is the only way he can get off, leave him be. If this guy's a nutjob I'd rather he feel that his Barbie doll wants to fuck him than some actual woman in his apartment building.

August J. Pollak [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:08 AM:

(And by "by their own terms" I mean of course without needing anyone else, not doing whatever they want to other people.)

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:17 AM:

I know, I do feel sorry for some of them. But the one guy who has the site with him surrounded by them and a list of "wrongs" done to him by women jumped out at me--it's like reading your typical MRA rant. Some of it seems truly sad--babysitting a woman's kids while she goes on a date?--but that he complains that he was enlisted to help move furniture jumped out at me. You see that sort of complaint alot--men complaining that women they were in relationships with asked favors and stuff of them. No conception of the notion that relationships are give-and-take. I've literally had MRAs on some boards accuse me of some sort of hypocrisy if I've ever dared ask a man on hand to help lift something that I can't lift myself, as if feminism somehow would make me bigger or stronger. But it interests me because it's just sexism in its rawest form to expect that women's work go without mention but men get slavishly praised for doing anything.

I'm not personally complaining, by the way. I have been lucky enough not to know any men who think anything but that if they can do something better than their partners, family members, friends, whoever they have to cooperate with in life, male or female, then that's what they'll do. It's basic common sense.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:26 AM:

August, the money thing is a factor but so is the realism--there's no doubt about it, the dolls are considered by their owners to be substitutes for the "real thing". I'm the first to say that I think that sex toys for men are woefully inadequate, but then again, women don't really have porn aimed at us, so it's a draw. But a lot of this business is driven by anger and hostility at women for being real human beings with needs. But to be perfectly honest, I find it disconcerting and upsetting when women tell me that their sex toys are substitutes for the "real thing". We've all made hostile and bitter jokes, but if you really do think a toy is an adequate subsitute for a human being, it's creepy.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:40 AM:

Make love?

I preferred to use that term even for the casual things because I never could ge hte hang of not connecting on some level with people before I fuck them.

but now my tongue feels dirty.

And what personally squiggs me the fuck out is precisly that, he's not talking about "making love" with himself or fucking or having sex with himself (nor even making, but rather making love to a bit of plastic, which, while being a symbolic stand in for a real woman, is just a masturbatory aid that saves him the awesome effort of having to connect with a real living woman.

The anthropomothism of female sex aids is different because A) it's done jokingly B) it is a reaction to constant loud assumptions by men that women are both only really able to be satisfied sexually by men while at the same time telling us that the only reason we don't want to sleep with their ugly, smelly, overweight, hairy assed selves is because we aren't particularly sexual beings who need to be forced slightly to get our motors running.

It's that his weird and lonely way of thinking is shared by other men who'll use this tale to prop up their rape friendly misogyny.

Okay fair enough, not really condemning him per se, what ever floats your boat without sinking someone else's and all that, but still...

eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww!

werefish [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:53 AM:

At least he's not inflicting himself on women. I think we should subsidize these dolls so that men who truly prefer plastic lovers can have them and leave women alone.

norbizness [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:05 AM:

I. HAD. NO. CUPS. OF. COFFEE.

The thing I can't figure out is how some of the people in the article, who seem to be intensely private, ever consented to be interviewed. And werefish has the last word on the issue-laden guys; an anatomically correct plastic mate in every pot!

P.S. Do they come in a Claudia Cardinale?

Sandals [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:09 AM:

Hello, Mr. Universe... :?

Soprano2 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:10 AM:

God that is wrong on so many levels. I don't mind men having porn or sex toys, but anyone who thinks they've got a relationship with a life-size doll has some serious psychological problems, one of which is the inability to have a give-and-take relationship with a woman. These men are a step below the men who order subservient mail-order brides because the women in America are too "unfeminine", which really means they want things from the man that he doesn't want to give.

Seriously, I'm going to be creeped out all week now. *shudder*

kactus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:10 AM:

All I can say is that, as an ex-sex worker, this seems relatively harmless and pales in comparison with some of the things people get off on out there. Human sexuality is a pretty darned strange thing, and if it's not openly victimizing anybody I don't have a problem with it.

Besides, if these guys really ARE misogynists, aren't they better off not inflicting their misogyny on real women? Let the dolls have em, I say.

Ba'al [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:21 AM:

Yes, there are things that people do that seem pretty creepy. Men and women alike, our brains are wired up so as to make us sexual creatures, and weird things sometimes happen when there is no outlet. What disturbs me about this post is the implied idea that men who are extremely lonely must be misogynistic (at the outset). Actually, it is not implied, it takes very little parsing to find that inference. I find the implication extremely sexist.

Traven [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:32 AM:

Frankly, it seems a lot less weird to me than phone sex. At least the doll has nice tits. Also, I agree with Ba'al that it's wrong to categorize lonely men as misogynistic or creeps or losers. I've been there myself in an earlier life and it had a lot more to do with being shy and inept with women. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I never went the doll route and wound up finding my balance with women again.

Traven [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:33 AM:

Frankly, it seems a lot less weird to me than phone sex. At least the doll has nice tits. Also, I agree with Ba'al that it's wrong to categorize lonely men as misogynistic or creeps or losers. I've been there myself in an earlier life and it had a lot more to do with being shy and inept with women. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I never went the doll route and wound up finding my balance with women again.

Traven [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:35 AM:

Sorry for the double comment. Your weblog editor thingie did it.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:39 AM:

Well he's confused a masturbatory aid with a real woman, I'd call that misogyny because it considers women to be nothing more than holes for their pleasure.

Thinking of women as masturbatory aids = misogynistic every time.

Though it doesn't also mean that it's inherently wrong for him to get off on misogyny as long as he doesn't harm anyone else doing it.

ryan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:24 AM:

Eh, don't know the guy, but seems to me that a lot of men have unrealisitic standards for their partners. Like, they ain't no supermodel themselves, but they expect real women to look like porno, so instead of going out and making friends with a human, they pursue "perfection" in plastic. Yuck.

A Pang [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:35 AM:

(Mr. Universe: "It was a beautiful wedding...") *cracks up* Yes, registered just to make the same Serenity reference.

But seriously: lame and sad and creepy as hell. Also, isn't it a little inconsistent to say defensively that "doll love is not an indicator of violence against women" and *also* "if Real Dolls were cheap and accessible to Everyman...'the law enforcement experts would claim that they would drastically cut down on sex crimes'"?

(Yeah, different people making the arguments, I know...)

Maayan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:36 AM:

I realize I'm probably focusing on the wrong detail here, but... Why won't the artist make dolls with underarm hair? I mean, look at the list: No urinating, no lactating, no dogs, no children... and no underarm hair.

I hadn't realized that chicks like me who sometimes go a few months between pit-waxes were catering to such a freaky niche fetish.

librulqueer [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:39 AM:

At least she never wants to "talk about our relationship" which really means "Bitch session". If the relationship is good, who needs to talk about it?

Satan Luvvs Repugs [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:47 AM:

From the article:
"...some men who have sex with Real Dolls are creepy, the kind of guys you wouldn't want to be alone with. But not all. Many are simply lonely -- some tragically so. Others are disfigured or infirm."

And guess which guys they got to talk to the reporter? Yes, the whole thing is creepy, but also incredibly sad.

pablo [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:48 AM:

I always thought those things were a joke. You'd give it as a gag gift or some such thing. I didn't think anyone except maybe the occaisional shut-in actually used them.

flyinfur [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:52 AM:

Some of those guys sounded downright delusional, actually, which is what makes it creepy. They are out of touch with reality and getting farther since most interactions are with their dolls or online with other guys in the same boat.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:05 AM:

I think I have to come down on the "sad" side very slightly more than "creepy." There's something very wrong with our society when having sex with a piece of plastic seems more viable than going out and risking actual human contact.

And, yes, I'd say the same thing if this was about a group of women who spent all of their time at home alone with their sex toys, afraid to meet and talk to actual men.

I wonder if this is akin to something Amanda posted a few months ago about men who've been so misled by cultural expectations that they are turned off when they see that their girlfriends aren't the models of perfection they've always seen in magazines.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:07 AM:

And although I'm not a big fan of prostitution, I still think the disfigured and/or infirm would be better off hiring a pleasant call girl for some actual human contact rather than trying to invest a piece of plastic with faux humanity.

Sarcastro [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:09 AM:

"For the most part, it's just like sex with an organic woman ... who doesn't say anything and is brimful of Quaaludes"

The dolls throw up a lot?

pablo [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:13 AM:

The best use of sex dolls I've ever seen was on Six Feet Under.

Davecat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:20 AM:

Wow, I don't think I've been attacked this much since highschool! Ah, the memories.

So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner? I assume every single one of you has been completely and utterly successful with their dating experiences? Moreover, the person you're with is an absolute flawless joy to be around, physically, emotionally, and mentally? Well, congratulations to the lot of you! You're extraordinarily lucky, each and every one of you. Really, I mean that.

Personally, I love the comments here and elsewhere that erroneously assume that I'm a misogynist. I love that sort of shallow, knee-jerk reaction thinking. 'All Doll owners obviously hate women and wants to act out their sick fantasies with a woman-shaped object'. Have you ever considered it might be a case of 'Some Doll owners are sick to death of being rejected because they don't fit other people's standards'?

As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship. As I see it, no-one should have to be alone. Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.

Personally, I live by the standard that if as long it doesn't harm anyone, people should be able to do what they want. If a person wishes to have a relationship with 'a creepy Doll', what difference does it make? Is a person doing what they can do to seek happiness really *that* offensive to you?

I'm certain the armchair psychologists out there will continue to analyse (read: mock and insult) in 'private' forums such as this, until something else catches their attention. Unless you truly understand and comprehend why iDollators are what we are, you've really no right to judge me.

soullite [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:26 AM:

I don't get it. The guy may be wierd, but only because he thinks of thise doll as a person. And no, you can't automatically say that because of the cost it HAS to be viewed as a substitute for a real female. Just because one person in a group obviously views the doll like this doesn't mean that everyone has to and the cost isn't prohibitive to everyone. 5000 is a lot of money for you and I perhaps, but not so much to others.

Be honest, if this were a 20 dollar sex doll, would any of you feel even slightly different? For all you know, the people interviewed for this were cherry picked for their bizzarre behaviour and are not representative of users of this doll in general at all.

pablo [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:29 AM:

Is it a fetish thing? If it is then they really can't help themselves and since it doesn't harm anyone else they should just be left alone to enjoy themselves.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:30 AM:

I realize I'm probably focusing on the wrong detail here, but... Why won't the artist make dolls with underarm hair? I mean, look at the list: No urinating, no lactating, no dogs, no children... and no underarm hair.

I hadn't realized that chicks like me who sometimes go a few months between pit-waxes were catering to such a freaky niche fetish.

People who specifically get turned on by armpit hair are a freaky niche market (and yes there really is a feitsh about that, though they tend to get turned on by armpit sweat just as much), and it's probably really hard to put armpit hair on the dolls whereas he's probably got some easy peasy mass producible technique for adding pubic hair (which isn't on the crease of a joint like pit hair is)

Audrey the phone sex op [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:32 AM:

Traven -- as a phone sex operator myself, I have to say that I don't find phone sex at all creepy unless it's about a truly creepy fetish.

Many people get off on big breasts -- the way they feel or look. But others aren't as visual or tactile. Many people are best with auditory stimulation. They want a girl to tell them sexy stories, or hear them orgasm loudly -- what's so creepy about that?

pablo [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:33 AM:

Davecat- There is a lot wrong with real people but even still they're preferable to lifeless plastic.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:35 AM:

As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship.

If you view a plastic doll as "companionship", yeah, there's something pretty inherently fucked up about that. Sorry, I would have absolutly no problem with sex dolls, but viewing it as a "companionship" really just shows that all you're interested in a companion is someone who will have no interests, no thoughts, and not talk or act in any way. Really is it any wonder that your dating expereinces have been unsuccessful if what you are really looking for is a doll?

Of course most if not all of us have been rejected in our love lives, people who aren't deeply fucked up move on and find someone who doesn't reject them. And we're not all perfect, believe me I'm not perfect, but then again, I don't expect my partner to be perfect either, so it's a pretty even trade.

(None of this applies to the disfigured and/or infirm, that's just sad, not terribly fucked up.)

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:44 AM:

...I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.

Besides the messed up implication that a hunk of plastic can participate in a relationship (a relationship involves two sides, not a person and a hunk of plastic, sorry), I like how you think that every woman is, by definition, a lying scheming bitch. Once again, no wonder you had bad experiences dating, that kind of misogyny is a real turn off FYI.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:52 AM:

For the canonical take on doll sex, try Roxy Music's "in every dream home a heartache", which sorta puts the loneliness of the doll lover into perspective:


In every dream home a heartache
And every step I take
Takes me further from heaven
Is there a heaven?
I`d like to think so
Standards of living
They´re rising daily
But home oh sweet home
It´s only a saying
From bell push to faucet
In smart town apartment
The cottage is pretty
The main house a palace
Penthouse perfection
But what goes on
What to do there
Better pray there

Open plan living
Bungalow ranch style
All of it’s comforts
Seem so essential
I bought you mail order
My plain wrapper baby
Your skin is like vinyl
The perfect companion
You float my new pool
De luxe and delightful
Inflatable doll
My role is to serve you
Disposable darling
Can´t throw you away now
Immortal and life size
My breath is inside you
I´ll dress you up daily
And keep you till death sighs
Inflatable doll
Lover ungrateful
I blew up your body
But you blew my mind

Oh those heartaches
Dreamhome heartaches

August J. Pollak [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:01 PM:

Have you ever considered it might be a case of 'Some Doll owners are sick to death of being rejected because they don't fit other people's standards'?

You know what? Amanda's theory just proved right. You ARE a mysoginist, because you just explained the reason that you're reduced to fucking a CPR dummy is because "you don't fit other people's standards" and you want to avoid being with a woman who's "possibly lying to meet her own ends".

In other words, it's the fault of all women in general that you're having sex with a piece of plastic. There's a difference between simply wanting to satisfy yourself sexually with a sex toy and blaming the opposite sex for being forced into doing so.

That's the epitome of mysogny- you dislike women for your own personal failures. I was sympathetic to you before because I thought you just had a personal sexual fetish... it turns out you're just afraid to deal with women not wanting to fuck you.

I wouldn't want to either.

scratchie [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:06 PM:

>I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather
>than be in one with a real woman who's possibly
>lying to meet her own ends.

See, these are the sort of comments that might make a reasonable person suspect that you are, in fact, a misogynist.

staticage [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:07 PM:

Have you ever considered it might be a case of 'Some Doll owners are sick to death of being rejected because they don't fit other people's standards'?

Hmmm. You mean like women who don't resemble a molded and sculpted image of 'perfection' who gets rejected by people who think Life According To Jim represents what every man deserves? Nah. Stuff like that *never* happens.

[. . .] not just for sex, but for companionship.

Right, a companion who always agrees with you, never talks back and has no wants or desires of his/her own.

Personally, I live by the standard that if as long it doesn't harm anyone, people should be able to do what they want. If a person wishes to have a relationship with 'a creepy Doll', what difference does it make? Is a person doing what they can do to seek happiness really *that* offensive to you?

Well, I don't think that anyone is saying that these things should be banned or regulated in anyway--I at least just find their use as a replacement for real interaction to be *sad*.

When it comes right down to it pain, rejection, disagreement and the like are part of the price of finding a satisfying relationship. Where there is great risk there is also great reward.

staticage [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:08 PM:

Oh, and Dave, implicating that all women are evil liars might also lead one to think you are a tad misogynist.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:13 PM:

As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship.

If you wanted companionship, you'd get a dog.

If you wanted a fantasy woman who'd never talk, never sweat, never cry, never complain, never have any needs of her own, and never get old, you'd get a Doll.

It says a lot that you'd choose an inanimate piece of plastic over a living creature of any kind that might put some demands on you.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:14 PM:

Well, Davecat, women also have to deal with fitting into other people's standards, and we've also been rejected and had to deal with guys who lie to meet their own ends. It's called being human.

I still wouldn't turn to a doll, because it's an inanimate object. You can't have a relationship with an inanimate object. That you think you can is quite telling. You're not interested in a human being with agency, needs, desires, and quirks.

But I won't complain if you chose to go the sex doll route. In fact, I'd encourage it, the same way I encourage the Ameriskank and SYG crowd to stay away from women, period. If I don't have to deal with self-pitying men who are convinced that women are liars and that only men get hurt and rejected, it's all good.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:14 PM:

Traven -- as a phone sex operator myself, I have to say that I don't find phone sex at all creepy unless it's about a truly creepy fetish.

Phone sex involves another human being with whom one can interact, even if it's for a limited purpose and as a business transaction. Far, far less creepy than buying a hunk of plastic to ejaculate into and imagining that you have a "relationship" with that hunk of plastic.

Chris Clarke [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:14 PM:

You know, it really doesn't bother me what people choose to do in their private lives with their hundred pounds of petroleum distillates. Personally, I prefer someone not under my utter control: the process of loving someone who often disagrees with me, who says things I could not have anticipated much less written for her, makes life far more interesting. Still, everyone has their kink.

But:

As an iDollator,

...using internal capitalization like that? unIronically?
Squick. Me. Out.

That's just sick.

Quaino [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:24 PM:

You know, sex doll, fine, that's a little odd for me because I can see that as a legitimate way to get off. Not my tea, but I can respect that people buy it.

Pretending your sex doll has a personality and cuddling it, we're in creepy territory now; but you know, keep it to yourself, don't bring it to the movies, and don't murder anyone and I say more power to you.

I was going to post a comment to the effect of 'I don't think we need to assume he's a misogynist, he's just...pretty weird.'

But you add all that up, and then add your lines about women lying to meet their own ends, and feminists chomping at the bit, and I think if you're not a misogynist you're certainly a douchebag who thinks too highly of himself.

So, your choice, woman hater or ego-stuffed weirdo?

fiend [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:29 PM:

As I said over at gilliard's on this same topic... if a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, why is a man without a woman an object worthy of contempt?

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:36 PM:

>>As I said over at gilliard's on this same topic... if a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, why is a man without a woman an object worthy of contempt?>>

Look, if Gloria Steinem ever buys herself a RealDude, you can excoriate her for a vicious misandrist. But this isn't a man without a woman. This is a man who has bought himself a fake woman as a substitute for and perceived improvement on the real thing. Despite the fact that it's mute, volitionless, and injection-molded, he believes himself to have a relationship with it on par with his relationships with animate people. That's creepy. And it implies a great deal about how he sees or wishes to see real women.

Look at this bit. He says in as many words that he prefers a woman-shaped thing to a woman, and compares contact with a hunk of plastic favorably to a love affair with a woman:

>>As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship. As I see it, no-one should have to be alone. Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.>>

redbraidy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:38 PM:

Mr. Clarke, that cracked me up.

Mr. Dollguy, misogyny aside, some people are going to find the whole doll thing creepy and/or sad. There are many lonely people out there, and everyone has (and meets) their sexual needs in some fashion. But most people don't dress their accomodation to that need in a cloak of 'better than real'. I think that's what many people found very disturbing.

I'm not against the sex doll thing, in fact, I think some farsighted firm should get cracking and work out the bugs for a true android woman. That way, all the guys who don't want someone real can have their pick of a 'perfect' woman, who if she doesn't satisfy, can be traded on the Used Android Lot. I'm sure there would also be a market for android 'perfect' men too. I'm not being snarky--I started thinking about this as a joke, but over the years I've come to think it might be an idea whose time should come.

I would not personally be in the market for an android boyfriend, as the idea does creep me out big time. Since I'm not willing to fold, bend, spindle, mutilate and mute my personality and interests solely to have a relationship, I expect I will wind up one of those old ladies with cats. But I'm all for other people being able to purchase their dream 'mate'.

nick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:41 PM:

Fiend-good point. You certainly hear a lot of that over here. Basically, I think that some people (men and women) just aren't attractive (usually physical) to others, so there choice is to try to do something to change that if possible, accept it and work on other things, or become bitter about it and begin to hate all those who you feel rejected you. These people seemed to have picked the last option, and found some outlet for their energies. Not my thing, but I suppose better than having them open fire on a subway.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:44 PM:

I'm not against the sex doll thing, in fact, I think some farsighted firm should get cracking and work out the bugs for a true android woman. That way, all the guys who don't want someone real can have their pick of a 'perfect' woman, who if she doesn't satisfy, can be traded on the Used Android Lot. I'm sure there would also be a market for android 'perfect' men too. I'm not being snarky--I started thinking about this as a joke, but over the years I've come to think it might be an idea whose time should come.

For what it's worth, there is a whole subgenre of Scifie that addresses this issue, and the Japanese have a lot of robotgirl manga. Chiba is a title that comes to mind.
And John Varley has a character with a 'male' robot that she 'uses' sexually in Millenium, althought he's one of the good guys....

Ross A Lincoln [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:46 PM:

So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner? I assume every single one of you has been completely and utterly successful with their dating experiences?

Whaaa? Why, as I type this reply, I'm making out with exotic women, adding entries into my black book, and grooming my rakish, Don Ameche-esque mustache. So to answer your question, yes.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:50 PM:

I'm not against the sex doll thing, in fact, I think some farsighted firm should get cracking and work out the bugs for a true android woman. That way, all the guys who don't want someone real can have their pick of a 'perfect' woman, who if she doesn't satisfy, can be traded on the Used Android Lot. I'm sure there would also be a market for android 'perfect' men too. I'm not being snarky--I started thinking about this as a joke, but over the years I've come to think it might be an idea whose time should come.

Just make sure nobody tries to make them with RPP(Real People Personalities). It'd just be sad to stick some android with a personality with these hate filled sickos. Besides, if it had a personality it'd just be too complicated and imperfect for Davecat.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 12:58 PM:

>>>So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner? I assume every single one of you has been completely and utterly successful with their dating experiences?>>
Whaaa? Why, as I type this reply, I'm making out with exotic women, adding entries into my black book, and grooming my rakish, Don Ameche-esque mustache. So to answer your question, yes.>

Yeah, this cracked me up I've made some pretty sickening attempts at homecooked dinners in my time, buddy, but I didn't decide to eat all my meals out of plastic trays as a result. I've had some disloyal friends, but that doesn't mean I spend all my time with my tropical fish collection. I've been caught in nasty weather, but it didn't stop me from ever leaving my house again. A romantic life is a learning process. Rejection is par for the course--and it's nothing but conceit to pretend that no reasonable woman would reasonably opt out of you. So's real love and human intimacy. I'm sorry you gave those up.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:00 PM:

Actually, fiend, a man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle. We don't *need* each other, though it was and is women who get questioned why we aren't sweating getting a man or getting married.

But there's a huge difference between a man who doesn't need a woman to complete him, and a man who's so filled with self-pity and entitlement that he would rather have a "relationship" with a doll because real people have inconvenient things like free will, opinions, and agency.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:18 PM:

Great, now "Coin Operated Boy" by the Dresden Dolls will be going through my head all goddamn day.

(You can also watch the video at their website: http://dresdendolls.com/video/index.htm)

Binky Rasmussen [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:26 PM:

Did anyone else click through the pictures with the article? The last one shows the dolls hanging up in assembly, and in the back ground, there is a dude doll. Perhaps the client base is more diverse than the article suggests, or, that the buyers are buying both but only talking about the female dolls?

sparklegirl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:27 PM:

Mnemosyne, that was the first thing that came to my mind too!

sparklegirl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:32 PM:

They do have one male doll, apparently. I followed the link to the Real Doll site, and they've recently added a male version.

Dan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:43 PM:

The only one that really - and I mean really - freaks me out is the Anime Real Doll.

I mean if you want to talk about warped perceptions due to repeated exposure to unrealistic media, well, there's your thesis paper right there.

Binky Rasmussen [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:43 PM:

Ew ew ew...the doctor site with the quadruple amputee doll?

Must. Stop. Reading. Now.

aeonsomnia [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:56 PM:

My quick comments:

1) Did anyone go look at the Studio page? That one doll looks just like Elizabeth Berkeley when she starred in Showgirls....Scrolling on down the page, RealDoll states that they can make "she-male" dolls, also (and they show the pics).

2)I noticed that they had a lone male doll, but that may be more for gay men than straight women.

3) Some of the men who use this complain that it's because flesh & blood women won't give them the time of day. I saw that the price was about $6500 (add ons=more money), so this is selling to guys that can shell out the money for them. I'm just curious what blue collar guys w/out the bucks & "scoring skillz" do; guess they have to learn to communicate with women, use Rosie Palm & her five sisters, or buy a
cheap(er) prostitute.

4) The doll might keep women from putting up with misogynistic men in the bedroom. That doesn't necessarily mean that he won't be misogynistic to women everywhere else.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 01:57 PM:

Many weights and shapes to choose from I will never ever leave my bedroom...

Did anyone else click through the pictures with the article? The last one shows the dolls hanging up in assembly, and in the back ground, there is a dude doll. Perhaps the client base is more diverse than the article suggests, or, that the buyers are buying both but only talking about the female dolls?

Do you mean http://www.still-lovers.com/ or someplace else?

Binky Rasmussen [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:04 PM:

There was a pop-up graphic on the Salon page that excerpts a few of the photos. It reminded me of seeing sides of beef in a freezer of something.

kactus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:06 PM:

Ok, this is what I've learned from this post and the many "creeped-out" comments: lots of people think their own sexuality is fine, but other people's sexuality is wierd. Lots of people like to make judgements about how other people get their rocks off. Lots of people want to politicize the very private things we do in our bedrooms.

Would it interest you to know that there are people out there who are turned on by rubber balloons? Or have a fetish about giant women in high heels stomping on them? You might want to know about guys (and women) who are so turned on by fur that the mere description of a fur coat will bring them to orgasm.

There are also the guys--super-macho guys, too--who want nothing more than to be anally raped by a gorgeous woman wearing a strap-on. Others just want to be called names. Some want to be saddled like a horse and rode around the room.

And the list goes on and on. Get over it, folks. This is sex that has no victim. And none of us consciously chooses what turns us on. Are these guys' doll fetishes actually harmful to you? No.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:11 PM:

Kactus, it's not the use of a sex toy that's creepy, it's the fact that some of these people think they have a relationship with a hunk of silicone. I mean, describing a lifeless doll as "relentlessly perky?"

Ew ew ew...the doctor site with the quadruple amputee doll?

Someone saw Boxing Helena one too many times.

labyrus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:15 PM:

Most people nowadays accept S&M; stuff as being okay in a consensual environment, and that's really just playing around with the idea of sexual domination. Often (from what I've heard from others, I've never been a participant, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) these involve fairly elaborate fantasies in which one person is the "master", and outside the bedroom, they're a totally normal couple with a good relationship. Some dude doing the same thing to a piece of plastic doesn't really mean he's Mysogynistic in other parts of his life, so long as a he doesn't treat real women like that.

Creepy, yes. Possibly singalling some really messed up feelings towards women, definitely, but I think so long as the men who use these things establish and respect boundaries between the real world and the imaginary playing with their dolls world, I don't see a problem.

Davecat->You sir, are seriously making yourself look like you're pretty darn sexist, however. While I don't really care what you do or don't do with Dolls, I'd encourage you to evaluate and consider your social relationships with women.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:19 PM:

Are these guys' doll fetishes actually harmful to you? No.

Like zuzu said -- I'd be less worried if they did seem to have a plastic fetish, or a doll fetish, as opposed to anthropomorphizing a hunk of expensive plastic and claiming to have a relationship with it.

I doubt you'd find many fur fetishists who insist that their favorite fur coat is their girlfriend/boyfriend with whom they have a mutual relationship.

Get over it, folks. This is sex that has no victim.

Except, of course, the guys who are so terrified of other human beings that they cannot even dare to have a relationship with one. It's not "perfectly normal" for a human being to want to be completely isolated from others. I'm sorry, but it's not.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:20 PM:

>>Some dude doing the same thing to a piece of plastic doesn't really mean he's Mysogynistic in other parts of his life, so long as a he doesn't treat real women like that.>>

But what if he's using the doll as a replacement for the real women he would otherwise have to interact with in order to get laid? That's the issue: not that this guy has a sex toy, but that he think his sex toy is better in every respect except possibly texture than a real woman. If someone decided that he'd rather interact with a passive, lifeless doll than with, say, his children, would you not consider that a wee bit pathological?

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:22 PM:

sex toys are okay for girls.

but weird and creepy for boys. right?

it wasn't too long ago that a woman owning a vibrator was considered a weird and creepy thing by many people. thankfully, that attitude has changed.

i wonder when boys will get to have their toys too. without judgment.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:22 PM:

>>Except, of course, the guys who are so terrified of other human beings that they cannot even dare to have a relationship with one. It's not "perfectly normal" for a human being to want to be completely isolated from others. I'm sorry, but it's not.>>

And the women and girls who take away the clear message that the only good woman is a lifeless one. Agency is even nastier than leg hair.

The Heretik [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:28 PM:

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:31 PM:

>>sex toys are okay for girls.

but weird and creepy for boys. right?>>

Wrong! Read the thread, will you? There's nothing wrong with having a sex toy. It's perfectly fine--encouraged, even, by the roundheeled marriage-hatin' fetus-slaughterin' porn-bingein' skank ho who runs this blog and all the degenerate polyamoristic liberal commenters who support it--to have a piece of plastic tucked away in the nightstand or even mounted on the wall. We are all about the hedonism over here.

It is not okay to believe that women are less romantically appealing than insensate woman-shaped objects. It is not okay to say that relationships with real women are more trouble than they're worth. It is not okay to compare a woman's personality unfavorably with that of an overpriced teething ring. The level and tone of expectation that preference places on women smacks of misogyny: women would be better if they didn't speak, think, want, or feel.

That's what we're complaining about. Not that he has a sex toy, but that he has made said sex toy his common-law wife.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:33 PM:

I have no problem with boys having sex toys (in fact I highly encourage it as it would lead to guys being less squeamish about using them to help get women off), but when they go as far as to say that it's not only providing sex (really, it's only providing masturbation, I don't call it sex when I play with toys, do you?), but companionship...yeah, that's fucked up. If you don't get that there are some serious delusions that would have to go into considering a hunk of plastic "companionship" with which they can have a "relationship", I don't know how to explain it to you. I don't consider my toys companionship, I don't have relationships with my toys.

nick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:35 PM:

"And the women and girls who take away the clear message that the only good woman is a lifeless one. Agency is even nastier than leg hair. "
Hilarious. I am sure women are out there reading this and saying to themselves "I've got to be like these dolls to get studs like this!".

redbraidy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:37 PM:

It's not the fact that they have found a sexual outlet that is creepy. As several people have repeated, it's that they see the sex dolls as better than an actual relationship, and, yes, the implication that real women are nasty and gross both physically and mentally, that creeps people out. You want to have sex with balloons, fine, but to say that a balloon is more of a companion than a flesh and blood partner is going to make people look at you askance.

Bingo, Mr. Bill, that is exactly what started my joke long ago. I am not familiar with the Japanese manga stuff, but as a long time reader of sci fi, there's many stories about robot boy/girlfriends. I was thinking in particular of a very old story that I read as a little kid in the 60s/70s. Two scientists had developed a robot woman. For some reason they hadn't programmed her personality and somehow she wound up watching daytime soap operas and developed a 'romantic' personality. Both of the scientists fell in love with her, but she chose one over the other. The rejected scientist never marries, and, in fact, helps the robot woman 'age' as they grow older, so her husband would never remember she was a robot. I don't remember now how it ended (I think he was telling a deathbed story about his life, and he eventually destroyed the robot woman, by her request, after her husband died.) Obviously this story stuck with me, even as a little girl I thought it was creepy and strange that someone would fall in love with a girl whose personality was formed from the ladies on the stories (which is what everyone I knew called them, never soap operas), and that the rejected scientist would reject all other possible girls in favor of someone he had built. As an adult, I think it creepy that the sole function of the female robot came to be functioning as a wife to one of her creators (who didn't even remember she was a robot), and that when he died, all reason for her existance ended.

Wookie, I don't think androids with real personalities would be big sellers anyhow--again in a lot of the science fiction, much trouble ensues when androids with real personalities walk onto the scene. I'm thinking they would be more artificial personalities, perhaps like the robot girl who took her personality from the 'stories'. They wouldn't actually be people, just have very realistic programming within defined parameters (using the definition of parameter: a set of physical properties whose values determine the characteristics or behavior of a system). So you would have the perky cheerleader model or the feisty Goth girl, who would behave within certain stereotypical limits, with some personalized programming for the higher end market, and minimal personalizing for the economy model (I think even the budget android girl/boyfriend consumer would expect his/her purchase to know the purchaser's name). And definitely they would have to have shutoff switches or commands, as in that one Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd can silence the android version of his nagging wife with a hearty 'shut up'. But the androids would not have real feelings, only the ersatz ones they are originally programmed with, so it doesn't matter if the owner is kind, mean, or indifferent. Of course, there would always be the anthropomorphing of the androids--people would feel sorry for the poor abused things, just like people sometimes get sad when a kid tears up their Barbie or GI Joe. No solution is perfect. ;)

elfy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:38 PM:

(Kelly suggested in a telephone conversation with me that doll owners should be considered a new breed of sensitive male: "If you think about it, they're the right guy to meet because they're not going to get you into bed immediately. They're going to be interested in you as a person.")

Dur?
Maybe, as long as you as a person do not conflict with their idea of what you need to be into - I mean, if you like everything that he wishes you liked, except for one band, would that still be ok? How about two bands? And lilking tacos more than burgers? Would that be irreconsilable problem?

To me, men like that are kind of in the same league (but heavier weight) as people who get pets because they don't want to deal with having kids, and then treat their pets as if the WERE their kids (I'm sorry, I am not my cat's mommy, and she would freak if I tried to dress her up as a widdle human) These people are happier with a surrogate than the real thing, and that is cowardly and pathetic.

If one wants a sex doll to practice sex techniques, fine. If one wants a weird crutch to get over bad break-up, ok, it probably will create more issues later on, but fine.
If one wants to have a relationship, which, by definition includes interaction, which is impossible with a piece of plastic, then that's twisted and cowardly. It is basically an admission, "I'm such a pathetic loser, I have not done and am not doing anything that would make anyone interested in me and I have not reached maturity level to be able to deal with a real human being so I'll just fake conversations and sex."
For crying out loud, the first guy in that article was playing video games with his doll! "HA! I win again! You really need to brush up on your skills, dear, you haven't hit me ONCE!" Pathetic.

And they say that sex with a doll is as good as with a real woman? Gee, you gotta feel sorry if the real life experience is equal to fucking a lump of plastic.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:43 PM:

What piny and WookieMonster said!

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:44 PM:

I can't believe some of the vitriol on here. People like davecat exist. They are, for whatever reason, socially or emotionally screwed up. Clearly, he wouldn't be very good in relationships with women-- and I doubt any women would want to date him. Does this mean that he should be totally lonely for the rest of his life? Why doesn't he deserve a chance to try to be happy his own way without being self-righteously condemned?

Sure, it's weird, and of course it's not normal. But the wingers think homosexuality is weird and abnormal, so they feel the need to self-righteously condemn it. Why not just let people make their own choices and live the way they want? I thought that's what our liberal tolerance was all about.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:46 PM:

piling on lonely men who obviously have trouble maintaining human relationships is beneath the bright and articulate commenters in this forum.

It is not okay to say that relationships with real women are more trouble than they're worth.

you're wrong. it's perfectly okay for someone to reach that conclusion. it's also okay for someone to reach the conclusion that relationships with other human beings are more trouble than they're worth.

you too quickly and easily judge the trauma and pain that others have endured. perhaps they express that trauma and pain slightly rhetorically inappropriately; you still know nothing of this man's backstory, however.

we all react to life's trials in different ways. some continue onwards. others withdraw. i would hesitate to condemn someone's decision to withdraw from the idea of human companionship without knowing what they've gone through.

but if a two-paragraph description of some lonely human can be used for political condemnation, it's all chuckles to do that in this forum. pardon me if it seems a little shallow.

here's a thought experiment: if a man who was seriously physically disfigured (massive scarring, multiple amputee, whatever) made the same statements, would you so easily condemn him? if you wouldn't, you need to reconsider what you're doing here.

werd.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:46 PM:

Doh, I should have refreshed. Also what elfy said.

Sheelz, your site's down for me right now but I would like to read your take on this as well.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:50 PM:

(Kelly suggested in a telephone conversation with me that doll owners should be considered a new breed of sensitive male: "If you think about it, they're the right guy to meet because they're not going to get you into bed immediately. They're going to be interested in you as a person.")

Dur?
Maybe, as long as you as a person do not conflict with their idea of what you need to be into - I mean, if you like everything that he wishes you liked, except for one band, would that still be ok? How about two bands? And lilking tacos more than burgers? Would that be irreconsilable problem?

To be fair, the guy who said that was about the only one featured in the article who was clear-eyed about his dolls -- he referred to them as "its" and was quite clear that he was masturbating with them.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:52 PM:

it wasn't too long ago that a woman owning a vibrator was considered a weird and creepy thing by many people. thankfully, that attitude has changed.

Look, I realize that ACTUALLY READING THE FUCKING THREAD will nuke your assumption that the Big Evil Matriarchy (TM) is hurting men with double standards, and then you won't have anything to bitch about. But I've had it with people who are too lazy to READ THE FUCKING COMMENTS IN THE THREAD and instead argue over points we never made.

Here's the cliffnote version: People thought the idea of having a relationship with a doll--a thing with no mind, no quirks, no will, and no awareness--was creepy. It wasn't the sexual aid part of it, which we couldn't care less about. Also, the whining about women lying, and the woe-is-me whinging over rejection was getting tiresome--'cause no woman ever deals with rejection, unfair expectations, or liars.

Here are some excerpts:

But there's a huge difference between a man who doesn't need a woman to complete him, and a man who's so filled with self-pity and entitlement that he would rather have a "relationship" with a doll because real people have inconvenient things like free will, opinions, and agency.

And

Like zuzu said -- I'd be less worried if they did seem to have a plastic fetish, or a doll fetish, as opposed to anthropomorphizing a hunk of expensive plastic and claiming to have a relationship with it.

I doubt you'd find many fur fetishists who insist that their favorite fur coat is their girlfriend/boyfriend with whom they have a mutual relationship.

And

Kactus, it's not the use of a sex toy that's creepy, it's the fact that some of these people think they have a relationship with a hunk of silicone.

And

Look, if Gloria Steinem ever buys herself a RealDude, you can excoriate her for a vicious misandrist. But this isn't a man without a woman. This is a man who has bought himself a fake woman as a substitute for and perceived improvement on the real thing. Despite the fact that it's mute, volitionless, and injection-molded, he believes himself to have a relationship with it on par with his relationships with animate people. That's creepy. And it implies a great deal about how he sees or wishes to see real women.

And

I still wouldn't turn to a doll, because it's an inanimate object. You can't have a relationship with an inanimate object. That you think you can is quite telling. You're not interested in a human being with agency, needs, desires, and quirks.

And

Besides the messed up implication that a hunk of plastic can participate in a relationship (a relationship involves two sides, not a person and a hunk of plastic, sorry), I like how you think that every woman is, by definition, a lying scheming bitch. Once again, no wonder you had bad experiences dating, that kind of misogyny is a real turn off FYI.

And

If you view a plastic doll as "companionship", yeah, there's something pretty inherently fucked up about that. Sorry, I would have absolutly no problem with sex dolls, but viewing it as a "companionship" really just shows that all you're interested in a companion is someone who will have no interests, no thoughts, and not talk or act in any way. Really is it any wonder that your dating expereinces have been unsuccessful if what you are really looking for is a doll?

And

But to be perfectly honest, I find it disconcerting and upsetting when women tell me that their sex toys are substitutes for the "real thing". We've all made hostile and bitter jokes, but if you really do think a toy is an adequate subsitute for a human being, it's creepy.

In short--READ THE FUCKING COMMENTS.


elfy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:53 PM:

Dave, if that really was you and not some smartass having fun, for your info, my mate is far from perfect. We've gone through so much shit together, and there had been times I thought things just were not worth us being together, and then lo! We pulled through, and our relationship is so much better, and the fact that we don't agree on everything makes life so much more exciting.

It's called living, Dave. Love is not about finding a perfect mate. It's about finding a mate whose wonderful traits outweigh their imperfections. And then, you know what? When they get rid of a habit they had, just for you, have you any idea how exhillirating that feels? And you do the same for them, 'cause you love that look on their face, and them being happy makes you happy. But you wouldn't know that, because well... your mate is "perfect", and she can find no flaws in you... must be so boring.

You probably think that learning to pick up your laundry or learning not to pick up your phone when you're in the middle of a conversation is "selling out your soul" or something.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:54 PM:

yeah, um, "sheelzebub," and read mine.

comments, that is.

and maybe tone it down a bit, hm?

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 02:57 PM:

>>"And the women and girls who take away the clear message that the only good woman is a lifeless one. Agency is even nastier than leg hair. "
Hilarious. I am sure women are out there reading this and saying to themselves "I've got to be like these dolls to get studs like this!". >>

I think they read about this and the multitude of other examples of the patriarchy telling women that they should be more docile and more pleasing to their mayun and take away the message that an independent personality is not terribly attractive in a woman. But hey: from your lips to Cosmopolitan's ears, dude.

And Sando: if this stems from serious trauma, why aren't there RealDudes in serious demand from injured women? Rape victims don't run out and buy wax boyfriends. Nor, so far as I know, do their therapists recommend them. These guys are suffering from the much more common disorder of unrealistic expectations. They have probably had one or two relationships that didn't turn out too well, probably because real women don't put up with the demands that can comfortably be placed on mannequins. They have decided as a result that women are better when they're fake.

Moreover, these are not men who merely have trouble maintaining human relationships. These are men who blame other people--women, to be exact--for that failing. They're also men whose immaturity is being eagerly enabled by the RealDoll industry.

Wrt the bit about the "seriously disfigured" man--yes, I would excoriate him. Remember, we are not merely talking about a sex toy, nor are we talking about someone who has no options for human contact. We are talking about a belief that a plastic woman is better than the real thing, and a conscious decision to abjure the company of real women in favor of the company of toys.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:00 PM:

awprokop, the problem is not that it's weird and we're being self-righteous about people being weird. The problem is the overtones of disturbing misogyny. Liberals are not required to be tolerant of every damn thing, and misogyny is one of the damn things we're not supposed to be tolerant of.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:13 PM:

i'm sure it's awfully comforting to excoriate the seriously disfigured and their efforts to find pleasure.

i'm uncomfortable with the condemnation of other human beings based on relatively little information. others clearly aren't, from the tone of this forum.

i'm a feminist male. but i'm a humanist first. i'm not sure what you all are.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:14 PM:

I did read your comment, salto. That's what I do--I read. Pity you don't actually try it yourself.

This is what you wrote:

sex toys are okay for girls.

but weird and creepy for boys. right?

it wasn't too long ago that a woman owning a vibrator was considered a weird and creepy thing by many people. thankfully, that attitude has changed.

i wonder when boys will get to have their toys too. without judgment.

You'll just have to cope when I call bullshit.

You said that we had a double standard for men and women when it came to sex toys. In your later post, you went off on us about being mean to disfigured or lonely men, without context. People were reacting to Davecat's misogynist comments, and how he had a "relationship" with a doll.

The recap I posted for your edification and amazement--since you've apparently got an aversion to reading what people write--pretty much threw cold water on your assertions.

No, I won't tone it down. I tend to get pissy when people tell me I say things I didn't say or that I hold opinions I've never espoused.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:16 PM:

i'm sure it's awfully comforting to excoriate the seriously disfigured and their efforts to find pleasure.

I'm sure it's awfully comforting to put words in the mouths of commentors.

Again, do try reading the comments. People thought it was creepy and misogynist that "Davecat" called women liars and threw a slew of misogynist BS on us, and then said he had a "relationship" with a doll. No one said it was bad to use a doll or to get pleasure.

But don't let reality get in the way of your rant.

nick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:21 PM:

Piny,
I don't want Cosmo to change one bit. Everytime I see someone with it, I know that it generally isn't a woman I would be interested in. I imagine Maxim would be useful for women in the same way.

Chris Clarke [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:23 PM:

i wonder when boys will get to have their toys too. without judgment.

Yeah, if only the gun, tank, bmber and SUV industry hadn't gone out of business.

I was thinking that I find it interesting these days that there's actually a constituency among men who, far from being concerned that their relationships fail - as a more or less emotionally healthy man would - actually seem to revel in their identity as sociopathic losers.

But then I rmembered that Amanda and Jesse already get enough Men's Rights Activist trolls, and so I decided not to say anything.

masterson [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:26 PM:

Prudish hypocrits! Only the worst throwback men call women sick for using dildos. Women (and the men who suck up to them) ROUTINELY call men who use artificial vaginas "losers" who can't get a real women. Well, not one we want to fuck, not surprisingly. Like its' raining Nicole Simpsons!

Wake the fuck up. We're MEN! for fucks sake! Of course we'll spend a fortune on an artificial pussy! Most men have spent the entire GDP of Guatemala on porno by the time we're 25!


salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:28 PM:

Wrt the bit about the "seriously disfigured" man--yes, I would excoriate him.

you may need a little remediation in your reading skills, "sheelzebub."

pardon me for thinking that this righteous flurry of indignant condemnation is more than a little shallow.

finally, i think the choice of the word "rant" to describe my comments is inappropriate. project your rage at the world elsewhere, please.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:28 PM:

>>i'm sure it's awfully comforting to excoriate the seriously disfigured and their efforts to find pleasure.

i'm uncomfortable with the condemnation of other human beings based on relatively little information. others clearly aren't, from the tone of this forum.

i'm a feminist male. but i'm a humanist first. i'm not sure what you all are.>>

I'm sure it's awfully useful to turn people with disabilities into straw men. Particularly when you get to kick them so hard.

I'm sure you're not going to listen to his any more than you're going to listen to any of the other iterations by any of the other people on this blog, but: this is not about pleasure. These men, by their own admission, do not see these dolls as sex toys, objects, mannequins, things. They see them as improved substitutes for real women. They are not using them to masturbate. They have promoted them to the level of companion.

Nor are they using them in lieu of the human contact they are cut off from. They are using them because they prefer them to the human contact they could have if they were interested in actual human intimacy. They prefer personality-free pieces of plastic to real human women with desires and needs of their own. They obviously can date, and have dated--they've decided that it was too inconvenient to have another person to care about. They don't like women, full stop.

That's one reason your people-with-disabilities analogy is seriously weak.

The other is your implicit comparison between some man who's become an emotionally stunted asshole through the alchemy of his own immaturity and consumerism's instant-gratification service ethic, and someone who's actually living with a disability.

firefalluk [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:28 PM:

woefully OT:
"Big Evil Matriarchy (TM)" - sorry, Sheelz, you can't register this, BEM is already trademarked for Bug Eyed Monsters. Oh hey ... this isn't a coincidence, right?

back to the topic:
I'm deeply in love with my dining table, as she's so sturdy and ... hard. As for my wife's relationship with the bed, well, I draw a veil over this

zoe kentucky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:29 PM:

I suppose I'm in the minority here, I just don't have much of an opinion about this topic. Maybe it's because these dolls have been around for years and I've read about them, seen HBO's "Real Sex" do a piece on women using the male dolls (and have a lot of fun doing it), so frankly, they just don't shock me. (Except for maybe the price tag!)

That being said, I read the article and some of the men do seem to have, well, issues with women born of bad or limited experiences. In those cases, I feel compassion, not anger or self-righteousness. For their sakes it might be good to visit a therapist and work through some of those issues, but frankly, they're not hurting anyone. There are all sorts of dysfunctional people who have fetishes/desires that do hurt others, so personally I'm all for leaving people who have human-sized silicone sex dolls alone. So what, they're weird to you. Who cares?

Most of us are deviants (or would like to be) in our own way, so let's leave the judging and the outrage to the people whose public desires are to legally control what mature, consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. You know, like the people who want all forms of sodomy to be a crime (anything that isn't hetero & missionary) or sex toys banned, they're far more dangerous than people playing with sex dolls.

john gorenfeld [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:30 PM:

I've enjoyed this thread, and a lot of you may be right, but speaking truth to RealDoll users is about as satisfying as savagely lambasting the Otherkin -- people who believe they're secretly vampires and dragons, trapped in human form (cf. Michael Mann's "Manhunter")

It's a great article on an upsettingly sad pocket of our culture. But these wretches are at the very bottom of the misogyny game, a tiny core sample of bigger cultural problems, and that's why the article's relevant -- not because these people themselves, with their sad, stunted lives, are somehow fueling sexism at large.

The more influential misogynists, the ones you want to be attacking, are the ones with better public relations skills.

Afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted...

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:31 PM:

>>Wrt the bit about the "seriously disfigured" man--yes, I would excoriate him.

you may need a little remediation in your reading skills, "sheelzebub.">>

You did, too, put words in my mouth. Again, I--like everyone else here--has no problem with masturbatory aids. We have a problem with people who say they're better than women. Ask someone living with a disability if they prefer a piece of plastic to a human being.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:34 PM:

So what I've got here:

Men with real dolls are "Fucked Up". Fucked up more than, say, women with 1200 dollar Sybians or men/women who like the leather and the chains.

Okay. So what? There's all sorts of fucked up. Half the frickin' world is fucked up one way or another. Why should I care he's molesting plastic? It's what it's made for.

So he has a problem with women and blames them -- so what? Some people blame God or the Devil for all their ills, and at least women exist, so this poor fucked up bastard's at least got that.....

He's not out pestering women or beating them or killing them or whatnot -- he's home screwing his doll.

I don't blame the patriarchy or the matriarchy or God or the Devil or modern TV or pornorgraphy. Some people are just wired differently. And until he hurts someone, I don't give two shits what he does.

If anything, I think it's GREAT these guys have their Real Dolls, because it means they're not shoving their stupid demands on real people -- which means they're saving everyone time and trouble.

We should probably take up a collection to lower the price of real dolls so that people who can't handle reality have an easy escape from it.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:35 PM:

Wrt the bit about the "seriously disfigured" man--yes, I would excoriate him.

you may need a little remediation in your reading skills, "sheelzebub."

pardon me for thinking that this righteous flurry of indignant condemnation is more than a little shallow.

finally, i think the choice of the word "rant" to describe my comments is inappropriate. project your rage at the world elsewhere, please.

Actually, my comments on your non-existent reading comprehension skills still stand. You're responding to a comment I didn't make.

I also think "rant" is perfectly appropriate way to describe your posts, since you've been setting up strawmen and aspirating on your own spittle over things none of us has said. As for shallow indignation, I'll leave that to you. That comes with the territory when you have to pull arguments we never made out of your ass.

j swift [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:40 PM:

Devil's Advocate here:

"The other is your implicit comparison between some man who's become an emotionally stunted asshole through the alchemy of his own immaturity and consumerism's instant-gratification service ethic, and someone who's actually living with a disability."

Question: emotionally or mental illness is not a disability?

Well hell how many right wingers state that homosexuality is behavior and they can change?

Are you certain these guys are just in the habit of being doll lovers?

Isn't it possible that they have something in their genetic makeup or past that has disabled them?

Half the people here sound like social darwinist, take some responsibility for yourself, cut a haircut, conservatives about this little facet of kinkdom.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:47 PM:

Well, not one we want to fuck, not surprisingly. Like its' raining Nicole Simpsons!


Dude ... did you just admit you're a necrophiliac?

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:47 PM:

piny, your analysis is spot on, except for this:

"They obviously can date, and have dated--they've decided that it was too inconvenient to have another person to care about."

You just assume pure selfishness on the part of these men. How do you know that they "can" date? Here's a quote from the article, which says that Davecat actually has "never" officially dated someone:

'[Davecat] compares his interaction with women to a bodily reaction, something over which he has no control, much as he wishes that he could meet a woman who breathes. "People who are allergic to roses can enjoy artificial roses," he says. "In the same way, artificial women serve the same purpose for men who are, in whatever way, allergic to real women."'

Some people are just unable to "make it" in the "dating world," either because there's something physically or mentally "off" about them or because no one wants them (or both). If they want to buy these dolls, why shouldn't they?

Sure, some of these guys are probably just selfish and lazy and enjoy having sex with dolls. But I really think you're painting with too broad a brush.

Blitzgal [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:48 PM:

What did people think about the dolls that were found mutilated and seriously abused? While it was troubling to me to read about men who have active relationship with what amounts to a rubber mannequin, the argument that they aren't hurting anyone can definitely be made. But the doll that was dismembered and left in the trash can? The doll that had a huge gaping hole where her anus and vagina should have been? Was that seriously fucked up exhibit of aggression against women "blowing off steam" that doesn't hurt anyone, or were those guys just practicing for the real thing?

nick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:53 PM:

"They obviously can date, and have dated--they've decided that it was too inconvenient to have another person to care about."
I was going to comment on this too. this seems untrue, especially for the first guy. as for the rest, I tend to be suspicious of guys that say, effectively'sure, I have a doll as a girlfriend, but I could totally be banging hot babes if I wanted to". Whatever.
Anyhow, I don't have a problem with people who prefer dolls over some human beings, just those that prefer them over all human beings.

elfy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:55 PM:

to all the "defenders" of the po' little iDollators - there's a wee bit of difference between us ragging on the iDollators and the wingnuts trying to impose their laws on gays -
we are not trying to get these losers to change, and we're certainly are not going to run off to lobby for laws that will forbid those losers to do what they do. The wingnuts do exactly that. So let's please not compare apples and oranges.

Secondly, well, GEE, I'm sorry their widdle egos got bruised. If someone does not want people to disagree or make fun of them, they should keep it under wraps. You can make fun or get shocked at any part of my public life - the one I talk about or blog about - and I won't care much, because those are the parts I chose to be out there for people to see. The parts I may feel sensitive about I just keep private.

And please quit trying to make it seem like we care about their sex toys, because it's their "companions" that creep us out.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:56 PM:

the self-righteousness and hostility of some commenters here is weird and a little sad.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:56 PM:

To add to what Blitzgal asked, I submit the part of the Salon article where the psychiatrist is asked what he thinks: Tucker ventured that for certain men, doll love could stunt normal emotional development because intimacy with another person is a milestone in maturity. Immediate gratification and complete control of the emotional content of a relationship with a doll might make a man accustomed to absolute control with women -- a dynamic that would likely not play out well in a real relationship.

Tucker says pedophiles or doll owners with violent tendencies toward women -- a group that he speculates is a small subset of doll owners -- possibly could use a doll to "rehearse" offending behavior. And while it's not known whether fantasizing about pedophilia or violence leads to action, in the psychiatric community those fantasies are considered very troubling. It would be dangerous for a pedophile to use a young-looking doll, for example, because it would reinforce his fantasies with orgasm.

So let's not be TOO sure that this is harmless.

hamletta [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:57 PM:

All y'all saying it's no different from a vibrator didn't read the article:

Dr. Douglas Tucker, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of California San Francisco's Department of Psychiatry who specializes in treating sexual offenders, says the pro-doll arguments are not off-base. Broadly speaking, intercourse with a love doll doesn't signal anything particularly wrong or unhealthy, and arousal by such a lifelike depiction of a beautiful nude woman is natural. "I think most guys would approach this as a novelty and could muster some arousal," he says, adding that he would hesitate to label men who enjoy sex with Real Dolls pathological. But 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.

I don't agree that these guys' psych/emotional problems are harmless, at least not to themselves. Anything that causes someone to write off half the human race is kinda serious, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, sure, some women are obnoxious, needy, demanding, lying psycho hosebeasts. But when a run-in with one causes you to assume all the other women in the world are exactly the same, well, we're talking about some seriously faulty logic. And then what? Eventually, they're going to have to leave the house, and they're bound to run into a person or two of the female persuasion. The idea that every woman in the world is out to get you is bound to make a trip to the grocery store a tad bit more stressful than it needs to be.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 03:57 PM:

salto: So quit reading it, then.

elfy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:16 PM:

AUGH! Ok.... once again, all together, people:

We (the "bashers") have NO problem with these guys continuing to do their thing. After all, like many pointed out, the less of those guys hanging around the gene pool, the better.

We (the "bashers") are creeped out that these guys call what they do "having a relationship".

We (or at least I) am extremely offended at the thought that the reason guys buy real dolls is because it's not "raining Nicole Simpsons". Who the fuck are you to think you can deserve one? What have YOU done that's so hot?
And I don't get what's so increadibly better about fucking a super hot person? This weird perception that if they are hot they will fit personality-wise? How long do you think you'll be able to put up with her if she laughs like a horse and overspends? Or whatever.

And lastly, I don't know how the other guys here feel, but would you pathetic dudes stop insulting my husband by implying you are "men" and thus need to spend money on fake vaginas because well, you're MEN! My man gets his share of sex, but he couldn't do it all day long, because, I don't know, between work and child-rearing and rock-climbing and gourmet-cooking and car-racing and hiking and homework-checking, there is just so much time he can dedicate to sex and obsessing about hot women. Real men, FYI, do more than fuck.

YooHooligan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:18 PM:

So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner?

I'm pretty sure we all have, at one point in time or another. You have a good cry, dust yourself off, and get back on the horse. Sometimes that's hard. Sometimes it's easy.

I assume every single one of you has been completely and utterly successful with their dating experiences?

Absolutely not, but that's what makes for good war stories over a bottle of tequila and some guacamole.

Moreover, the person you're with is an absolute flawless joy to be around, physically, emotionally, and mentally?

I suspect the key words here are "absolutely" and "flawless". The downside to putting an emphasis on those qualities is that humans are never absolutely flawless. If that's what you're in the market for, you are absolutely better off with a doll -- but don't get high and mighty because folks like me don't get it; you knew you were opening yourself to the possibility of public criticism the minute you agreed to the interview.

(It's not the doll that bothers me. If that's his kink, kink on. It's DaveCat's attitude towards relationships as a whole. I can't decide if he's just scared, or he's scared *and* also not in the market for anything that falls short of absolutely flawless.)

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:20 PM:

Awprokop, did you really post that excerpt as a defense? Because I'm even more creeped out than before:

"[Davecat] compares his interaction with women to a bodily reaction, something over which he has no control, much as he wishes that he could meet a woman who breathes. 'People who are allergic to roses can enjoy artificial roses,' he says. 'In the same way, artificial women serve the same purpose for men who are, in whatever way, allergic to real women."'

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims to be "allergic" to an entire gender is really, really fucked up and needs some serious psychiatric help.

Go ahead, call me judgemental. I also think schizophrenics should be given medication and counseling for their mental problems instead of saying, "Well, they seem perfectly happy with their delusions. Why not let them be?"

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:21 PM:

This just seems like awfully familiar territory. This is "bad" because some people -- we're not sure who, but SOME PEOPLE -- might use these dolls to ramp up to doing something nasty to real people.

But isn't that true of ANYTHING? Doesnt' the exact same claim get made of porn, S&M;, age-play, and any other fetish?

Isn't that the SAME EXACT argument made about violent games? People play violent games and get "Desensitized" to violence and thus are more likely to commit it? Or rap music?

It's like that argument is wired into the human brain -- if you don't like something enough, but can't admit we just want to ban it because we don't like it, we'll make up "what if" scenarios about how some people might use it to become violent and actually do harm to someone....

And we'll never, ever, ever think "Maybe those people would have done harm ANYWAYS because they're fucked up to begin with".

Sarcastro [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:21 PM:

But what if he's using the doll as a replacement for the real women he would otherwise have to interact with in order to get laid? That's the issue: not that this guy has a sex toy, but that he think his sex toy is better in every respect except possibly texture than a real woman. If someone decided that he'd rather interact with a passive, lifeless doll than with, say, his children, would you not consider that a wee bit pathological?

Hold the fuck up! Non sequiter. Parents have certain obligations and responsibilities, both customarily and legally, to the children they produce. Some poor sap shacking up with a love doll has absolutely NO similar obligation or reponsibility to "the real women he would otherwise have to interact with in order to get laid".

Sure it is a bit pathological, but aren't we a bunch of lefty weirdos here? Don't we respect a deviation from the normal condition so long as it doesn't adversely effect others (as ignoring you children would)?

His, possible, misogyny is fair game for condemntation. His dorking a fake woman is just fair game for insults and mocking.

I wonder what the technical term for this would be? Pupaphilia would be latin for "Doll lover", but 'pupa' also means female child so maybe that's not so great. Effigiphilia kind of implies the doll represents a real person so that's out too. Greek for doll with the latin extension would be Daidalaphilia. That sounds good, but I think given my druthers I'd go with Kimcattrallphilia in honor of the movie Mannequin.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:27 PM:

>>Hold the fuck up! Non sequiter. Parents have certain obligations and responsibilities, both customarily and legally, to the children they produce. Some poor sap shacking up with a love doll has absolutely NO similar obligation or reponsibility to "the real women he would otherwise have to interact with in order to get laid".>>

That wasn't the similarity I was using to make the analogy; the problem isn't that he has an obligation to some random woman but that he rejects her humanity in favor of his doll's artifice. What if he collects dolls because he hates children, period? Or because he'd rather hang out with plastic than with human friends? What if he says in so many words that they're better because they're not actually people? Would that not seem pathological?

john gorenfeld [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:27 PM:

The ones you really ought to be worried about are the ones with flesh-and-blood girlfriends they treat as plastic. Our friend DaveCat is just a victim of this cultural joke. Can we pool together a fund for buying him a copy of Dating For Dummies or something? I mean, it was pretty brave of him to be so open about his terror of fellow human beings.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:30 PM:

Just to clarify: Yes, a number of people in the article seemed quite fucked up, if fairly harmless in terms of "bothering other people". However, given the sales numbers and such, I'm not sure I'd consider these people "representative" as a whole.

Frankly, you find fucked up people in stamp collecting too.

hamletta [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:31 PM:

Go ahead, call me judgemental. I also think schizophrenics should be given medication and counseling for their mental problems instead of saying, "Well, they seem perfectly happy with their delusions. Why not let them be?"

Exactly.

Absolutely not, but that's what makes for good war stories over a bottle of tequila and some guacamole.

Heh. When Ab-Fab: The Movie made its debut, I got together with a bunch of girlfriends to watch it. The main plot concerns smart feminist daughter Saffy's upcoming marriage to a lying, passive-aggressive, Eurotrash scumbag. We kept screaming, "No, Saffy, no! He'll break your heart!"

Then, people started blurting out stuff about the men in their past: "My husband used to weigh me once a week, and if I lost two pounds, he'd take me to a movie!"

"My boyfriend used to tell me my thighs made him retch!" We were howling with laughter.

Which proves the old formula: Tragedy + time = comedy.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:31 PM:

But isn't that true of ANYTHING? Doesnt' the exact same claim get made of porn, S&M;, age-play, and any other fetish?

I will repeat my earlier words almost exactly:

If the guy had a plastic fetish, or a doll fetish, I wouldn't be so creeped out.

What he seems to have is an "I Hate Women" fetish where he claims to be (see my comment directly above yours) "allergic" to human women and thus requires the doll for sex.

Again, most fetishists do not claim to have a mutual relationship with their fetish object. People who have a fur coat fetish don't claim that the coat is their boyfriend/girlfriend.

Most psychologists will tell you that fetishes are common and can be reasonably healthy with a loving partner, but they should never replace human interaction.

That's what this guy has done. He has rejected HUMAN INTERACTION in favor of a piece of plastic. Because he says he's "allergic" to actual, living, breathing women.

And you find that perfectly normal, do you, Morat?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:32 PM:

That wasn't the similarity I was using to make the analogy; the problem isn't that he has an obligation to some random woman but that he rejects her humanity in favor of his doll's artifice. What if he collects dolls because he hates children, period? Or because he'd rather hang out with plastic than with human friends? What if he says in so many words that they're better because they're not actually people? Would that not seem pathological?
Possible. But so what? Pathological behavior that doesn't hurt people is not my problem. He's happy, the doll's fake, and he's not hurting people.

What exactly is the problem?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:38 PM:

That's what this guy has done. He has rejected HUMAN INTERACTION in favor of a piece of plastic. Because he says he's "allergic" to actual, living, breathing women.

And you find that perfectly normal, do you, Morat?


Oh good, it's insulting people time! Beat that strawman!

No, I don't find it normal. But you know what? People don't find some of the shit I do normal either.

Since he's not actually hurting anyone, who am I to judge? And more importantly, why the fuck should I care?

The only "harm" I've seen anyone point out is that his preference for the doll over real women is denying some hypothetical woman a relationship -- to which I say "tough shit". He could decide to enter the Priesthood and be denying some hypothetical woman a relationship, and no one would bat an eye.

No, I don't think it's normal. No, I don't think they're terribly healthy. HOWEVER, I am quite aware that a good number of Americans would think the same thing about ME if I were brutally honest about my sex life in a magazine.

The only basis I have to judge anyone is on the basis of harm -- and if he's harming anyone, it's himself, and that's a personal choice. If I was his friend, I might suggest counseling. But until he actually harms someone -- which seems unlikely, as he apparently likes to snuggle with Ms Betty there -- who am I to judge?

SarahS [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:39 PM:

Would I fuck a doll? Eh, sure. I'll try anything once. I do seem to orgasm best on top, and you really can't be "on top" a vibrator. The sex aspect of it sounds kinda interesting, abit kinky. I fucked a cucumber once, it can't be worse then that (always use more lube!).

What I find deeply misogyntistic is that they are using these dolls as GIRLFRIENDS.

I should say up front, I work in a comic book store. You want to see a bunch of guys that don't get laid? Hang out in a comic book store. Every day I see guys who don't bathe properly, don't have any social skills (aka stare at my tits while I check them out), are shy, and most of all ARE BORING. No woman is attracted to someone like that, and a lot of these guys are so so bitter. They have this whole "but I'm a nice guy!" thing going on, as though that should automatically gaurantee them something. Even though they are rude, smelly, and have no opinions or interests, they say they are so "nice".

Note to guys: Women will choose a well groomed, confident, intelligent, and interesting asshole over someone who leers at their tits while making comments about how women are lying scum EVERY TIME.

If you want companionship, get a pet. Get a hobby. Get a hobby about your pet. Start a book club. Take some community college classes (hint: women love men in pottery classes, I've seen it enough to believe that this is a secret gold mine). Volunteer with your church or even with your RPG group (LARP for Cancer research or something). Mentor kids. Change careers. Learn a foreign language. Get a different haircut. Get involved in local politics. Take a class in yoga. In all these scenarios you are going to meet people and make yourself not boring. And know that some people will reject you and GET OVER IT.

But if you're just so bitter that you can't talk to real people anymore, get a doll and use it as your girlfriend. But do it knowing that it makes you sick, sad, and fucked up. And now you're the kinda guy that has alienated himself so much that he prefers companions as boring as you are.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:40 PM:

He's happy, the doll's fake, and he's not hurting people. What exactly is the problem?

I guess this is the rock we're breaking on: I think people should be treated for their mental illnesses and not indulged.

I guess we can differ on whether or not a guy who refers to ALL WOMEN as an "allergy" is mentally ill, but I'd love to see your defense of him as perfectly normal.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:47 PM:

What I find deeply misogyntistic is that they are using these dolls as GIRLFRIENDS.

I don't find it misogyntistic. I find it sad.

Sick? Fucked up? It's not for me to judge, so I don't. Nobody is getting harmed -- save perhaps the guys themselves -- so I don't have grounds to make any moral judgment.

They obviously want a real relationship, and haven't been successful and have given up. Why can't they be in a real relationship? I bet you'd have as many reasons as there are sad guys in that boat.

But, as I said -- I've got no grounds to make a moral judgement on these poor saps. So I won't, even if that apparently makes me a freak myself.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:52 PM:

Effigiphilia kind of implies the doll represents a real person so that's out too.

Idolphilia, as these dolls represent their ideal woman who they feel they are unable to get for whatever reason.

Which is the only reason this can be termed pathological: because these people want to have a relationship with women but have decided they're unable to for whatever reason and so focus their ungrounded yearning for a close relationship into these dolls. They live in a fantasy world that can never fully satify them

Like those crazy cat ladies, well... not precisly, but you know what I mean

It's not the "sex", it's the "relationship" that is deeply fucked up, having "sex" with a doll is fine, pretending it's not just a cardboard cutout of what they really want (a living breathing companion) is just an attempt to normalise their pathology so they don't have to work past it and go out and find that someone they want because they're too afraid.

And even the disfigured people don't have a good reason to rely on these, as the circus freaks of the victoria age were quite capable of getting married and starting families with otherwise normal people.

I've been anorexic and know exactly how crippling thinking that you're impressivly unattractive can be but these people need to learn to get past these issues rather than feed them and let them grow and using these dolls is not how you do that.

As I say though, using these things as sex toys is fine, but as soon a person has started to use these as a replacement for real human relationships, then they are activly doing themselves harm because they will never be any more happy than they were when they had nobody for company aside from miss palm.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:53 PM:

I guess this is the rock we're breaking on: I think people should be treated for their mental illnesses and not indulged.

I guess we can differ on whether or not a guy who refers to ALL WOMEN as an "allergy" is mentally ill, but I'd love to see your defense of him as perfectly normal.


Good thing I didn't call him perfectly normal. What's the persistence around here with making up what people think, anyways? Isn't it more fruitful to actually talk about what people say?

In fact, I have no doubt he's fucked up -- not the "real doll as sex toy" types but the "real doll as girlfriend" types certainly have some serious issues.

As I said -- if he was a friend, I'd probably suggest some sort of therapy or intervention.

But he's not. I don't know him. I don't even know if, for instance, he was quoted badly out of context to make his problems seem even freakier than they are.

I know how strangers would view MY little kinks, and can imagine how a "provocative article" about them might read, and I don't have to think very hard to guess about the fun types of projection and moral condemnation it'd get on the internet.

If I knew a guy that believe as the guy in the article apparently believes, I'd urge him to see a shrink. But I'm not going to make moral judgements.

He's not hurting anyone, sick or not. He doesn't even seem likely to hurt people -- more likely to work, come home to his fake girlfriend, and live a very lonely and hermit-like life.

Quite sad, yes. Normal? Definetly not. But neither am I. Glass houses and stone-throwing apply. I just seem better able to admit it than some.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:56 PM:

To clarify: He's probably hurting himself, if the article is at all accurate as to his feelings and motivations (or he was being honest. Always tricky to tell).

But interfering in people's private and individual lives because they're not living up to OUR standards, because they're not achieving the level of happiness we THINK or DECIDE is sufficient is a damn scary door to open.

Being miserable, failing to live up to your potential, and making bad choices is the other side of personal freedom.

You don't get one without the other.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:57 PM:

What I don't think you get is that we aren't talking about outlawing it. We're saying, "That's fucked up." Period.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 04:59 PM:

Show me where any of us are, "interfering in people's private and individual lives".

Answer: we're not! We're saying that it is deeply messed up to think that a hunk of plastic can be companionship and a part of a relationship.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:02 PM:

Morat, who said anything about interfering with his personal life? I called bullshit on Davecat's comments about women (and his apparent assumption that we're liars who never get rejected or have to deal with impossible expectations) and his contention that he has a relationship with an inanimate object.

What strikes me is that we've been accused of denying men sex toys, ableism, and now interfering with people's private lives.

Someone makes a comment in a thread, people are going to voice their opinions about it.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:06 PM:

To clarify: He's probably hurting himself, if the article is at all accurate as to his feelings and motivations (or he was being honest. Always tricky to tell).

Well, you can scroll up to the top of THIS VERY THREAD to see a response by someone who claims to be the Davecat in the article who says things IN THIS VERY THREAD like the following:

"As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship. As I see it, no-one should have to be alone. Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility."

I know it's a pain to read a thread this huge, but at least search out the comments that Davecat himself made ON THIS VERY THREAD and see why we had such a visceral reaction.

Again, someone who seeks out an inanimate object for "companionship" is really very deeply fucked up, and I'm not talking about his sexuality. Frankly, his sexuality is the least of his problems.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:07 PM:

What he seems to have is an "I Hate Women" fetish where he claims to be (see my comment directly above yours) "allergic" to human women and thus requires the doll for sex.

What's also deeply unsettling is that this kind of thinking is different only in degree, not type, from the pervasive attitude of society that women should be attractive and unoffensive to men instead of thinking, feeling, autonomous individuals who control their *own* lives and thoughts.

These dolls are the perfect girlfriends -- as Terri Schiavo was the perfect daughter -- for people who are not emotionally developed enough to be able to deal with someone who is not an empty vessel to receive their own thoughts and desires.

It's an extreme form of placing a woman on a pedestal.

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:21 PM:

August, the money thing is a factor but so is the realism--there's no doubt about it, the dolls are considered by their owners to be substitutes for the "real thing".

I don;t get it. One of the most basic needs is *touch* - that's the difference between masturbation and sex with another actual human being. Big dolls of women - *why*?

tristanheydt [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:31 PM:

There is, I think, something more important in this than whether or not Davecat and the other (shudder) iDollators are hurting anyone, including themselves. Davecat's views on women, his insistance that he has a relationship with a hunk of plastic, and moreover, that this hunk of plastic is superior to a real human being is emblematic of a deep flaw in the system. As Amanda said originally, this is a perfect example of how the patriarchy hurts men, too. It's not that he's quite mad, its the form that his madness takes. For his problems I feel deep sympathy, but for the shape those problems take I feel a deep and abiding anger.

I think it's sad to think you have a relationship with a RealDoll... I would think it equally sad to think you had a relationship with a fleshlight, or a dildo, or a comic book collection, or a sled and a snowglobe. When you claim to have a relationship with an inanimate object, you imply that the people you have actual relationships with (however fleeting or cursory) are also inanimate objects.. or less. Thinking your RealDoll is your girlfriend is sad, thinking that real human beings would be improved by taking away their volition is sick.

Neil Paul [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:34 PM:

Very long thread. I read most of it but not all so I won't characterize other's thoughts by poster's name. I don't have time to be fair.

These people may be sad and screwed up. It is possible that real experiences made them this way. It is too convenient to assume that they just had run of the mill hard times and threw in the towel. It is possible they had emotionally crippling experiences (perhaps as children) that leave them incapable of a relationship with a real woman.

Is it really so gratifying to lord it over these people that we are "normal" and they are anything but?

Calling them losers and telling them to lower (or raise depending how you look at it) their expectiations to reality (without knowing what their expectations are or were) is unfair.

These people have interaction skills and needs that are different from the usual person. All but the most non-judgemental amongst us would say their situation is "worse" than ours.

Still, calling people losers is hardly a solution to anything. It seems these doll lovers have a serious situation since they are willing to spend $6K to do their thing. Their situation should be viewed carefully and we should all admit we don't really know their situation before we belittle them.

werefish [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:34 PM:

Here is my question: Do all of you feeling that rejecting sexual/romantic relationships demonstrates that someone is in dire need of therapy and an indication of severe mental dysfunction do so as well with people who don't have the dolls but choose to be alone, or do you solely view as warped and broken people who choose to live alone and have a sex toy they pretend is a human being?

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:36 PM:

As I said over at gilliard's on this same topic... if a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, why is a man without a woman an object worthy of contempt?

Fiend, I'm a man without a woman. But I'm not so far gone that I'd mistake a hunk of plastic for a human being.

And to fisk Davecat:

So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner?

Operative word - "partner".

Moreover, the person you're with is an absolute flawless joy to be around, physically, emotionally, and mentally?

Operative word - "person".

Have you ever considered it might be a case of 'Some Doll owners are sick to death of being rejected because they don't fit other people's standards'?

Operative word - "people".

As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship.

Operative word - "companion".

but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends.

Operative word - "relations".

Dave, it's plastic. It is not a person. It is not a partner. It is not a companion. You can't have a relationship with it. It's plastic, Dave. It's a thing.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:44 PM:

Oh, I get that you're not for criminalizing it or officially interfering in his life.

But you're still morally condemning it. Why? On what grounds?

I know what grounds I use to take a moral stance -- harming others.

None of the people in that article have harmed anyone but themselves, and even that's a personal opinion of mine -- I don't mistake it for a verified fact, no matter how certain I am of it.

I'm not making a moral judgement on any of these folks -- if they're harming anyone, it's themselves, and they've got every right too. I don't doubt that people far closer to them -- and people who know them better than us strangers on the internet -- have tried to help.

I'm not going to. His life. His choices. He doesn't interfere in mine, I don't interfere in his.

I'm not going to call him a freak, or a loser, or a misogynist, or bitch about the patriarchy or whatnot -- doesn't matter. Not my business. Not my job. Not my PLACE.

He can think what he wants. He can say what he wants. As long as he's not hurting anyone else, he can do what he wants.

I don't claim to own the moral high ground. I don't have any moral grounds to cast judgements. I'm just a bit curious how you guys justify it, especially seeing as how pretty much everyone here is a "sick freak" to some group or other out there.

You're not any different from him. I'm not any different from him. There are those out there who think I'm a sick freak who needs help, and there are those who think it of you. I know on what grounds I'm willing to stand up and make a judgement -- this ain't it.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:55 PM:

I don't claim to own the moral high ground. I don't have any moral grounds to cast judgements. I'm just a bit curious how you guys justify it, especially seeing as how pretty much everyone here is a "sick freak" to some group or other out there.

For someone who claims not to make judgments, you sure are making a lot of judgments.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 05:58 PM:

I don't think any of us think we're not "sick freaks" to some group or other out there. However, as to "You're not any different from him," I beg to differ.

Morat, we get to express our opinions on people who post in forums ON THE INTERNET and who agree to be featured in stories ON THE INTERNET. I think you're beating a dead horse here.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:01 PM:

For someone who claims not to make judgments, you sure are making a lot of judgments.

I didn't call you losers, freaks, misogynists, tools of the patriarchy or even wrong to make those judgements.

I said I don't make them, explained when and how I make moral judgements, and asked how you guys justify this level of moral judgement. I even mentioned that, in fact, I didn't think it was healthy and that if I had any connection with him -- I'd urge him to seek help. But that ultimately it was his choice, and since he wasn't harming anyone but -- possibly -- himself I wasn't going to judge. Just offer my opinion.

But a lot of people here are making moral judgements. I'm curious on what grounds. I've been quite up front about when I feel I have the authority to make that sort of call. How about you?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:06 PM:

I don't think any of us think we're not "sick freaks" to some group or other out there. However, as to "You're not any different from him," I beg to differ.
So would he. Personally, I understand. That's kind of my point. You think they're wrong to judge you like that. You think you're different then that.

I have no doubts that this guy has some fetish he looks upon with such distaste (perhaps even something you happen to be okay with. You never know how people turn out. I've met folks who loved stuff that squicks me, but who get weirded out by something I consider vanilla....) and would say the exact same thing.

That's life. You think he's a freak. People think you're a freak. You think he needs help. Other people think you need help.

You think they're wrong, he thinks you're wrong.

It's the same thing, all that changes is whose making the moral judgement.

Morat, we get to express our opinions on people who post in forums ON THE INTERNET and who agree to be featured in stories ON THE INTERNET. I think you're beating a dead horse here.
Not really. I find this to be quite a relevant topic -- sexual freedom is, after all, a big topic on the left -- especially given the GOP's urge to shove government in the bedroom.

The only difference is in the response. You're responding with "sick" and "needs therapy" and they're responding with "sick" and "needs to be against the law".

But you're still offering moral judgements on sex. On what grounds? Why draw the line HERE instead of there?

That seems a pretty pivotal question when it comes to sexual freedom, does it not?

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:10 PM:

Many people have said many times that it's not about the sex, or the sex toys. It's about the way they act like the dolls are really in relationships with them.

OptChmye [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:10 PM:

Since when did it turn into the Bill Bennett Brigade here?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:12 PM:

Many people have said many times that it's not about the sex, or the sex toys. It's about the way they act like the dolls are really in relationships with them.

Yes. I don't get that either. But frankly, some people act that way with their pets, and other people like to dress up like babies.

There's a lot of shit people do that I don't.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:13 PM:

Here is my question: Do all of you feeling that rejecting sexual/romantic relationships demonstrates that someone is in dire need of therapy and an indication of severe mental dysfunction do so as well with people who don't have the dolls but choose to be alone, or do you solely view as warped and broken people who choose to live alone and have a sex toy they pretend is a human being?

There are times when one needs to retreat from the "marketplace" of relationships, so to speak. And there are some people who really aren't interested in relationships. That's fine with me.

It's the whole "pretending a sex toy is a human being" thing that freaks me out. It's like pretending your television set is a human being.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:13 PM:

Amanda: You are not fit to carry Ezra's jock strap. Your posts are boring and irrelevant.

Bring Ezra back!!!!

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:16 PM:

But you're still offering moral judgements on sex. On what grounds? Why draw the line HERE instead of there?

Again, his sex life is the least of his problems. His investing a piece of plastic with the ability to have a "relationship" seems like a bigger problem, and borderline delusional.

Why are you giving the guy a free pass because his delusion takes place within the realm of sexuality? Again, as I and other people have said many times before on this thread, the problem isn't his sex life. It's believing that he has a mutually beneficial relationship with a plastic doll.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:23 PM:

Y'all, I will point out that I don't think these dolls cause problems but that this creepy ass trend is the result of the creepy social conditioning that leads a lot of men to feel they are entitlted to a perfectly compliant, quiet, tiny (these dolls weigh like 60 pounds) woman, and that there's something wrong with women who have feelings and needs and voices.

tristanheydt [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:24 PM:

"Amanda: You are not fit to carry Ezra's jock strap. Your posts are boring and irrelevant."

Yes, as this post demonstrates, no one finds Amanda's posts interesting or worth talking about.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:26 PM:

Again, his sex life is the least of his problems. His investing a piece of plastic with the ability to have a "relationship" seems like a bigger problem, and borderline delusional.

Why are you giving the guy a free pass because his delusion takes place within the realm of sexuality? Again, as I and other people have said many times before on this thread, the problem isn't his sex life. It's believing that he has a mutually beneficial relationship with a plastic doll.


Why am I giving him a free pass? WRONG QUESTION.

The correct question is: "What business is it of mine?"

I'm not his friend. I'm not his family. I don't KNOW him. Currently, his behavior is no threat to others. It's not even a threat to himself -- he seems to be able to hold a job, feed himself, and handle the bare basics of existing in a modern society.

I have NO BUSINESS making judgments about his sex life, his mental competence, his emotional health, or what he does with his private life. It in NO WAY impacts me or society.

That's the point I'm curious about. I can see thinking it's unhealthy to have a mutually beneficial relationship with a plastic doll -- insofar as "mutually beneficial" is physically impossible, so anyone thinking that isn't firing on all cylinders -- because I happen to agree.

My point is whether or not I think he's emotionally healthy, I have no grounds or reasons to make a moral or ethical judgement about his behavior. It's utterly private. If he hadn't spoken to a magazine, none of us would have ever known. Heck, he could have been your coworker and I doubt you'd have ever known.

I can only give a "Free pass" to someone who has done something wrong. So far, he hasn't. Hasn't hurt anyone, hasn't hurt society, hasn't done anything but spend an awful lot of time lavishing affection on a doll.

Unhealthy, maybe. But since he's not harming anyone, he's not doing anything to be condemned -- or forgiven -- for.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:26 PM:

Yes, this post ONLY has 150+ comments within less than a day of its posting.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:29 PM:

Yes, Morat, we get what you mean already, okay?

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:31 PM:

I'm sure that Ezra enjoys being used to taunt me. Or he would if he were an asshole like reborn. Luckily, Ezra's not an asshole. I'm just saying.

tristanheydt [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:35 PM:

Morat, I do not believe his sex life is a problem.

I, personally, think his thinking he has a relationship with plastic is sad and wrong... yes, that is a judgement. Life is judgements. Get over it.

Yes, I agree that as long as what he does does not hurt anybody, it is no business of mine.

However, he has made his interests and proclivities part of the public sphere, and thus I am entitled to comment on his statements and opinions. I am even entitled to say he's a sad, misguided misogynist. Yea, I am even entitled to defend my feelings on the matter to you or anyone else who disagrees with me, whether they are actually defending Davecat and his like-minded fellows or merely trying to rile up the libs.

Finally, there is no reason I should not (and every reason I should) find that Davecat's stated opinions on women make him an example of much of what is wrong with patriarchal culture as we know it, and to use him to condemn what I find wrong with our culture.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:36 PM:

Y'all, I will point out that I don't think these dolls cause problems but that this creepy ass trend is the result of the creepy social conditioning that leads a lot of men to feel they are entitlted to a perfectly compliant, quiet, tiny (these dolls weigh like 60 pounds) woman, and that there's something wrong with women who have feelings and needs and voices.

Now that's an interesting viewpoint. But how do you prove it? I mean, people get obsessive and creepy about ALL sorts of things (even stamp collectors. Especially stamp collectors. Freaks!).

I mean, that's an awfully projective comment -- you're taking a man you haven't met and claiming you understand his innermost motivations. Moreover, you're blaming society at large for them.

Where's the evidence? How do you rule out, for instance, "He just wants a relationship, but fails at them, so creates an imaginary one"? How do you rule out "Compliant quiet and tiny is all he can handle, not because of social conditioning, but because he lacks the social skills of a mollusc"?

It's like, I dunno, blaming violence on video games.It sounds really good, but it on closer examination it looks like you're putting the cart before the horse.

Maybe I'm missing something in the article -- I didn't read it that closely, because I don't really care about these guys and their expensive toys -- but how do you get "They get Real Dolls because they want tiny, quiet, and complacent women" and blame it on society?

Here's what appears to be the facts: This guys can't deal with real relationships. So they spend an awful lot of money to create a fake one.

You conclude "They can't handle real relationships because they want an unattainable version of womanhood, so they make an imaginary version of this". I conclude "They suck at relationships".

I'm sure SOME of them are victims of the patriarchy or promoting it or however it's phrased. Just like some people who played GTA were undoubtably carjackers.

But I've met a lot of people who simply don't get along with the opposite sex -- and the reasons have ranged from high standards to poor hygience to a lack of social skills to "being a total jackass, but not sexist. Just an all-around asshole".

It seems an insult to the wide and unique array of human experience to look at these guys and decide that since the dolls aren't real people, that the people WANT them because they've been raised to believe women aren't real people -- and thus are disappointed with women.

Maybe some of them are. But that's an awfully broad brush there, and sweeping generalizations -- especially lacking any evidence other than a magazine article -- should be avoided.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:38 PM:

He made his innermost feelings clear. Real women aren't up to snuff, because they have feelings and ask him to do shit. Therefore, he's moving onto a plastic doll because she's easier to control. Interestingly, there's not a company dedicated to making fake, easy-to-control, compliant boyfriends for women. One does wonder why.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:39 PM:

Amanda,

You're a real headcase yourself.

Demonstrably a misandrist. Ignorant about MRA and the issues behind that as well.

You are far beneath Pandagon's usual group of bloggers -- which is the panda's loss.

If it weren't for your narrow-minded obsession with your vagina, you would feel quite at home being a brownshirted rovian tool.

Truly, truly, I never even conceived that "feminazi" was anything other than a viciously untrue, vile and ugly epithet until I met your blog posts. Feminazi: it fits, and it looks good on you. You should be proud of yourself.

I sure hope you're going home tonight to throw your sex toys and porn away.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:40 PM:

And like I said, I feel sorry for men that have fallen for the admittingly alluring cultural fantasy that is available to men and not women that one deserves a compliant sex toy for a partner.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:45 PM:

If it makes one a feminazi to believe men who pantomime relationships with expensive pieces of plastic are sick, then hand me the castration knife.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:45 PM:

However, he has made his interests and proclivities part of the public sphere, and thus I am entitled to comment on his statements and opinions. I am even entitled to say he's a sad, misguided misogynist.
What's "misogynist" actually mean? Is an inability to get along with women misogyny? What if you can't get along with ANYONE?

I mean, if the guy was gay and got a male real doll because he couldn't get along with guys, would he be a -- well, whatever the term would be.

Yea, I am even entitled to defend my feelings on the matter to you or anyone else who disagrees with me, whether they are actually defending Davecat and his like-minded fellows or merely trying to rile up the libs.
Right. Because the ONLY people that would disagree with you on this are people who are bang alongside Davecat's lifestyle or trolls.

There exist no other groups.


Finally, there is no reason I should not (and every reason I should) find that Davecat's stated opinions on women make him an example of much of what is wrong with patriarchal culture as we know it, and to use him to condemn what I find wrong with our culture.
How so? If you find a misogynist in the woods, do you know he came from a misogynistic culture?

Our society produces sociopaths, kleptomaniacs, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, racists, sexists, adreneline-junkies, BASE-jumpers, anime fans, and furries.

How do you know which elements of the "culture" produce what?

Maybe Dave's problem is he IS a misogynist. Maybe Dave's a misogynist because of the patriarchal culture in which he was raised.

But how do you know? Culture doesn't make you who you are, and it's the height of folly to make something as complex as human relationships -- whether with people or objects -- boil down to some simple and SINGLE cause and effect cycle.

I have NO DOUBT that you could raise people in a perfectly gender-neutral society, without any of this patriarchy nonsense, and STILL end up with people buying dolls because they can't handle relationships. Some people can't even handle other people, much less the intimacy of a relationship.

They make up lots of excuses on "why", but what it boils down to is for some reason they can't deal with an actual relationship. It's the "patriarchy"? Hell, maybe my friend the Drag Queen should blame the pervasive culture of cross-dressing on Bugs Bunny for his problems.....

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:46 PM:

You're not even a very good blogger. In fact, realdoll makes a male real doll. You can get one and shout at him.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:46 PM:

Thinking plastic is better than a woman = misogyny.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:48 PM:

I was thinking in particular of a very old story that I read as a little kid in the 60s/70s. Two scientists had developed a robot woman.
The name of the story is "Helen O'loy" ( as in Helen of Alloy) by Lester del Rey, from Astounding Magazine in 1938.
I admit finding doll sex creepy, especially the projection side of it, the addition of a personality to something dead. But humans do it all the time. (My old truck was really nice, and easy going. And I'v owned an evil PC, But I digress..)
My aunt projects a human personality on her wretched toy poodle. I thing the creature is possessed, but it's behaviour is all dog, abet modified dog, and not human.
And, as a bisexual guy who's been in a long term (but hardly exclusive) realtionship with another man for 10 years, others would probably be creeped out with some things we find fun. The doll people (lood up the campy '50s movie) are probably no more likely to inflict damage than the racist, for example. I worry about the erosion of human bonds, the sort of thing that make liberal democracy possible.
I can't but think that the trend in technology is to encourage anthropomorphism as a marketing tool..

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:50 PM:

rather, "look up the campy.."

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:51 PM:

I worry about the erosion of human bonds, the sort of thing that make liberal democracy possible. I can't but think that the trend in technology is to encourage anthropomorphism as a marketing tool.

In Japan, they've got the Boyfriend's Arm Pillows, the Woman's Lap Pillows, and the Dolls The Elderly Play With If They Don't Have Any Grandchildren.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:51 PM:

He made his innermost feelings clear. Real women aren't up to snuff, because they have feelings and ask him to do shit. Therefore, he's moving onto a plastic doll because she's easier to control. Interestingly, there's not a company dedicated to making fake, easy-to-control, compliant boyfriends for women. One does wonder why.
I've met gay MEN who have hookups instead of relationships because they can't handle a relationship with someone that has feelings and asks them to do shit.

You're quick to blame misogyny for something that's just as like to be "A guy too selfish to handle a relationship".

If he was gay, he'd blame men. He's straight, so he blames women.

"Person blames other people for his problems" is the story of mankind.

As for "easy to control, complaint boyfriend" for women, I'd imagine the correct stereotypical counterpart would be "cat lady". There aren't a lot of women who fail utterly at relationships, so they resort to keeping a large number of pets -- but I doubt there's an awful of of men who pretend real dolls are real people either.

I mean, it's all well and good to blame culture for it, but has it occured to anyone that maybe the guy's just a dick? Not a victim of the patriarchy, but just a guy blaming his problems on other people? People that -- because he's straight and his problems are with relationships -- have to be women, by default?

Maybe he's NOT a tool or victim or symbol of the patriarchy, but just an unmitigated ass? Something that isn't in short supply for EITHER sex?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:54 PM:

Thinking plastic is better than a woman = misogyny.
So my friend Beth, who has stated -- quite publically -- that her vibrator brings her more pleasure than any man she's ever dated -- would be a...whatever the opposite of misogynist is.

I'm sure there's a term.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:56 PM:

If she said it was a better boyfriend, and it wasn't a joke, I'd worry about her.

sparklegirl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 06:59 PM:

FYI, Morat, the term is misandrist.

But there's a pretty big difference between a vibrator and a doll that's supposed to look and feel exactly like a human being.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:00 PM:

Googlefight assures me there are over 90,000 instances of "jealous vibrator" and only 577 instances of "jealous realdoll".

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1;=jealous+vibrator&word2;=jealous+realdoll

I wonder why?

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:01 PM:

Can I just say we have the best trolls ever? We have like a steady cadre of men who are absolutely convinced that a vagina+an opinion=a threat worse than the Holocaust.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:02 PM:

Here's a link to "Helen O'Loy" from with critical notation and teaching materials of a university level program.

ttp://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/works/stories/helenoloy.htm

The site similarly treats several fictions about human/automata interaction and paraphilias.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:04 PM:

Mirror.co.uk - Sex & Health - Dr Miriam
When it comes to sex my vibrator is my best friend - it sends me into orgasmic heaven. This is making him feel very inadequate and jealous of my sex toy. ...
www.mirror.co.uk/sexandhealth/miriam/tm_column_date=22092005-name_index.html - Similar pages

SuicideGirls > News > Advice > jealous of what?
ADVICE: jealous of what? THURSDAY FEBRUARY 3 2005 4:00 PM ... You know this is more about him than it is you getting a vibrator. ...
suicidegirls.com/news/advice/6621/ - 81k - Cached - Similar pages

AskMen.com - Vibrating tongue ring
The Tongue Joy is the world's only oral vibrator that slips over the tonque to deliver ... My man was a little jealous of all the pleasure I was having, ...
www.askmen.com/love/product_guide/22_product_review.html - Similar pages

Suzi's Loveseat - One-to-One Archive -- ThirdAge
... she still yearns for me to be inside her and I am getting jealous of the damned vibrator! ... Get rid of the vibrator and use your hands on each other. ...
www.thirdage.com/loveseat/one/genitals.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

knot.magazine
... you don't hear every day: my boyfriend is jealous of my vibrator. ... Tell your boyfriend that your vibrator is just a toy, and while it gives you ...
www.knotmag.com/?article=576 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Genital Art Gallery
I just got a new vibrator and my boyfriend is jealous. He shouldn't be, because receiving oral from him is my favorite sexual stimulation, and I fantasize ...
www.bettydodson.com/cuntclea.htm - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

Eros Boutique: Liquid Metal Vibrator
Combining cool and hot, this waterproof vibrator is multi speed, 7.5" of brush ... Let your collection lay jealous as you reach for this toy over and over. ...
www.erosboutique.org/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store;_Code=erosbout∏_Code=DJ0356-02&am...; - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

not for access, just a sample of what I have
Post subject:, Reply with quote. I'm jealous of her vibrator. Lick ... Post subject:, Reply with quote. I'm jealous of her vibrator. Lick ...
www.nowthatsfuckedup.com/bbs/sutra523903.html&highlight;= - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

Toys in Babeland - Guest Toy Review: Rabbit Vibrator
The Rabbit Habit, of course, is the elaborate Japanese-style vibrator recently propelled to a ... And then there’s the problem of my jealous right hand. ...
www.babeland.com/sexinfo/features/guest-review-rabbit - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Vibrators including MyPleasure's Aqua Arouser and other ...
Our first waterproof, exclusive vibrator, and we couldn't be prouder. ... My boyfriend is actually jealous of it. Poor baby, I might have to do some ...
www.mypleasure.com/store/Vibrators/MyPleasure's-Aqua-Arouser.asp - 27k -

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:06 PM:

62 occurrences of "my vibrator is my best friend".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q;=%22vibrator+is+my+best+friend%22&btnG;=Google+Search

Amanda, you are showing your naivete once more. And the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Men that disagree with you. Could they be anything other than trolls? And what are women that disagree with you?

Linnaeus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:06 PM:

So my friend Beth, who has stated -- quite publically -- that her vibrator brings her more pleasure than any man she's ever dated -- would be a...whatever the opposite of misogynist is.

It doesn't necessarily make her a misandrist. I agree with Amanda that if she broadened her statements to the effect that her vibrator was an effective replacement for men and used it as a sole substitute, I'd be inclined to think that there was something unhealthy going on.

But her statement is more narrow than that. She could be joking. She could be commenting on the fact that it takes a lot to get her to orgasm. She could be commenting that the particular men she's dated weren't attentive to her needs.

What your friend has said about her vibrator doesn't rise to the level of rhetoric regarding dolls that we're talking about here.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:08 PM:

Pierpoint, if a woman threw you over for her vibrator, that doesn't mean she hates men. It might be a statement on you skillz, yo.

Jennifer the Chaos Queen [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:08 PM:

As a general rule, I say live and let live. I've known some extremely creepy guys with no socialization skills, and I'd rather they have a RealDoll and have a happy psuedo-relationship with her than continue to ask me out. If for whatever reasons, you have issues that make having a human relationship not work for you, and you shell out thousands for a fake girfriend, it's your choice, your coping method, and your wallet. I don't get why anyone would buy an extra RealDoll just to keep your first one company while you're at work, but whatthefuckever. It's not hurting anyone to be doing that, and if they're happy with a girl that doesn't lie, talk back, ask you to clean the toilet, or dumps you, then they are. They know their limitations.

And regarding "Jack the Ripper," the guy who dismembered the doll... I have a sneaking suspicion that him attending "a California university" indicates that he lives in my town, and that freaks me OUT. But man, I'd rather he dismember a doll than start dating and dismembering the local coeds.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:08 PM:

As for "easy to control, complaint boyfriend" for women, I'd imagine the correct stereotypical counterpart would be "cat lady". There aren't a lot of women who fail utterly at relationships, so they resort to keeping a large number of pets -- but I doubt there's an awful of of men who pretend real dolls are real people either.

Actually, they've found that "cat ladies" generally have OCD that manifests itself in animal collecting. That's why merely taking the animals away rarely solves the problem -- they have an underlying mental illness that needs to be resolved first.

Seriously, Morat, why are you so invested in defending this guy? I really want to know.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:08 PM:

Please show me one single person on this blog that thinks: "a vagina+an opinion=a threat worse than the Holocaust."

Please show me one single person on this blog that thinks: "a vagina+an opinion is anything other than a good thing."

Which group of people here are the ones objectifying a sex, and damning an entire sex? It's not the men. It's not even the women. It's a small group of misandrists.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:08 PM:

It's an invalid comparison. Women aren't spending $7,000 on custom-made vibrators and then eschewing all contact with men while seriously talking about how the vibrator is their boyfriend and his personality is ___ and ____ and people just don't understand.

I love how feminists are supposed to be ruling the world and disempowering all men, yet we have to keep making the point that preferring plastic to women = misogynist.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:10 PM:

But man, I'd rather he dismember a doll than start dating and dismembering the local coeds.

Who's to say he's not practicing, though?

Julia [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:11 PM:

I tried to post earlier, but I got an error.

The dolls look dead to me. And one looked like a young teenager.

ewww!

And I reserve the right to say "ewww" to anything that I think is "ewwwie". You might think of me and my life as "ewwwie" and that's OK. I probably think that of you too.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:12 PM:

Oh, and men who are jealous of their girlfriends/wives having vibrators are idiots with no imagination.

My vibrator is both my and my boyfriend's best friend.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:13 PM:

"Men" aren't doing that either. Some individuals are. Some individuals do lots of things I consider weird but that do no harm to others. Such is life.

Infinite diversity in infinite combination.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:15 PM:

>>Please show me one single person on this blog that thinks: "a vagina+an opinion is anything other than a good thing.">>

Scroll back up to Davecat's comment:

>>As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship. As I see it, no-one should have to be alone. Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.>>


See? He'd rather date Skipper's big sister than deal with an actual woman. Clearly, vaginas are only good things if they don't come equipped with personalities--which tend to have opinions.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:15 PM:

Pierpoint, maybe she threw you over for the vibrator because the vibrator has a better sense of humor.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:17 PM:

"Men" aren't doing that either. Some individuals are.

Men can't be individuals? I'm confused.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:19 PM:

Anne, it is sexist. And sexism is unfortunately an honoured tradition on our culture. The doll people are, I suspect self limiting. I brought up my aunt because animals are a common paraphilia. Is preferring a german shepard or horse(qua the recent internet story) to a man sexist?
Or maybe the sexism is socialization, and sort of a background, incidental to the real paraphilia.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:24 PM:

Mr. Bill, I think that different people maybe do similiar things for different reasons. In this case, you have lonely men who are mostly lonely because they've bought into the belief that they are owed a sexual partner who is utterly compliant, something they've taken to the point where they prefer a prop that cannot move or speak of its own volition.

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:27 PM:

Props to Morat for everything he's said. I'd also like to add that the argument that we're entitled to self-righteously condemn these people because they talked about their "iDollatry" on the Internet or whatever is entirely bogus, and reeks of the winger "We wouldn't care what gays do if they didn't shove it in our faces all the time!"

And Morat did a good debunking of the "we can self-righteously condemn him because he's a misogynist" argument too. Let me quote him, because it's a really important point:

'If he was gay, he'd blame men. He's straight, so he blames women. "Person blames other people for his problems" is the story of mankind.'

I would add that even though he might be in the very same situation if he was gay, apparently the fact that he's straight means that he's committing the extra sin of "misogyny" and that he deserves all sorts of scorn and condemnation for it.

And the idea that "the patriarchical culture" convinced him that only silent, quiet women are suitable partners and that he "just can't handle" real women with real feelings is the most bogus argument of all. There is no evidence for this baseless assertion. We don't know anything about davecat's dating history (if he even has one). If we were to speculate, I'd venture a guess that maybe he was lied to a few times (because of his repeated mentions of lying). If this is true, is it his fault that he was lied to? Surely not all women are saints... maybe he had some bad luck, hooked up with a few women who treated him poorly, got burned, and was traumatized (he obviously has social problems already, and this could have pushed him "over the edge" so to speak).

Of course, this might not have happened. My point is that WE DON'T KNOW. And yet we are so quick to judge and cast blame. It's davecat's fault. It's the man's fault. It's the patriarchy's fault. Sure it is...

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:31 PM:

>>And the idea that "the patriarchical culture" convinced him that only silent, quiet women are suitable partners and that he "just can't handle" real women with real feelings is the most bogus argument of all. There is no evidence for this baseless assertion. We don't know anything about davecat's dating history (if he even has one). If we were to speculate, I'd venture a guess that maybe he was lied to a few times (because of his repeated mentions of lying). If this is true, is it his fault that he was lied to? Surely not all women are saints... maybe he had some bad luck, hooked up with a few women who treated him poorly, got burned, and was traumatized (he obviously has social problems already, and this could have pushed him "over the edge" so to speak). >>

We know he doesn't trust women. We also know that he considers contact with an inanimate piece of plastic to be roughly equivalent, except preferable, to conversations and romantic intimacy with a living, breathing woman.

It is "his fault" if, for whatever reason, he tars all women with that same brush. It is his fault if he has decided that he can generalize about women to such an extent that he should avoid the company of all of them. That is prejudice, pure and simple, and I am not going to give him a pass on it. I don't care if his last girlfriend torched his car and drowned his ferret--he would still be wrong to dislike and distrust all women because they are women.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:33 PM:

>>I would add that even though he might be in the very same situation if he was gay, apparently the fact that he's straight means that he's committing the extra sin of "misogyny" and that he deserves all sorts of scorn and condemnation for it.>>

Oddly enough, the example Morat came up with still involved contact with real people, and involved a bunch of men who didn't pretend that one-night stands were the same as a civil union.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:35 PM:

All I'm suggesting that this is not just sexist. It's complex, and I am really in no spot to cast stones.
I want to understand my aversion to this.
I sometimes think misnogyny seems programmed into some men. And it is telling that this seems to be a male fetish. I suspect there is a sizable parallel gay sex doll subculture. (see the Nifty Stories Erotic Archive/Gay/science fiction for some fictional examples.)
Gotta go.
It's been an interesting discussion.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:42 PM:

Yes, if Davecat doesn't date on piny's schedule and to piny's terms, Davecat is a misogynist.

Whohoo! Let's hunt the Jews and burn the witches!

Is it backwards day at pandagon?

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:42 PM:

So my friend Beth, who has stated -- quite publically -- that her vibrator brings her more pleasure than any man she's ever dated

yes but she doesn't consider that a deep meaningful relationship that negates ever having sex with a real person does she?

Because that's no better, and if you think we'd for some reason consider that better then could you please switch your brian to the "on" position in future.

You're quick to blame misogyny for something that's just as like to be "A guy too selfish to handle a relationship".

But why is he selfish? is it because he's fed a constant ideal of women being subservient sex slaves who clean and cook for them from birth, is it because he's been brought up in an enviroment that taught him to be a complete sexist asshole who is unable to face his fear of connecting with another human being, why is he an ass? From what does his Absolute terror field stem?

Just saying, "oh he's this or that because he's this or that" would make sense if people sprang forth fully formed from Zeus' brow, but unfortunatly there is always a cause, reason, a past that leads onto and creates the present.

Many of these people are expressing views and opinons realted to their "relationships" with their dolls that are almost identical to a lot of MRA types, who have been known to get into honest to god vagina hating contests to see who has sworn off women more than each other.

Now correlation doesn't prove causation, but when the concepts are so similar and the talk seems so steeped in misogynistic concepts, is the natural assumption that they are suffering the same Patriarchal disease that the MRA celibates have, wrong? why?

Do you have an alternate hypthesis? All women aren't all scheming bitchs, so the whole hypothesis the MRAs spout is inherently wrong, is the idea that society puts too much emphasis on men being assholes with no emotional maturity who do nothing but have sex erroneous? Is the idea that the social ideal for women is an airbrushed illusion with no personality who is just like men's mothers but with vaginas and designer pubes not a possible cause? Is not a system that perpetuates itself by filling the weakminded with ideas about how, being heterosexual men and all, they are being opressed by spiteful two faced bitches who can't stand "nice guys" like the various wonderful examples of broken masculinity up thread not possibly at fault for these poor guys' brains breaking and the latching onto these hollow fantasies?

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:43 PM:

As a general rule, I say live and let live. I've known some extremely creepy guys with no socialization skills, and I'd rather they have a RealDoll and have a happy psuedo-relationship with her than continue to ask me out.

Jesus - it was only the once, and I quit after you got the restraining order. Forgive and forget already...

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:45 PM:

>>We know he doesn't trust women. We also know that he considers contact with an inanimate piece of plastic to be roughly equivalent, except preferable, to conversations and romantic intimacy with a living, breathing woman.

But do we know that this has anything to do with "the patriarchical culture" teaching him that women should shut up and not have needs or feelings?


>>Oddly enough, the example Morat came up with still involved contact with real people, and involved a bunch of men who didn't pretend that one-night stands were the same as a civil union.

piny, I was referring to when Morat said this:
"I mean, if the guy was gay and got a male real doll because he couldn't get along with guys, would he be a -- well, whatever the term would be." I think it's a good question.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 07:57 PM:

>>But do we know that this has anything to do with "the patriarchical culture" teaching him that women should shut up and not have needs or feelings?>>

Because he is misogynist rather than merely burned or unhappy--he lives in a culture which permits that generalization. Because, as so many commenters have noticed, women are not constructing waxworks boyfriends even when they do have bad breakups with the living kind. Because the article is about an industry that has sprung up to support and gratify love not for women but for women-shaped things.

>>piny, I was referring to when Morat said this:
"I mean, if the guy was gay and got a male real doll because he couldn't get along with guys, would he be a -- well, whatever the term would be." I think it's a good question.>>

It'd be a great question...if we were in fact talking about a gay guy who had a RealDude because he couldn't get along with real men. Since we're not, it's not a terribly good question. The only anecdote he could come up with involved men who sleep with real men.

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:03 PM:

"Since we're not, it's not a terribly good question."

Nice dodge.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:08 PM:

The irony of all this is that if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated--the screaming that I hate all men would be endless. Of course, that's a hypothetical because well, I wouldn't say that. Because I'm not stupid enough to tar all men with the same brush because some are vile assholes. The sad thing is that women who are traumatized by rape or domestic violence have a lot more reason to be wary and afraid and yet for some reason, there's no company making fake men for women to have in lieu of boyfriends. One does wonder then, if sexism has nothing to do with it, why the sex that has a lot more traumatized members of it has created no demand for these sexual releases for the supposedly traumatized.

modus potus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:10 PM:

Davecat plainly expresses misogynistic views. What isn't so clear is whether those views are the cause of his lack of success in relationships, or simply convenient rationalizations for it. I think some of us are a bit too quick to assume the former, but it's not as if misogynism has ever proved an impediment to sexual "conquest." No, I think that his difficulty with intimacy is likely primary, and the misogyny is more of a posture taken in self-justification, a secondary effect of his dysfunction. That he can easily exploit common memes to do so certainly reflects a misogynism that is a pernicious part of the fabric of our culture, but I don't think the latter is the root cause of his problems.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:19 PM:

>>"Since we're not, it's not a terribly good question."

Nice dodge.>>

It's not a dodge at all! It's a reply to your dodge: derailing the subject at hand, that is, an actual situation, with an irrelevant hypothetical. Come on, now: "What if lots of women were raping men? What would they be?" "What if black New Orleans police officers were going around beating up elderly white retired schoolteachers? What would they be?" That there is a dodge.

If you'll notice, I did reply to the non-hypothetical anecdote that Monat came up with, by pointing out that it involves men who (a) sleep with real people whose momentary company they (b) don't confuse with a civil union.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:22 PM:

>The irony of all this is that if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated--the screaming that I hate all men would be endless. Of course, that's a hypothetical because well, I wouldn't say that. Because I'm not stupid enough to tar all men with the same brush because some are vile assholes. The sad thing is that women who are traumatized by rape or domestic violence have a lot more reason to be wary and afraid and yet for some reason, there's no company making fake men for women to have in lieu of boyfriends. One does wonder then, if sexism has nothing to do with it, why the sex that has a lot more traumatized members of it has created no demand for these sexual releases for the supposedly traumatized.>>

It actually happened to BPhD. Her comments thread was overrun when she made an offhand comment about wanting sometimes to swear off all men. This was after reading stories like the one about DV victims in Kenya who started a separatist village and are being attacked for it.

God only knows what would have happened if she'd actually said she was trading in her husband for a giant cardboard Nathan Fillion cutout.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:23 PM:

You know, I love how folks yelping about self-righteousness and judgement ignore each and every point we've made and continue to plug their ears and stamp their feet.

You don't see any misogyny in this?

As an iDollator, what I try to bring across in interviews is that Dolls fulfill a need for a lot of us - not just for sex, but for companionship. As I see it, no-one should have to be alone. Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.

Women are liars, according to Davecat. Therefore, a relationship with a thing (which is impossible, BTW) is preferable.

I couldn't give a flying fuck if Davecat wanted to get off with three dolls a night. Not my concern. And if he choses to live this way, that's his business. But when he decides that all women are liars (and that we must not ever get rejected or deal with someone else's expectations) and that fucking a piece of plastic shaped like a woman equals a relationship, well, yeah, that's pretty misogynist, and I'll call bullshit. A relationship doesn't consist of one completely passive object. A relationship requires at least two active, thinking, living, and cognizant beings.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--it's not about sex toys or sexuality. Read the comments.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:35 PM:

The irony of all this is that if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated--the screaming that I hate all men would be endless.

That's nonsense. 99% of your responses would be people that feel for you in your pain, wishing you healing, and understanding your situation.

However, that you believe that would be the response does indicate a pathology on your part. Misandry.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:40 PM:

Kiss my ass, dipshit. Just because it makes you feel pissy that I'm not willing to buy into a culture that demands that women always be silent about violence aimed at us so that it can be perpetuated without making the beneficiaries suffer guilt doesn't mean that's all I talk about. You are free, for instance, to enjoy "Ask An Insufferable Music Snob" without worrying that said music snob might be a woman who resents being mistreated for no damn good reason.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:45 PM:

God only knows what would have happened if she'd actually said she was trading in her husband for a giant cardboard Nathan Fillion cutout.

I can't speak for BPhD, but throw in a Sean Maher cutout, too, and I'll make that trade!

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:47 PM:

Who are you cursing at? I don't think anyone thinks you should buy into a culture that demands that women always be silent about violence for any reason.

Can you provide some data please?

You are free, for instance, to enjoy "Ask An Insufferable Music Snob" without worrying that said music snob might be a woman who resents being mistreated for no damn good reason

Are you high? If so, are you okay? Let us know.

Andy Axel [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:48 PM:

In this case, you have lonely men who are mostly lonely because they've bought into the belief that they are owed a sexual partner who is utterly compliant, something they've taken to the point where they prefer a prop that cannot move or speak of its own volition.

According to the company website, they're working on animatronic versions of the RealDoll, so in version 2.0 that may become a thing of the past! {heavy sarcastic inflection applied here}

Just looking at the demo pages on their website, speaking of which, it becomes quickly apparent that this is what happens by people who take porn way too seriously.

I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.

How utterly narcissistic.

Yes, Davecat, it does eliminate that possibility -- but with your choice goes the possibility of being loved in return.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:48 PM:

Actually, let me rephrase that. I don't think anyone thinks you should buy into a culture that demands that women ever be silent about violence for any reason.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:52 PM:

I'm cursing at you, you asshole apologist. You mock me for speaking about my experiences and DON'T think that you're feeding a sexist culture?

Here's some words for you: SHUT THE FUCK UP NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR WHINING BULLSHIT.

But when I say that, I mean that I think you should always speak up and stuff, except that you need to shut the fuck up.

And, by the way, you shouldn't listen to me because I'm right. If I thought that you should listen to me, I wouldn't speak to you.


And since you are too fucking stupid to get the point of all that, when you tell a woman to shut up about her experiences, you immediately forsake your right to pretend you're a champion of women's right to speak out about violence and sexism, since you yourself have already complained they talk about it too much.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:57 PM:

constructing an elaborate fantasy relationship with a doll sounds vastly preferable to interacting with some of the people who have commented on this thread.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 08:59 PM:

Where did I tell you to shut up? That would be presumptuous of me, it is your blog after all.

I thought we were having an argument, a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition, not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person has to say.

In respect to having a useful argument, I have challenged you to provide evidence of your beliefs, and let you know my opinions of those same beliefs.

But do carry on, you do it so well. For a misandrist.

soullite [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:01 PM:

You people are sick. This person hurts nobody but himself. You're self-righteous assholes.
You think nobody has ever lied to him? HA HA HA. Can any of you say you don't have any mistrust when it comes to the opposite sex. If you can, you really need to rethink that because people do terrible things to each other. You've all done bad things. I've done terrible things. You judge this man to make yourselves feel better. Fight your demons for real, the man in this article clearly has plenty of his own to fight without you all projecting yours onto him.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:05 PM:

Am I right to think that when you wrote "if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated" that you are talking about a real incident that occured to you and not just a hypothetical incident?

If so, let me say that I am sorry to hear of your experiences. No one should have to go through that, and I am truly sorry, and hope that you heal, and that the attackers get the harshest punishment possible.

I still dispute your belief that most anyone would express a view significantly different from what I have just expressed. I do think such an incident explains what I believe are sadly mistaken views that you have.

You are free to have them of course. Even the misandrist ones.

You have my best wishes, of course.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:06 PM:

Don't lie and don't bother me. My patience with men who apologize for the patriarchy and then pretend they really care about women who got the uglier end of it is absolutely and completely tapped out. Especially those who whine that I dare not shove a sock in it.

Andy Axel [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:10 PM:

Fight your demons for real, the man in this article clearly has plenty of his own to fight without you all projecting yours onto him.

At least he can't breed.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:11 PM:

>>Am I right to think that when you wrote "if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated" that you are talking about a real incident that occured to you and not just a hypothetical incident?

If so, let me say that I am sorry to hear of your experiences. No one should have to go through that, and I am truly sorry, and hope that you heal, and that the attackers get the harshest punishment possible.

I still dispute your belief that most anyone would express a view significantly different from what I have just expressed. I do think such an incident explains what I believe are sadly mistaken views that you have.>>

Bullshit. And I've got the BitchPhD archive entry to prove it: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/07/like-fish-needs-bicycle.html

SDB [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:16 PM:

Hi, I am a fan and I find this topic interesting. I recall seeing the dolls on HBO and joking with my mom about the male doll with the "pop on part". It does seem weird that there are a lot of guys who would prefer having a doll to a real woman, and I wanted to comment from another perspective.

If I had the cash, I would get a doll for myself.

I'm in my early 30's. I haven't had a date in four years. I felt like I've done everything (whether it's being agressive, pasive, optimistic, aloof, and whatever) to improve my social life. My only friend (who's now married) is in a wheelchair and when going out I look like her nurse (it doesn't really help matters that she's white and I'm black, given the sterotypes and some people's perceptions). I'm also quite smart and wear glasses--and even though bespeckled women are starting to be cool all of a sudden, I remember the days of "four-eyes" and the "men don't make passes" crap.

That said, I can relate to the guys who get the dolls because they get tired of being hurt and rejected. I've been rejeted by guys as far as I can remember. I can also relate to the guys saying that the peice of plastic doesn't talk, think or feel--on the other hand it doesn't judge or critizise (sp) you--telling you that you're not perfect (but then again it's not complimenting of praising you--damn that libra logic!) The bottom line is you get to the point that you want a body, real or fake to curl up against on a Saturday night.

And I am at that point.

I still have hope for the day I can meet that special someone. Just because I want a plastic man with a "pop-on part" for the time being does not mean that I'm saying "Fuck all men"--even though that's how I feel sometimes. I guess I just want something in the form of the man to bide the time in a way that a vibrator can't do.

I understand some of the posters who say that the doll men hate women and want such a perfect expectation that cannot be found with a real woman. Some men have a serious problem with themselves that they project their expectations onto others. I'm all for it if getting a doll keeps these men out of the dating pool because maybe there will be some quality guy out there for me. And I'm not implying that I'm the perfect catch--I've got my own things to work out. Just in the meantime, if I had about 7G to drop...hey, I got a good imagination! I'll just get my jollies while keeping the loneliness away until I find a date.

Mnemosyne [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:24 PM:

SDB, this is probably going to sound really condescending coming from a complete stranger but ... psychotherapy really changed my life. When I started it seven years ago, I never could have imagined that I'd be engaged to a great guy today, but I am. I had lots and lots and lots of issues that needed to be worked through, not all of them about men. But I came out of it a happier and a stronger person. And 7G would be much better spent on that (and medication, if necessary -- I definitely needed it for a while) than a gigantic dildo.

Just sayin'. Hope I didn't offend.

Tony the Pony [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:24 PM:

Jeez, Pierpont really woke up on the wrong side of the Word-a-Day calendar, didn't he?

(Oh, and by the way---the word today is "misandry"! Get it?)

But in case the chap is still around, a few pointers for Mr. Flathead:

1) Supposing your debating opponent is (a) high, or (b) pathological is a valid rhetorical technique but usually an ineffective one. It's almost invariably an exaggeration, a non sequitur and a conversation stopper---and everyone can see through it.
2) Your estimate that 99% of blog readers would express an identical, sympathetic or even fundamentally decent reaction to any statement by a blogger belies a naive infamiliarity with the internet wholly at odds with the hallmarks of your all-too-constructed blog personality (the almost-clever handle derived from an obscure-for-high-school historical figure, the disclaimer of an argument and the hiding behind proceduralistic rationality).
3) The medium values terse clarity over cute precision. If you believe Amanda is engaging in hyperbole as to the probable online response to such a revelation (she's not, by the way; Prof. B did indeed experience precisely what Amanda predicts), it's usually more effective to say "I think you exaggerate" than offering your own (implausible) prediction of a 99% sympathetic response. Think about what you mean and explain why you think it; don't just offer decontextualized factual assertions.

That, and stay in school, kid.

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:24 PM:

Amanda: I don't really know how this thread degenerated. But, even though Flathead has been quite rude, I think he does have a point here. You say:

"The irony of all this is that if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated--the screaming that I hate all men would be endless."

Do you really think this would be true? You don't think that the overwhelming majority of comments you would receive would be sympathetic? Of course there might be a crank or two, but would the screaming be "endless?" I really don't think this is plausible.

Piny: The Bitch PhD entry is not about the author herself being sexually assaulted, so it's not really relevant to Amanda's hypothetical.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:26 PM:

Wow, Flathead, you got mad reading skillz yo. How elsewould you take :

"if I ever once said I was writing men off completely after getting sexually assaulted and abused--that's real violence, mind you, not getting lied to or manipulated"?

Your flogging of the word "misandrist" is getting tiresome. Acknowledging that there is indeed a patriarchy in place is not misandry; neither is calling you out on the way you twist other people words to suit your own opinions and your immaturity and rudeness. Amanda is simply paying attention. She doesn't have a plastic boyfriend because of a painful experience, and your smarmy "sympathy" creeps me out almost as much as the doll guy does.

As for that, yeah, I find it creepy. I don't think it should be outlawed or anything, and I support the right to live your life as you see fit without hurting others. But, hey, I got a fucking opinion! So shoot me. Real women have those, you know. What I object to is the attitude behind it, such as the oft-quoted remarks by Davecat:

I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends.

When you truly believe all women are a buncha lyin whore bitches, we will know it. And we stay far, far away. Think about that.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:28 PM:

constructing an elaborate fantasy relationship with a doll sounds vastly preferable to interacting with some of the people who have commented on this thread.

No one's making you come back, kiddo.

Tony the Pony [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:28 PM:

Awprokop---

You really think it's the underlying cause for expressing "I'm writing off men!", rather than the expression itself, that would attract the internet buffoonery? I think that makes a certain amount of sense, but it relies on a greater faith in bloggers' sensibleness and consideration than can be supported by everyday evidence.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:40 PM:

Yes, aw. I got called a man-hater about 500 times in this thread because--get this--I don't think it's particularly a good idea for men to have such high expectations that women won't speak, move, have desires or have weight to their body that they have to resort to fucking dolls because human beings can't meet their standards. I'm rather careful not to paint all men with the same brush and I felt really bad about not being sympathetic to these men and changed the post apologizing and pointing out that they are the worst victims of their unreasonable expectations and still called a man-hater.

With that in mind, it's obvious as the nose on my face that if I even suggested for a moment that I might like to be free of male company for a moment, we can imagine the vultures would swarm. Unfortunately for them, that's not going to happen.

C'mon. We live in a world where some white people resent that black people can say "nigger" and they can't. Of course people are willing to call me a "man-hater" at the drop of a hat because I'm tired of kissing the patriachy's ass and pretending I'm all for a culture that supports dehumanization of women.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:41 PM:

I forgot to add that the image of a guy curled up in bed, spooning a doll, is one of the saddest things I can imagine.

And for anyone who still doubts that it's the underlying misogyny in the guys' remarks that we resent, check out SDB upthread. She comes off as lonely, not bitter and angry, and inspires a totally different response.

OptChmye [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:43 PM:

Thank you for your honest story, SDB.

Look: I have a real, long-term relationship with a real, opinionated woman. I am also a megalefty who has been reading Pandagon for over a year. But I have to say that Ms. Marcotte's treatment of the commenters here has been more in line with something I'd see at FreeRepublic or LittleGreenFootballs.

Are the people who have fantasy relationships with RealDolls weird? You bet. Are they deserving of the unchained vitriol in this thread? No. Maybe, just maybe, they are just sad men with poor social skills who have driven away every woman who could possibly like them. So instead of looking inside and realizing that they are the problem, they blame All Women Because They Are Evil and Mean. I don't hate them for that, I pity them for that.

But see, Amanda, in this thread you've been a tremendous asshole with poor social skills, and you've just about driven off this emotionally mature lefty who visited Pandagon every day. You won't miss my readership, but I pity you nonetheless.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:46 PM:

Opt, how many times do I have to say these guys are victims and people who support their victimization are making it worse for them?

And for fuck's sake, I wasn't here all damn day. But lick your wounds and pity yourself, whatever, I don't care. If men WANT to be victims of the patriarchy, then they are free to do so. But they are not free to hurt themselves and blame women and expect us to kiss their asses over it.

awprokop [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:47 PM:

Tony: I think that the Bitch PhD post and Amanda's hypothetical are so different that they're not even comparable. The Bitch PhD blogger read a news story and made the remark. The blogger in Amanda's hypothetical would have experienced and written about an intense personal trauma, and a certain amount of leeway would obviously be given to her.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:50 PM:

Opt, you may be able to dredge up pity, but you aren't the one being labeled as a she-beast who devours men whole.

I'm serious, that shit offends me mightily. I wonder if any guy can really understand how it feels to know that there are people out there who think of you as a hole and a pair of tits, good for nothing but fucking, because otherwise she'll nag and bitch and spend your money?

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:52 PM:

Oy, you guys are crazy. Having read bitchphds post, I realize now that this didn't happen to Amanda, at all.

And the screaming at BitchPhd wasn't endless, nor was it screaming. It was written by about five guys near as I can tell, most of whom actually had pretty reasonable positions that were very very far from screaming and actually pretty damned understanding and sympathetic.

So Amanda was being hyperbolic, just not in the good writing sense of the word that BitchPhd was.

And Amanda, when you write: "Because I'm not stupid enough to tar all men with the same brush because some are vile assholes.", well that is exactly what you do when you tar all MRA with your brush, and when your invocation of Occam's Razor always cuts to "Misogyny". And people don't like that I say misandrist too much? But that's exactly what Amanda's brush paints. Time after time.

I'm sorry I creeped you out Norah. Glad to know you're able to diagnose Davecat on the basis of one blog comment. You should talk to Dr. Frist, he could you someone of your talents.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:53 PM:

I think yes, Norah. Maybe not how it feels exactly, but certainly lots of men I know feel the same disgust that we do, and some even more. Some guys I know basically don't comment on these threads because they get, well, too angry. So don't feel completely put out.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:55 PM:

I do tar all MRAs with the same brush. Also, I have a bad habit of assuming everyone in Operation Rescue is anti-choice, all members of the Klan are pro-racism, and all the idiots at LGF are racist fucks. I mean, if you don't want to be tarred a misogynist, why join anti-woman organizations?

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 09:57 PM:

And it's not hyperbole, asshole. One reason I'm exhausted with you and your excuse-making ilk is I have been sexually assaulted and beaten and it never occured to me--not once--that men in general were to blame for the actions of the few.

Sadie B. [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:04 PM:

"But see, Amanda, in this thread you've been a tremendous asshole with poor social skills, and you've just about driven off this emotionally mature lefty who visited Pandagon every day."

Is it just me or does that comment not track at all?

Whoever would have guessed there were so many guys with dolls in their closets getting all upset in here?

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:06 PM:

As I've said to you before, as a prominent blogger Amanda, you could do the blogosphere and yourself a favor by interviewing the many women and the many women lawyers and even women psychologists that have joined and founded MRAs.

Not the Schlafflys of the world doing it for religion.

The ones that do it because they have seen and felt how the court system has systematically deprived children of fathers and fathers of their children.

You could also educate yourself and the blogosphere as to the misapplication of clinical psychology tests and theories in the courtroom. How "forensic" psychologists misapply correlative tests and turn them into predictive tests. How courtroom psychology is an industry in and of itself, for itself.

How judges have relieved themselves of the responsibility for judging evidence by turning that responsibility over to forensic psychologists practicing a non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-appealable pseudo-science at best.

You might find there's a lot to be said for a presumption of "joint physical and joint legal custody" in states that have no-fault divorce.

As a father of two young girls, as a human being, let me say again, that I am distressed to find and hear that you were ever sexually assaulted. That is in fact, terrible, and I do wish you the best recovery.

Best wishes, I remain,

J. Pierpont Flathead

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:10 PM:

Get over yourself, seriously. And kiss my ass you sorry, sorry, sorry SOB. Of course I know there are women who think it's easier to buy into male dominance and support it and hope that they get some kind of cookie for it. Unfortunately, the rest of us can't fucking afford to believe that crap.

Believe me, I hope your daughters make it through the gauntlet okay, too, because I know from having people in my life refuse to take my problems seriously because it upsets their precious belief that sexism doesn't matter anymore.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:15 PM:

I'm sorry I creeped you out Norah. Glad to know you're able to diagnose Davecat on the basis of one blog comment. You should talk to Dr. Frist, he could you someone of your talents.

Blah blah fucking blah. I didn't diagnose him, asswipe. I offered my opinion. You know, what real live thinking people have.

And get back to me when you edit that last sentence so it makes fucking sense.

Sadie B. [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:18 PM:

So flatpoint is an MRAer. That explains everything.

All I can say is, from the deep thoughts and compassionate wisdom you have shared with us on this thread, I can see exactly why you find yourself in the place where you are today. Blaming the "the court system" and "forensic psychologists" is not going to help you with any of your problems.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:26 PM:

I dunno....It seems to me a big issue of hypocracy on Amanda's part

With Amanda always talking about sex toys for women...Why can't a man have a sex toy for him? Yeah its weird if he's pretending that it could replace the real deal, but I don't think this is the case. It is just some guy using a toy to get off, like a woman using a vibrator. And to you who thinks her boyfriend likes the vibrator too....He doesn't. He just loves you and is willing to allow your vibrator as he accepts you don't think he is capable of satisfying you. You are telling him he isn't good enough by bringing it into the lovemaking. The guy has serious self-esteem issues...

The only people that would replace the woman with the doll are the sort who couldn't get a real woman anyway. Women should not feel at all threatened by a blow up doll.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:35 PM:

reborn, I take it you haven't read any of the comments here about sex toys and how this isn't about sex toys and RealDolls aren't the same as vibrators, because women aren't acting like they have actual relationships with $7,000 vibrators they call their boyfriends.

I don't think anyone here has said they feel "threatened" by RealDolls, or are even jealous of them. Correct me if I am wrong.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:37 PM:

All anyone needs to know about you, reborn, is that when you said that a man who allows a woman to get off in bed with a toy is a wimp, you exposed your insecurities wide open. It takes confidence for a man to grow up and actually realize that women bring sex toys to bed so they can get there without wearing you out. It's a favor.

Also, and I can say this as someone who wasn't celibate all that long ago, a vibrator can be a man's best friend, if he's interested in feeling what it likes to have a woman come while they're actually fucking, you know.

evil_fizz [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:51 PM:

awprokop- We don't know anything about davecat's dating history (if he even has one).

In the article, it says he's never dated anyone, although it doesn't talk about specific experiences with women that would lead him to think that a doll is a better alternative.

And to you who thinks her boyfriend likes the vibrator too....He doesn't. He just loves you and is willing to allow your vibrator as he accepts you don't think he is capable of satisfying you. You are telling him he isn't good enough by bringing it into the lovemaking.

You're kidding, right? There's no straightfoward path to orgasm, and only a minority of women can climax from vaginal intercourse (wow, that sounds clinical). Anyway, by incorporating a vibrator, you're not telling a man he doesn't satisfy you, just that lots of things feel good and you want to experience them. Satisfaction hinges on people doing what feels good to them and brings them pleasure. Whether it involves props or not is immaterial. Have to agree with Amanda on this one: if you feel threatened by a vibrator or that it's a sign your skills are unsatisfactory, that's an expression of insecurity.

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 10:58 PM:

Are the people who have fantasy relationships with RealDolls weird?

Jesus H Christ on a pogostick with a vibrator stuck on the saddle end!

Look:

- It isn't a relationship. That's the point. You have a relationship with people, not with plastic.

- We don't condemn people for using sex toys.

- We don't condemn people for being sad and/or lonely. Been there, still doing that.

- WHAT WE ARE EXPRESSING AMAZEMENT AT IS THE IDEA THAT THESE PEOPLE TREAT THE DOLLS AS HUMAN AND CLAIM TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM!!!

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:02 PM:

Sheelzebub: Women are liars, according to Davecat.

Let's be honest here, he very clearly says women are possibly liars. Later, he again describes a lying woman as a "possiblity."

...but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends. I'm sure that's got the feminists here chomping at the bit, but as I'd said, I'm not misogynist; I just don't like liars, especially when love is involved. Being with a Doll eliminates that possibility.

Lots of people lie. Some of those people are women. There's nothing controversial here. He never says, "If I were to have a relationship with a real woman, she would lie to me." He merely says she might.

That said, I do think something is seriously wrong for that mere possibility to cripple him as it apparently has. And I can only assume that to him, it is still just a possiblity, as he confesses to having no dating experience. I take that to mean he can't ever have been lied to in a romantic capacity, or if he has, it was in a situation with minimal actual involvement. (Of course, the emotional involvement could have been great, but he doesn't see fit in retrospect to describe the situation as having "dated.")

Exactly what it is that has crippled him is a mystery, and as has been pointed out by everyone on every side of the discussion, will surely not apply to everyone who owns one of these dolls. And while of course I don't want to outlaw this type of behavior, I do think finding the common root causes of it and would lead to a few more happy people in the world and very few less happy people (I can't think of any but the guy who makes the dolls, but he's got a great future ahead of him in special effects), which is really all anything need accomplish.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:05 PM:

That should be "...finding the common root causes of it and treating them would lead..."

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:07 PM:

Just saying.... Making love is something between two people intuned to each other's emotions and needs, or it is for most people...

If the lady is bringing in a vibrator then she is tellling her mate that he can't do it on his own. I think you get your back up about this because you know its true, maybe you signaled to your ex his inadequacy and now he is your ex.

I also notice that anyone who disagrees with your opinion on this site is branded a woman hater. You need to back off. Disagreement is healthy. It is the agitators who stir democracy. I would suggest you go take some of your happy pills, and blog later. Maybe send Ezra a note begging him to relieve your sorry ass.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:09 PM:

Yep, and men intuned to women's emotions and needs know that the clit is on the outside, not the inside and that making her fake it to bolster your ego is cruel and unloving.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:14 PM:

Hey hey nobody said anything about forgeting the clit...

And you know many women enjoy intercourse.

Did you know that? Maybe you should try it sometime

deistcrazy [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:14 PM:

Not to offend anyone... but you're all fucking nuts. Best of luck!

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:16 PM:

Cute, reborn. Spoken like a true celibate who has no idea.

You have no idea how ironic your statement is and I'm not gonna explain it.

evil_fizz [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:16 PM:

If the lady is bringing in a vibrator then she is tellling her mate that he can't do it on his own. I think you get your back up about this because you know its true, maybe you signaled to your ex his inadequacy and now he is your ex.

Nope, he's stil my boyfriend because it makes us both happy. I'm satisfied, he likes being able to do what works for me, and everyone's happy. (He's also secure and comfortable and doesn't take suggestions and ideas as me telling me he's inadequate.)

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:24 PM:

Maybe you need to get more intuned with your body and understand every women has diiferent areas that turn them on. I think you are completely narrow minded to think that only the clitoris can be the source of pleasure. Maybe you have never enjoyed intercourse, but many women do. The G-spot is not a myth amiga

I start to doubt if you have ever actually been with a man, as much as you doubt intercourse could honestly be pleasurable.

Jedmunds [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:26 PM:

If the lady is bringing in a vibrator then she is tellling her mate that he can't do it on his own. I think you get your back up about this because you know its true, maybe you signaled to your ex his inadequacy and now he is your ex.

But what's a girl to do, reborn, if her boyfriend is inadequate?

gayle [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:26 PM:

WOW! You're close to hitting 300 posts on this thread. Has this happened before?

Anyway, I too blame the patriarchy but more than that, I'm blaming a society full of individuals who can't see past their own dicks and out into the broader world.

Spending 6 grand on a fuck me doll (or even a cuddle me doll) is morally fucking outrageous. This reminds me of that selfish prick who spent 20 million to fly around in space and pretend he's an astronaut. 20 million, imagine that. Imagine what good he could have done with all that money if he wasn't such a self-absorbed, selfish asshole. Okay, six grand isn't 20 million, but it's a small version of the same problem. If you have big money to blow, give it to a charity. (Apparently, these people haven't watched the news lately. There are a hell of a lot of people who could use some help.) If you don't like that idea, buy your Mom and Dad a nice trip, they probably deserve it!

Me, me, me. . .and then again, what about me?? There is something truly perverted about a society that throws away good money on stupid shit like this. And yes, the same goes for people who buy Hummers and homes the size of hotels.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:28 PM:

I get it now -- reborn doesn't know how vibrators work.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:28 PM:

The G-spot is not a myth amiga

No, but there's a strong and growing possibility your gf's orgasms are.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:29 PM:

reborn sez:

Why can't a man have a sex toy for him? Yeah its weird if he's pretending that it could replace the real deal, but I don't think this is the case. It is just some guy using a toy to get off, like a woman using a vibrator.

and THEN:

If the lady is bringing in a vibrator then she is tellling her mate that he can't do it on his own. I think you get your back up about this because you know its true, maybe you signaled to your ex his inadequacy and now he is your ex.

So, let's summarize. No big deal if a guy uses -er- props to get off... but if a woman does it, it shames and emasculates her man to the poont where he can no longer be intimate with her and is driven permanently into the plastic arms of his RealDoll lover?


reborn, you don't need to disagree to be branded a woman-hater, you just need to say shit like that. Oh, and this:

And you know many women enjoy intercourse. Did you know that? Maybe you should try it sometime

Clearly, you aren't a regular reader.


annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:30 PM:

To clarify further, reborn doesn't know that there are different kinds of vibrators meant for different areas of stimulation. I was sitting here going "What the fuck is reborn talking about?" when I realized reborn must not know about G-spot vibrators, clit-centered vibrators, vibrating dildoes, etc.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:34 PM:

Yeah, the very notion I dislike intercourse is up there with telling me I love Bush and hate kittens in the whopper department.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:35 PM:

We need flea up in this shit to explain shit to some ignorant idiots.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:36 PM:

I will say the movie Serenity has a character with a pretty elaborate sex doll. Good movie actually...

If your girl brings power tools into bed, you get to view porn and use a plastic vagina while she watches(Fair is fair). If you're really really cool you'll blog about how good your love life is, and curse at anyone who questions otherwise.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:40 PM:

Huh?

I get it now. His RealDoll is in touch with her body. Now it all makes sense.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:43 PM:

Oddly enough the last post of yours didn't

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:44 PM:

Well, if your fantasy girlfriend is perfect in every other way, why not pretend you get her off, too?

SarahS [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:46 PM:

Where did this whole conservative idea of "nah nah you tolorate more things which means you have to tolorate everything" come from? Cuz it certainly didn't come from any feminism I've ever heard of.

In the end, I really don't care if these guys fuck/love/cohabitate with big dolls. In fact I think I'm the only person in this whole thread so far who said they would legitimately give this whole fucking a doll thing a try.

What concerns me, and where I see patriarchy looming it's dark shadow, is in the way that these relationships with these dolls seem to replicate classic patterns of dominance. Not just sexually stimulating yourself with something (dildo, water jet, cucumber, water willy, fake vagina) but creating a whole replicate person, obviously over which the owner has complete control.

And it isn't even just that, I think I could live with that and think "oh this is just a twinge patriarchish", but the dislike of real women that seems exist in these people. The characterization that all women are liars and users and etc seems to give these doll owners justification for retreating deeper into their dolls (no pun intended, really) then just sex. They want relationships with them. They want to cuddle with them and play video games. They want to buy them clothes and friends. That is an insane ammount of time. I don't know any woman with 100 outfits for their dildo. That says to me that they are completely replacing real women with these dolls, and thats where I get all squicked out with misogyny. They want the benefits of a girlfriend (sex, affection, interaction) without having a real person there. That is objectification at its most pure. And that is really really sad.

Its sad that we live in a world that socializes men this way, sad that we live in a world where this is their response. That said, it is their right to respond this way, if thats how they choose. However its also my right to say that its unhealthy and patriarchal.

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:47 PM:

I must yield a point. I know little about dildos. From this point on I will defer to your expertise.

Garnet [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:49 PM:

I will say the movie Serenity has a character with a pretty elaborate sex doll. Good movie actually...

Hey, don't you try to use Serenity to prop up your insanity!

Maybe you need to get more intuned with your body and understand every women has diiferent areas that turn them on.

If every woman has different areas, then only a minority can be turned on by strict vaginal intercourse. Ergo, additional stimulation must be applied in order to make those women happy, in effect, requiring the use of either fingers or toys, since those women will not recieve the necessary pleasure from nothing more than vaginal intercourse.

Logic's not really your strong point, huh reborn?

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:51 PM:

taking things out of context to construct a strawman argument seems to be yours...

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 11, 2005 11:54 PM:

Alright Peace out. I'm going to bed. It has been fun.

Garnet [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:12 AM:

taking things out of context to construct a strawman argument seems to be yours...

You're right, I'm sorry. What actually defeated your ridiculous attempt at an argument was when you started off saying that all women have different erogenous zones, then accused someone of being narrowminded for believing that any of them could exist outside of the inner lining of the first, oh, five or six inches of the vagina.

FoolishOwl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:26 AM:

What I find frightening is not just that Davecat et. al. think that they have relationships with inanimate objects, but that they think that the entire point of a relationship between a man and a woman is to have certain discrete physical sensations. It's so instrumentalist it's frightening. Sad for them, of course, but I have a hard time imagining how someone can function when they're apparently utterly incapable of understanding the motivations of those around them.

OptChmye [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:28 AM:

"Whoever would have guessed there were so many guys with dolls in their closets getting all upset in here?"

It's true. Every man in this thread who thinks that a person should be able to get off however they want so long as they do not harm another person has a RealDoll in his closet.

In other news, everyone who voted for Bush supports the Nazi party and every person who voted for Kerry wishes old Joe Stalin would come back and murder a couple of million people.

So I guess we can reduce the other side to caricatures as long as we claim that we're on the "good" side, right? Isn't that what honest liberals do? Demonize the enemy? Make attacks on their personal lives, maybe claim that they have a few skeletons - or dolls, I suppose - in their closet.

If there's no moral line separating the actions of the right and the left, why even bother distinguishing between the two?

What's probably saddest about this is I can't think of an easier target for mockery and derision than lonely single men with overactive fantasy lives. There's no sport in it, no fun the way there is in making light of the real enemies: Rove, Cheney, Bush, DeLay, Frist. There are the men who really hate you. These are the men who can affect your lives in horrifying ways. Not a couple hundred lonely losers.

Imagine yourself in front of them, laughing and pointing. Maybe a whole circle of like-minded people; why not? There are so few of them and so many of us. Tell him that he's sick, that he ought to be ashamed, tell him that you think that he is a deeply flawed human being.

Do you like what you see?

sparklegirl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:35 AM:

Opt, Amanda and the others are doing exactly what you claim they should, although you can't recognize it.

They are not blaming the specific men who have dolls; they are blaming the patriarchal culture, of which those poor men are only symptoms.

And radical-rightwing politicians like Bush, DeLay, and Frist are responsible for promoting patriarchy. They are part of the problem on the large scale, and rest assured that Amanda spends plenty of time criticizing them on her blog.

Sarcastro [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:35 AM:

Wow. Glad I ducked out of this one early.

Anyone else reminded of The River's Edge. Of Feck and his inflatable sex-doll girlfriend Elly;

"Look, I'm not psycho. I know she's a doll. Right, Elly?"

The perversion of mental health to racist, homophobic and misogynystic purposes by the patriarchy throughout the history of psychology (wether under the guise of theology or rationalism), up to and including the gay-curing fundy concentration camps of today, makes me loathe to enforce any mental standards beyond "Harm none...". I'd certainly encourage Davecat to get some professional help, of one sort or another, and I condemn his rather pathetic misogyny. But beyond that it's his bag until he does something actively and destructively antisocial.

Did I just use the word 'patriarchy'? I meant "The Man"...

karpad [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:38 AM:

wow. this has really gone on far too long.
I checked this in the morning, back when there were about 20.
there are now almost 300. and this is unacceptible.
which means now, I must take a cheap shot:

so does all that "time and money you save not dealing with women's bullshit" where you get the time to google "Real Doll" and enter long debates with people who think you're creepy so you can defend your fetish?

I mean, crazy-expensive masturbatory aids are all well and good. it's not too fundamentally different from my love of Citadelle Gin, fine cheeses, Johnny Walker Blue, and Godiva Ice Cream. I personally wouldn't fuck anything with empty puppet eyes like that, but that's more a personal phobia, I guess.

but I have yet to suggest my ludicriously expensive alcohol should be a substitute for human contact.

also, did I read right? did someone accuse Amanda of being frigid or something? because that's so confusing, I think it must be a zen riddle or something. you know. "Xiyi wept at her wedding" "Chuang-tsu is the butterfly dreaming" (although those are actually taoist...)

"Amanda is frigid. and I just blew your mind, right? also, her cock is HUUUUGE!"

Sarcastro [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:51 AM:

They are not blaming the specific men who have dolls; they are blaming the patriarchal culture, of which those poor men are only symptoms.


That attitude, I wish to say, I agree with. I would quibble about wether the patriarchy is the overiding influence or yet another symptom.. but not now. Fix the underlying value system through consensus, not the individual through force is my only point.

Karpad is right (about Gabby Pad being right) as well, traditional social enforcement techniques like mockery aren't a bad idea.

silent speaking [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:32 AM:

Using a blow up doll as a sex aid is a pretty weird concept, but I think that you're reading a little too much in to this. At then end of the day it is just as you stated: a sex aid. It is no different, really, from a woman or man that chooses to use a sex aid like a vibrator or a dildo. Sure, they appear to be wasting their money terribly, but what people do with their own money isn't really what this site sets out to analyse, is it?

"I know, I do feel sorry for some of them. But the one guy who has the site with him surrounded by them and a list of "wrongs" done to him by women jumped out at me--it's like reading your typical MRA rant. Some of it seems truly sad--babysitting a woman's kids while she goes on a date?--but that he complains that he was enlisted to help move furniture jumped out at me. You see that sort of complaint alot--men complaining that women they were in relationships with asked favors and stuff of them. No conception of the notion that relationships are give-and-take. I've literally had MRAs on some boards accuse me of some sort of hypocrisy if I've ever dared ask a man on hand to help lift something that I can't lift myself, as if feminism somehow would make me bigger or stronger. But it interests me because it's just sexism in its rawest form to expect that women's work go without mention but men get slavishly praised for doing anything."

None of that is really related to the purchasing of a blow up doll. Yes, someone that bought a blow up doll might be a misogynist, however I don't think that the two things go hand in hand. I think that the reason that some of these guys are buying toys is an abject loneliness and, as such, they probably deserve sympathy rather than revulsion.

I almost always agree with what you write on this site; I just think you've gone a little off kilter on this one.

FoolishOwl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:07 AM:

Silent speaking, reread the thread. Or, just this summary by Phoenician:

Jesus H Christ on a pogostick with a vibrator stuck on the saddle end!

Look:

- It isn't a relationship. That's the point. You have a relationship with people, not with plastic.

- We don't condemn people for using sex toys.

- We don't condemn people for being sad and/or lonely. Been there, still doing that.

- WHAT WE ARE EXPRESSING AMAZEMENT AT IS THE IDEA THAT THESE PEOPLE TREAT THE DOLLS AS HUMAN AND CLAIM TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM!!!

Oh, and I keep forgetting. As a habitual Marx-citer, I'm obligated to point out the comic similarity of all this to Marx's definition of commodity fetishism: relations between people taking the form of relations between things.

But then, maybe that's not so funny.

silent speaking [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:30 AM:

"Silent speaking, reread the thread. Or, just this summary by Phoenician:

Jesus H Christ on a pogostick with a vibrator stuck on the saddle end!
Look:

- It isn't a relationship. That's the point. You have a relationship with people, not with plastic.

- We don't condemn people for using sex toys.

- We don't condemn people for being sad and/or lonely. Been there, still doing that.

- WHAT WE ARE EXPRESSING AMAZEMENT AT IS THE IDEA THAT THESE PEOPLE TREAT THE DOLLS AS HUMAN AND CLAIM TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM!!!

Oh, and I keep forgetting. As a habitual Marx-citer, I'm obligated to point out the comic similarity of all this to Marx's definition of commodity fetishism: relations between people taking the form of relations between things.

But then, maybe that's not so funny."

Oh, it is definitely the product of humankind living in a materialistic age. With yourself, and Marx, I certainly agree.

But I don't think that one's mistaken belief that one is having a relationship with a plastic doll at all constitutes misogynistic behaviour. Phoenician states that 'we don't condemn people for being sad and/or lonely. Been there, still doing that.' But perhaps Phoenician has a recourse to other relationships in her life that these poor folk don't? Perhaps, she can rely on her intellect to fill a void, an intellect which these sad creatures are not gifted with? If these people are truly bound for a life of loneliness, who are we to judge them for inventing what is essentially an imaginary romance? I re-read the original post and the word misogynist was mentioned in conjunction with 'doll users', and I just don't think that that link can be made.

FoolishOwl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:53 AM:

No, I'm referring to the posts, by Davecat, that he hates women and prefer dolls to women because of it. The misogyny is quite clear.

silent speaking [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:17 AM:

'No, I'm referring to the posts, by Davecat, that he hates women and prefer dolls to women because of it. The misogyny is quite clear.'

Yes, but I'm talking about Amanda's initial post. And lunatics like Davecat come from all walks of life - they play tennis, they read, they ride horses (god forbid the implications there!) and, yes, they have sex with blow up dolls. But, just as tennis is not by definition a sexist occupation, nor, I believe, is having sex with a blow up doll (however personally repulsive I might find it). In other words, Davecat is more than likely make a similar sexist comment about how female tennis players shouldn't receive the same coverage or respect as their male counterparts - the fault lies in the Neanderthal attitudes of some men, not with lonely people that create their own fantasy world with a doll.

But, one thing that I'm sure we can agree on: Davecat is not worth any more of our typing time. :)

Frederick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:27 AM:

Wow, have you ever gotten so many comments on a post before? That article was about the weirdest thing I've ever seen.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:07 AM:

If every woman has different areas, then only a minority can be turned on by strict vaginal intercourse. Ergo, additional stimulation must be applied in order to make those women happy, in effect, requiring the use of either fingers or toys, since those women will not recieve the necessary pleasure from nothing more than vaginal intercourse.

Shush now, woman. If women are born defective and their bodies don't do exactly what their man wants exactly the way their man instructs, they better get good at faking being "in tune with their bodies". (read: pretending that they get off on what best suits their insecure partner's ego)

Seriously, Fred. I don't get it. I really don't. Sometimes you think you know people--for instance, you assume standing up for idea that men shouldn't be raised to expect submissive perfection in women for their own good and the good of their partners should be non-controversial--but apparently not.

masterson [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:56 AM:

Certainly looks as though the last wall of resistance is crumbling. Rock and Roll will destroy society!

Welcome to the advanced thinking of the human race, where just like any other stupid mammal, all actions stem from sexual jealousy.

I've never seen such a vomiting of repressed sexual memes concentrated in one place.

easilyirritable [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:06 AM:

I don't know why y'all are getting so bent out of shape. My Hitachi Magic Wand took me out for dinner last night, and then we enjoyed some drinks at the bar around the corner before heading home to cuddle up in front of the TV and then fall asleep (I wasn't in the mood for sex).

Why you all gotta be such haters?

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:06 AM:

And I see that the hyper-defensive folks here are still refusing to actually read the posts, and chalk off the criticism to anti-sex toy sentiment or sexual hangups.

IOW, Phonecian and Foolish Owl, don't bother trying to explain it to them. They could read the posts, but they haven't bothered. Why should they when they can pull arguments we haven't made out of their asses?

Just let them plug their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LIIIIIIIISTENIIIIIING!!!". That's all they've done, no matter how much we've pointed out that no, we don't have a problem with sex toys or with sexuality--just that it's creepy that someone thinks they have a relationship with a hunk of plastic.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:13 AM:

silent speaking, you might want to read the whole Salon article too. Oh, and Phoenician is a man.

Garnet [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:19 AM:

Shush now, woman.

I'm a woman now? Sweet! Godsdamn, where's the nearest lesbian bar!

Yes, yes, this is what I get for having a gender-neutral name. Blargh.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:20 AM:

I've thought about this a bit more, and I'd like to state why I don't think Dave here's an actual misogynist:

Simply put, no misogynist would settle for a doll.

Let us be brutally honest here: A misogynist here -- one wanting a quiet, tiny, submissive, obediant "proper" girl -- could find one. They do exist, after all, and it's not like no one here is familiar with the horror stories.

It's not like Dave's had a failed string of relationships where the woman failed to be all obediant and passive -- he claims himself he's never really dated ANYONE.

A misogynst would keep looking, and blaming "feminists" when the women he dated turned out to have thoughts and feelings and needs of their own. Sooner or later he'd either find the girl he felt he "deserved" or -- with enough disposable cash -- try the ole' mail order bride from China thing.

A misogynst wants a REAL WOMAN to lord it over. To be the passive housewife he "deserves".

Dave, on the other hand, hasn't even tried to FIND that sort of woman. He just kinda waves his hands and claims women have too many "needs" and they just don't fit his vision of women or whatever. But he never tried, by his own admission. That's the key point there.

Dave's problem is he quite obviously can't handle a relationship. Can't handle dealing with a "real person". It's got nothing to do with patriarchal culture -- Dave couldn't handle a relationship if he was gay, either. Dave wants a relationship, but can't handle one -- so he fakes it. But he doesn't want to admit the problem is on HIS end -- blaming other people for your problems is common.

A misogynist will feel he's "owed" a proper wife. A doll wouldn't work for him. He'd be pissed at you suggesting it. He'd rather be single and cursing the feminazi's, or ordering brides from China, than shack up with a doll -- and he certainly wouldn't ascribe it feelings. He'd blame feminism, modern women, whatever....but he wouldn't stop searching until he found the "proper wife" or someone he could mold into one.

And it's not like he wouldn't have a chance of being successful. We all know there are a tens of thousands of guys out there with that sort of stone-age view of women, and far too many find -- or more generally, make -- the sort of woman they're looking for.

There are an awful lot of undeniable misogynists out there, and and awful lot of real problems with our patriarchal heritage --- why the hell are we wasting time on this?

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:25 AM:

I was going to read all the comments before responding, but I got through the first third or so and had to get back to work. So I may be going over old ground, or talking to people who've expressed their "thoughts" and skedaddled.

librulqueer:
At least she never wants to "talk about our relationship" which really means "Bitch session". If the relationship is good, who needs to talk about it?

I'm not sure if you're serious, but if you are: talking about it from time to time is what keeps it good. But I'd say only if it's bad, or at least going bad, is there a need to set aside time specifically to talk about it.

Having said that, setting aside time isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many relationships could probably be saved if the people involved did this when things start to go downhill.

Davecat:
So I would assume that no-one here has ever been rejected in their advances towards a partner?

I'd like to know precisely how you went about making those advances.

kactus:
There are also the guys--super-macho guys, too--who want nothing more than to be anally raped by a gorgeous woman wearing a strap-on.

and that's fine -- because it requires developing a relationship (even if only fiduciary) with a gorgeous woman who has or is willing to use a strap-on. It's not running from people with thoughts and opinions.

salto:
it wasn't too long ago that a woman owning a vibrator was considered a weird and creepy thing by many people. thankfully, that attitude has changed.
i wonder when boys will get to have their toys too. without judgment.

It would still be weird and creepy if a woman had a vibrator shaped and painted like man and used it in preference to the real thing precisely because she couldn't use (as opposed to interacting with) the real thing. A vibrator is more like a hole in the pillow, or a Fleshlight (which is kinda creepy itself, but I suppose an ever-present help in times of need). The doll isn't the only way the guy can get sexual satisfaction, it's the only way he can have a fulfilling relationship.

i'm a feminist male. but i'm a humanist first.

Does that mean you don't think the status of men should be lowered relative to the status of women?

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:30 AM:

Shorter Morat: Apart from his misgyny, Dave is not a misogynist.

fenrir_howling [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:33 AM:

Hi first post here:

who buys those Real Dolls and are they most just misogynists or are they lonely losers?

Well considering they have "Charlie" for women, and because this is a capitalist country where you only produce what sells, it’s logical to guess there are quite a few women who buy real dolls too. It is also logical to ask the question, are these women misandrists or just lonely losers? I see it as only fair to make sure both genders both get tarred with the same brush.

Turns out that misogyny is a good first step towards being a lonely loser.

By that logic so is misandry. Actually that brings up an interesting question 'are the women who cannot find a husband misandrists first or just lonely losers who become misandrists?"

Oh, btw it's “It turns out that….” What you wrote wasn’t entire correct English, of course I am using British English and American English might be different.

Also note that misogyny is not a trait one is born with, much like a political leaning. It is developed over time through socialising with various sectors of society. I believe it is part of the feminist philosophy that such things are created through nurture and not nature, so it fits that philosophy perfectly. Therefore its also logical to assume that to turn a normal healthy human being - I say human being because one can hate their own gender it's not something which is gender specific - into a misogynist means women must have had a hand in destroying the persons respect for said women. Whoever these women are they must have had, at one point, hurt this person to make them dislike women. *please note, I said a Normal Healthy human not raving sexist bigot. I’m talking about someone who respects women and logically expects that to be returned in kind*

Anyway I'm getting off topic now.


Seriously, I'm not sure what bothers me more--that some of the men have "relationships" with lifeless sex toys or that some of them go out of their way to spend thousands of dollars on a toy...

*cough* http://tinyurl.com/7vgrd as I stated before, you do not make something in a capitalist country that doesn't sell. Also please note the *Charlie* doll. However this brings up, again, my paragraph above, these where not born wanting dolls someone made them turn off women so much that they believe the only alternative is these dolls.

that simulates the way a real woman's body feels as much as possible only to go out of their way to deny that the thing is anything more than your workaday sex toy, something most of us only spend $100 on at least.

A sextoy need not only simulate a penis or vagina. Women themselves have said there are lots of erotic places on the female form and not every man has the same tastes. How long do you think it will be before "Charlie" has parts of this body replaced with robotics?


Update: Okay, two cups of coffee down, I will add that I wish that I'd been more sympathetic initially. Chalk this one up as a "patriarchy hurts men, too" post. These men are lonely losers because 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.


To finish with, I would like say that I have never actually met a man who has believe he has been entitled to anything, but the vote and liberty and even then they have understood their are responsibilities for those simple things too, like defending those rights against an aggressor. However I have also met women who believe they are entitled to children yet are shocked when I point out that up until the 20th century childbirth was an extremely dangerous act. Having a child back then was wonderful gift because not many babies made it. I have researched my own family tree and the amount of dead children staggers the mind, some of my ancestors lost 5 children before the age of 5. The same applies for the vote, when I have told women that the vote is not a right, but a privilege one is given and might be called upon to pay for that privilege through being drafted for war they are shocked and appalled, I can't see why. If it wasn't for the defenders in WW2, my country would have lost all rights to vote for its leader.

Chris Clarke [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:39 AM:

Simply put, no misogynist would settle for a doll.

Wait a minute. Are we talking about dolls, or straw men? I'm so confused.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:47 AM:

Wait a minute. Are we talking about dolls, or straw men? I'm so confused.

Human nature. If Dave was really wanting -- desperately needed -- the sort of passive, obediant, no-talking back sort of woman he's being accused of, he could find one.

Or, for about what he's shelled out -- order one from overseas.

Why hasn't he? Misogynistic men all around the country manage to find or create those beaten, silent, unhappy wives. It's not exactly an unknown problem in America.

Why can't Dave? Why didn't even even DATE?

Because Dave doesn't want a relationship. He doesn't want to deal with a person. Everything else is just an excuse. It's got nothing to do with unreasonable views on women, or sexism, or anything like that. It's got everything to do with the fact that Dave can't handle people.

I've got no doubt that if Dave was gay, he'd have a male real Doll.

He's never even dated. Jesus, living down here in Texas I've met some damn sexist men, and even the most woman-hating stereotype you could FIND had at least dated women.

If Dave here had flat out said he'd dated women, and had never had a successful relationship for the reasons he gave I'd happily label him at -- at the very least -- a sad example of bad cultural conditioning and happily blame our male dominated society.

But he's never even tried, preferring a plastic doll to even an attempt -- that's a whole different kettle of fish.

easilyirritable [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:57 AM:

To finish with, I would like say that I have never actually met a man who has believe he has been entitled to anything, but the vote and liberty and even then they have understood their are responsibilities for those simple things too, like defending those rights against an aggressor.

Tell me, where is this planet from which you hail? Because I really must visit it some time.

ginmar [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:58 AM:

Well considering they have "Charlie" for women, and because this is a capitalist country where you only produce what sells, it’s logical to guess there are quite a few women who buy real dolls too. It is also logical to ask the question, are these women misandrists or just lonely losers? I see it as only fair to make sure both genders both get tarred with the same brush.

Uh, dude--Charlie is for gay guys. Duh. So your logic is fucked up from the get go. Please rewind and start your---Oh, shit, is this for real? OH, yeah, and while your personal experience may be wonderful and special for you, I frankly don't give a shit. Your comments kind of smell of 'agenda.'

To finish with, I would like say that I have never actually met a man who has believe he has been entitled to anything, but the vote and liberty and even then they have understood their are responsibilities for those simple things too, like defending those rights against an aggressor.

Peggy Noonan? Is that you?

However I have also met women who believe they are entitled to children yet are shocked when I point out that up until the 20th century childbirth was an extremely dangerous act.

Aren't you just the little teapot that could, dispensing wisdom like that?

Having a child back then was wonderful gift because not many babies made it.

Let's just ignore the fact that childbirth killed a lot of women. It's easy to call something a gift when it's not something you ever to experience.

I have researched my own family tree and the amount of dead children staggers the mind, some of my ancestors lost 5 children before the age of 5.

Thanks for the little trip through history. Which is relavant how?

The same applies for the vote, when I have told women that the vote is not a right,

Damn feminazis, thinking 'taxation without representation' applied to the whole population! And thank you, Massa, for deigning to give us the vote.

but a privilege one is given and might be called upon to pay for that privilege through being drafted for war they are shocked and appalled, I can't see why.

So they're just going to draft women and not men? Also, how did GWB get out of this? The only thing he fought during his service was a near-constant hangover.

If it wasn't for the defenders in WW2, my country would have lost all rights to vote for its leader.

Shame that it's those guys who kept women from learning how to fight.

See here, Sparky, there's a reason women are kept out of combat---by men. When you learn how to fight the enemy, you have a tendency to know how to fight other things, too----especially men who act like women are dodging their responsibilities for those 'privileges' they're granted by Mighty White Men when they don't join the military.


zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 11:58 AM:

Dave's problem is he quite obviously can't handle a relationship. Can't handle dealing with a "real person". It's got nothing to do with patriarchal culture -- Dave couldn't handle a relationship if he was gay, either. Dave wants a relationship, but can't handle one -- so he fakes it. But he doesn't want to admit the problem is on HIS end -- blaming other people for your problems is common.

Here's where the misogyny comes in: does he draw conclusions like this about men and refuse to form friendships with them because he might be lied to?

And you're wrong that going with a doll over a mail-order bride is not a misogynistic act where the doll owner concocts a relationship with the doll. They're fruit of the same tree -- in each case, the men feel they're entitled to a compliant woman because they've bought into the idea that a woman should be compliant and he should run the show. The difference is that those who get mail-order brides for that purpose have divided up women into groups that are either acceptable or unacceptable, based on stereotype and perceived traits (Ameriskanks and Flowers of the Orient, for example), whereas the hard-core Real Doll owners have rejected ALL live women as unacceptable.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:02 PM:

I would also like to add, in re the use of vibrators in bed:

First off, vaginal intercourse is not the entirety of what one can do in bed with a vibrator.

Second, did it ever occur to you that men can get pleasure from a vibrator as well?

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:03 PM:

What you wrote wasn’t entire correct English, of course I am using British English and American English might be different.

Glass house much??

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:09 PM:

Charlie is for gay guys.

Sure. Next you're going to tell me Playgirl is ... hm? Oh. Never mind.

j swift [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:15 PM:

Reading through all these comments I have been trying figure out why people have been freaking out about these guys.

As has been emphatically pointed out it is about the "relationship" these guys have with inanimate objects. By that everyone is thinking relationship in tems of social, dating, loving, etc.

Well, first thing, by defintion they can't have that relationship with an inanimate object. They can say they do, they can delude themselves into thinking it is so, people can call them emotional/social retards for claiming it is so, but in the end they can not.

So what everyone is really bitching about is their emotional/social shortcomings, their unromantic and soulless, pathetic and sad shortcomings.

They are not attempting to fit in, they are by their actions turning their backs on the majority in general and women as a gender and in a pique of highschool social arrogance we think them at least possibly immoral, violent, bigoted etc and at worst partriarchial, control freak rapists.

I mean how dare these losers not even try to participate in the social world! How dare they not experience fully the ambivalence, the joy, the sadness, the hurt, the disappointment, the comfort of pursuing a normal sexual relationship.

The right wing fundies would find them sad and in need of salvation so that they can get married to a godly woman and have babies.

Some of us find them sad and in need of behavioral therapy because they are not getting laid by a real woman on a regular basis. (Mind you, jerking off in the normal manner is fine)

I am not sure which of those two propositions is more annoying.

ginmar [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:21 PM:

Well, given that you missed what everybody here is saying by a mile, you better get irritated at yourself then because nobody here has come close to your strawman.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:32 PM:

Dang. This thread is still going?
I understand, I think, how Amanda feels about 'the Doll People'. I'm just not sure reducing this to ONLY misnogyny is the way to understand this.
I have pointed at parallel gay behaviours, and the history of imaginative fiction (and the 'artifical woman' stands apart from the 'artificial man theme [Think "Coppeleia" vs 'Frankenstein's monster']), illuminating a sexist culture.
There's the whole 'geek' theme of the unattractive and unsocialized male who seeks this sort of artificial pseudo sexualtiy. And the history of objectifying women, and the scifi and manga literature that is a reflection of it.
I lack the certainty to say this is just the patriarchy assserting itself. And if we move into the realm of 'what, if anything, do we do about this pathology', I have no answers. Still, this debate illuminates a lot of points of view for me.
And is probably more fun, if less relevant, than tax policy.
And does anyone want to collaborate on a cheezy movie script for 'Coppleia vs. Frankenstein?"

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:38 PM:

Next up:

The troll flood gates at NAMBLA open up as amanda takes the bold stance of being against pedophilia.

These men want a relationship with real women, Fact.

These men have decided to replace a woman with a rubber doll for a wide variety of Patriarchy based reasons, Fact.

This squigs out feminists out like I am personally squigged out by scat fetishes, because these men feel a relationship with a real woman can be imitated by an unresponsive piece of rubber (with kung-fu grip action!), fact.

That that is our opinon is also a fact.

Unfortunatly these opinions (which are hurting no one except the feelings of some men who are taking critcisms about these poor sorry injured men rather personally) are for some reason up for discussion because... why is that again?

Davecat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:46 PM:

Hi, I'm back.

There's been a metric shitload of comments here, most of them directed at me, and mostly disparaging. I just wanted to set the record straight. I know most of you won't really give a toss, but there it is.

1) The thing that probably hurt me the most: I repeat, I am NOT A MISOGYNIST. Feel free to ask some of my female friends. In case of fact, one of them thinks Shi-chan is really ace and regularly buys underwear for her. Another lass has been my best friend of over twenty years, and originally suggested that I buy a RealDoll in the first place, seeing as that she knew how I have a love of all things artificial, from 20th century Modern furniture, to Gynoids (female Androids, for those not in the know).

Futhermore, addressing a previous statement I'd made that everyone seems to love jumping on, 'Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends,' people are assuming that I think all women are liars. WHICH IS NOT WHAT I'D SAID. I am saying that from the limited experiences that I've had with dating - DATING WOMEN - it's ended miserably because the person I was dating lied to me. I AM NOT SAYING ALL WOMEN ARE EVIL SCHEMING BITCHES, NOR DO I HATE ALL WOMEN. If I were female, it'd undoubtedly be the same thing, with reversed genders.
Ever hear the phrase 'Once bitten, twice shy'? You can repeat 'O, we've all had relationships where it's ended miserably, but we get back into the dating scene anyway,' but not everyone posesses that relentless stick-to-it-iveness. Speaking for me, I don't. Instead of going for a monumental string of failures, I simply opted to drop out of the running pretty much as a whole.

2) Addressing the whole 'iDollators just want a passive woman that lies around, ready for sex,' again, that's erroneous. Many iDollators would prefer Gynoids. If I could have a version of Shi-chan that walked, spoke, and acted of her own volition, that would be my absolute ideal. I would prefer someone that I could go see films or concerts with, or drive to work, or whatnot. But the technology obviously isn't here yet, so a Doll is the next best thing. There are thousands of people who would undoubtedly like a Synthetik lover of their own, for reasons of kink, or for reasons where they're tired of rejection from others. And that's 'male or female', in case anyone's confused on that point.
And yes, it's little i, big D iDollators. It's called having a sense of humour.

3) I continue to be stunned as to how many people are 'squicked out' that I have a relationship, or even choose to give Shi-chan a personality. Don't you think it'd be better to endow a personality on her, rather than simply referring to an artificial female as an 'it'? Basically, to sum up what I think of her, it's that she's always there for me, no matter what. I wished that Salon.com didn't have to edit Meghan's story for space reasons, but one of the things I'd mentioned is that you can call having a Doll the 'teddy bear syndrome'. For a lot of iDollators, having someone around when you get home or whatever is comforting. I'm not a people person by trade, and I prefer to be alone most of the time, but like any one of you, I hate being lonely. A Doll helps fill that need. 'Pfft, you're obviously sick, psychotic and wrong,' you may say, but it's nice to know Shi-chan's there for me, as opposed to attempting to date, and failing, and attempting to date, and failing, etc etc.

I've no idea why I've typed this much, or at all, really, cos 99.9% of you are so dead-set against me or other iDollators, and will never change your opinion. But like I'd said, I wanted to get a couple of things off my chest.

vladtheimposter [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:47 PM:

This URL seems relevant:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1630

That seems to describe the underlying reason for
and meaning of this phenomenon. People, and amercans especially, are crazy in various amusing
and/or disturbing ways. Hardly reason to stop the
presses. It doesn't say anything about 'patriachy' or
even modern alienation or anything like that. It doesn't mean anything.

Reading this thread, though, or as much
of it as I can be bothered to, has convinced me that the 'iDollators' are right; lumps of plastic
are vastly superior to humans, or at least american
ones.

Frankly, I hope Osama kills you all.

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 12:56 PM:

addressing a previous statement I'd made that everyone seems to love jumping on, 'Sure, a Doll may not be able to provide 'real love' - whatever 'real love' means exactly - but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends,' people are assuming that I think all women are liars.

No, people think you suspect, a priori, all women of being liars. Which you clearly do, since that's what you said.

If I could have a version of Shi-chan that walked, spoke, and acted of her own volition, that would be my absolute ideal.

I notice "have opinions of her own" isn't on that list.

easilyirritable [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:01 PM:

This is the greatest comments thread ever. My day has been made infinitely more entertaining thanks to the Doll Humpers of America. Thanks, guys!

ginmar [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:04 PM:

Many iDollators would prefer Gynoids.

Um, replacing an inert piece of plastic with one with computer chips? Not helping your case there, Davey. Oh, yeah, and it's kind of funny you have female friends. Try this one on for size: "Some of my best friends are black." There are gay Republicans, for example, if you want to talk people Who Just Don't Get It.

If I could have a version of Shi-chan that walked, spoke, and acted of her own volition, that would be my absolute ideal. I would prefer someone that I could go see films or concerts with, or drive to work, or whatnot.

Somebody you could totally control and remote control operate--joy!

But the technology obviously isn't here yet, so a Doll is the next best thing. There are thousands of people who would undoubtedly like a Synthetik lover of their own, for reasons of kink, or for reasons where they're tired of rejection from others.

Uh, yeah. It's called maturity. You don't develop it if you give up just like that.

And that's 'male or female', in case anyone's confused on that point.

Yeah, which explains why there's such a big market for the male real dolls, most of which go to gay guys.

And yes, it's little i, big D iDollators. It's called having a sense of humour.

Yeah, I busted a gut on that one.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:17 PM:

Shorter Davecat: "I don't want a doll that just lies there - how dare you! ...I want a ROBOT!"

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:19 PM:

Right on Hershele.

So you would prefer an animated doll that could go places like films and concerts, but don't really want to engage in intelligent discussion regarding any of these events, so you don't need someone with all of those messy "opinions" that real women seem to think should be important. Got'cha. How is that not misogyny again?

If you want someone to come home to and can't get a girlfriend get a fricking pet. At least it would have a personality, you know it might miss you and stuff? What difference does it make if you have "someone" to come home to if they didn't miss you while you were gone, aren't happy that you're home, in fact doesn't interact with you in any way? What a warm and welcoming presence that lump of plastic must be.

djw [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:21 PM:

OK, now I'm really creeped out.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:22 PM:

zuzu: Here's where the misogyny comes in: does he draw conclusions like this about men and refuse to form friendships with them because he might be lied to?

I don't know, does he? Citations, please.

Lots of assumptions flying around here.

I see merit on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, and of course this is only from my own perspective and so may be entirely off, I can't imagine that a fear of deception could so overwhelm me as to drive me to not even try to attain that which I desire, so I think the "she may be lying" explanation is a justification after the fact for behavior driven by another impulse and not the initial concern. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't suspect men of being liars because, not being attracted to them, men don't have the power to break his heart. The worst hurt is done by those you love, or at least want to love.

Either way, I fall squarely on the "something ain't right and you could be happier otherwise" side of the fence. It just ain't a person.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:29 PM:

More clearly, what I meant to express was perhaps he does suspect all men of lying, too, but just doesn't care as much.

I might suspect my butcher is lying to me when he tells me what he did during the week I was away, but it won't bother me as much as if I suspected my girlfriend was lying about the same thing.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:29 PM:

Shorter Davecat: "I don't want a doll that just lies there - how dare you! ...I want a ROBOT!"

I think this thread has given me an idea for a story. Thanks, guys!

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:33 PM:

In the interests of avoiding the work I get paid to do, I've been sitting here trying to consciously think of reasons why a real woman is a better partner than a fembot (sorry, "gynoid").

From a personal perspective, that is -- not just "women are people with opinions and agency and all that stuff." It seems to me that Dave acknoledges that, which is why he's run screaming to the arms of a lump of silicone.

I don't think I'm being misgynist. I don't want a partner who disagrees with me on major issues or opposes me at every turn-- I just arrange that by selecting in part of those criteria, not by having a robot built to my specifications.

I also recognize that being with a real woman means having to brook the occasional disagreement. I don't have bizarre ideas about what constitutes compatibility.

And the trade-off? What does having a partner with ideas and opinions offer me (or anyone, regardless of that partner's sex) that (at minimum) balances out the potential for fights?

My girlfriend is a different person from me. Someone I'd had programmed to spec would be limited by my imagination. My girlfriend cooks things I'd never have thought of, and vice versa. She has a different perspective on social and cultural issues -- not necessarily opposing, but different. She likes artists and writers I've never thought much about, or even heard of. She's creative in bed -- not (necessarily) more than I am, but differently, which is even more important.

No robot could ever replace that.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 01:45 PM:

What blows my mind about the whole thing are the ways in which a doll is more work than a real relationship. If I had to dress my girlfriend and put her makeup on for her every time we wanted to play some video games or watch a movie or do anything I think I'd go insane. I'd barely do those things for myself if I didn't have to. (Okay, maybe the makeup, but that's it.)

Actually, I think a not insignificant part of the issue that hasn't really been touched on much is hiding in there somewhere.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:01 PM:

3) I continue to be stunned as to how many people are 'squicked out' that I have a relationship, or even choose to give Shi-chan a personality.

No, what's creepy is that you believe you have a relationship with a very expensive hunk of plastic.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:01 PM:

Don't know why I keep thinking of this, but it's from Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience, and is intended to be an identifiable parody of Oscar Wilde:

'Then a sentimental passion of a vegetable fashion must excite your
languid spleen,
An attachment E LA Plato for a bashful young potato, or a not-too-
French French bean.
Though the Philistines may jostle, you will rank as an apostle in
the high aesthetic band,
If you walk down Piccadilly with a poppy or a lily in your
mediaeval hand.
And every one will say,
As you walk your flowery way,
"If he's content with a vegetable love which would certainly not
suit ME,
Why, what a most particularly pure young man this pure young man
must be!"''

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:03 PM:

Don't know why I keep thinking of this, but it's from Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience, and is intended to be an identifiable parody of Oscar Wilde:

'Then a sentimental passion of a vegetable fashion must excite your
languid spleen,
An attachment E LA Plato for a bashful young potato, or a not-too-
French French bean.
Though the Philistines may jostle, you will rank as an apostle in
the high aesthetic band,
If you walk down Piccadilly with a poppy or a lily in your
mediaeval hand.
And every one will say,
As you walk your flowery way,
"If he's content with a vegetable love which would certainly not
suit ME,
Why, what a most particularly pure young man this pure young man
must be!"''

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:06 PM:

sorry about the double post...

j swift [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:12 PM:

Hershele,

Exactly, I don't understand why doll fetish guys would want a doll over a woman but then I don't understand why some people commenting here freaking out about it either. These guys have chosen or are unable to deal with real women.

So what? Am I suppose to pity these guys?

I won't. Should they get help? My personal opinion, Yes, but again so what? It is not my place to make that decision for them. Were one of these guys to ask my opinion about getting some help? I would you should. I will not judge them beyond that however. I am not them, I do not know their past or who they are or how they came to this point.

The emotional ewwwwww! and the disgust expressed by some here is honest, but in the big picture, just seems pointless or as I said above the result of someone letting loose their inner busybody. Of course I don't like it when people are busybodies, and I have certainly done it. I try to avoid doing it though.

Not that that is better or worse than the doll fetishists.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:23 PM:

Exactly, I don't understand why doll fetish guys would want a doll over a woman but then I don't understand why some people commenting here freaking out about it either.

If you can't get what there is too freak out about having people quite proudly state that they view your gender as interchangable with a lump of plastic they masturbate with, get help, please.

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:26 PM:

I don't understand why doll fetish guys would want a doll over a woman but then I don't understand why some people commenting here freaking out about it either. These guys have chosen or are unable to deal with real women.

Well, you kind of answered your own question.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:43 PM:

If you can't get what there is too freak out about having people quite proudly state that they view your gender as interchangable with a lump of plastic they masturbate with, get help, please.
It looks like the dolllovers aren't the only fragile people around.

Seriously -- why does it matter? Does the fact that he treats his doll like a 5 year old's imaginary friend (albeit a sexual imaginary friend) impact your life in any way?

No. So what the fuck's so upsetting about it? It's not like he's advocated replacing ALL women with robots. Aren't you glad the dude has found a love doll rather than hassling real women into pretending to be manikins?

Speaking off -- I found his remark about trying to talk to store manikans at an early age quite telling. It's very similiar to how crossdressing gets established in men -- generally there's an early masturbatory experience directly linked to girls clothing, establishing a sexual pattern. Lots of people like to excuse their fetish or make up bullshit reasons why they do it -- I'm thinking "guys that like to suck dick, but claim they're not gay OR bi" for instance.

It seems too many people are eager to swing the "WOMANHATER!" bat when there are simpler possibilities -- like maybe he's just fucked up?

I can introduce you to some real women haters, if you want -- people with a lot more sway over the real world than some lonely dude and his imaginary relationship with his sex toy. Those guys are probably worth 300+ posts and some of the vitriol pouring out here.

Ultimately, my view is pretty simple: What he's doing isn't harming anyone but -- possibly -- himself. He's not forcing anything on ANYONE. So why the hell should I jump up and down screaming about it?

Why should you? Because you're "freaked out"? Well, la-de-da -- doggie-style sex freaks out some people, and I don't give a shit what they think either.

And for the record -- don't have one of these things, don't WANT one of these things, and am quite happily married. Quite a few things people are known to do in bed freak me out, but I have a simple philosophy: If it's consenual for all involved, and no one is being harmed, it ain't my business -- no matter how unpleasant I might find the thought.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 02:56 PM:

I would imagine you're not giving interviews to Salon about your kinks, though.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:00 PM:

If someone views women as interchangeable with lumps of plastic how do you think they treat the women they encounter in their everyday life? If he thinks that all women are liars (I know he denied that he thinks ALL women are liars, but his attitude says differently and actions speak louder than words IMO), how does that make him treat the women he works with, the women he runs into on the street, and even the women he's interested in who end up rejecting him?

This is why this effects us. We are the women that live in the same world as these misogynists, we have to deal with misogyny on a daily basis. Until you understand that, you won't understand why this bothers us so much, but you not understanding it doesn't mean it shouldn't bother us.

ginmar [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:01 PM:

Uh, Morat, bitching at people for freaking out their gender is not regarded as human----That, too, qualifies as freaking out. So, pot, kettle much? Give it up already. You're freaking out yourself.

salto [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:05 PM:

i think i'm beginning to understand the rules about commenting on posts that are explictly about feminism and feminist issues at pandagon. they happen to be a little different than the rules for commenting on non-feminism/non-feminist issues.

i'll elaborate next time.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:30 PM:

Seriously -- why does it matter? Does the fact that he treats his doll like a 5 year old's imaginary friend (albeit a sexual imaginary friend) impact your life in any way?

It doesn't, but I still find it creepy.

I find scat fetishes deeply creepy too, I'm not about to go about trying to stop people endulging - even if i had the power.

However, i'm not going to not point out the obvious level of misogyny displayed by some of the people trying to normalise something that is quite obviously a mental disorder. These people are hurting themselves and if you can just sit there and tell yourself that you "can't judge" while these people further burrow into their comforting illusions because they are damaged and unable to see they are damaged and so won't seek help.

If just one of them, maybe not today, maybe not tommorrow but someday, realises that what they are doing isn't right and decide to spend the money they were saving up for an upgrade to "Darleen" on getting professional psychological help, then that's all I can hope for.

You said yourself that if these people were your friends you'd stage an intervention, well we are all siblings in the eyes of the lord morat (whoa, that fundie I ate must be repeating on me, pardon) and we all have a basic duty as human beings to at least try, no matter how ineffectually, to help these sorts of people and not make them worse by excusing and justifying their derangement, which wanting a real relationship with a woman but settling for a life size action figure with action cunt grip and actually thinking that that constitutes a relationship IS, by anyone's standard.

Goddammit, I don't think I'm normal, I'm probably going to go to a Jandek performance wearing my best male impersonator smart long sleeve shirt, jeans and smart (masculine) shoes, and see how many women will notice I'm a woman rather than a really effeminate guy before my pants come off, so believe me I know from prejudice and people telling me that how I'm comfortable is wrong.

But I also know anorexia and how delusional a person can be, and how normal a person can think their warped world view is, even when they're slowly killing themselves.

One thing links these guys together:They all WANT to have real relationships but have decided they cannot for a variety of objectively erroneous reasons that allow them to wallow in their self hatred and self pity or to wallow in their misogyny. That's a delusion and a self harming one at that because they'll never be truly happy, but will instead be stuck forever in a hell of their own creation.

And again Morat, why are they fucked up? Just because isn't reason, it's a cop out, did god do it? Are you positing a theory of Intelligent Doll Fucking here? oh for fucks sake, I'm reapeating myself, okay! fine!

Considering a plastic replica of a woman as comparable and equivalent to a real one is perfectly normal, fine, and doesn't objectify women or engage in any other kinds of woman hating misogyny. You can all fuck off and feel sorry for yourselves and further feed into your warped little self hating psychosis all you want until you and your "lover" decide to attempt a double suicide together.

Happy now? this thread is so warped and gnarled that it's just a laugh fest, yes we're laughin at the mentally ill! El fucking Oh Fucking El, can this thread freaking well die now? (300+ posts!)

Rumblelizard [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:30 PM:

Did any of you ever see that movie "Talk to Her"? That's the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the Salon story.

One of the things that is generally accepted as a necessary element for a loving relationship is that both parties consent to be in the relationship. Consent cannot be given by an unconscious woman or a piece of plastic shaped like a woman.

That being said, I'm in the "Does no harm to me, so let 'em do what they please with their fuck dolls" camp. I honestly don't care what these guys think or feel or do. If their attitude about women is a product of the patriarchy, it's beyond my ability to do anything about it. And it seems kind of pointless to try and explain the finer points of feminism to a man who thinks he's having a relationship with a mannequin. Know what I'm saying? Doesn't seem like very fertile ground, there.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:47 PM:

Seriously -- why does it matter? Does the fact that he treats his doll like a 5 year old's imaginary friend (albeit a sexual imaginary friend) impact your life in any way?

How does anything we're saying on this thread impact your life in any way? Why do you care what we're saying? Seriously. You keep going on about how we shouldn't judge this and we shouldn't say that. So quit reading what we're saying. We're totally within bounds to express our opinions. We're allowed to think things are creepy.

norbizness [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:50 PM:

Hi, I'm comment #340 in a thread about guys with dolls!

karpad [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 03:58 PM:

I got this horse right here, his name is Paul Revere and here's a guy who says that if the weather's clear, can do can do. This guy here says can do.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:00 PM:

How does anything we're saying on this thread impact your life in any way? Why do you care what we're saying? Seriously. You keep going on about how we shouldn't judge this and we shouldn't say that. So quit reading what we're saying. We're totally within bounds to express our opinions. We're allowed to think things are creepy.

Never said you weren't. As I said myself -- I find it creepy. I just fail to see why anyone finds it important.

Now, the conversation here -- that impacts society considerably more than some guy doin' a doll in his bedroom.


However, i'm not going to not point out the obvious level of misogyny displayed by some of the people trying to normalise something that is quite obviously a mental disorder. These people are hurting themselves and if you can just sit there and tell yourself that you "can't judge" while these people further burrow into their comforting illusions because they are damaged and unable to see they are damaged and so won't seek help.

Question: Given I would have the EXACT same response if the genders were reversed (it was a girl with a guy doll) how can it by "misogyny"?

Are you using some definition I'm unfamiliar with? If so, please share.

I don't know where you get the idea I think this is normal: I don't. But I acknowledge that several things I think of as "perfectly normal" several people here would not. (And others would probably email to compare notes).

I don't know anyone who has a real doll, much less one of the few that plays imaginary friend with it (rather than 'expensive sex toy' with it). I doubt I'll EVER know anyone like that.

But you're stating: "It's damaging! It's misogyny! It's the patriarchal culture!" as if that was somehow a given. You ask me, his attitude and response smack of social anxiety --- it's aimed at women because he's straight.

Frankly, I'm finding some of your responses a little over the top. "Eww" and "Ick" and "God he needs help" seem perfectly appropriate. What I don't get is all the bitching and moaning about the patriarchy and cultural condition and that sort of thing.

It's a handful of people in a nation of 250 million. I could find more scat enthusiasts than that -- and no one here is claiming the patriarchal society makes men want to take a shit on women's chests. (If I understand the actual demographics, men are more likely to be the shitee....but I haven't really made a study of it.).

Frankly, I find FURRIES more disturbing than this guy.

Angus [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:18 PM:

I find it creepy. I just fail to see why anyone finds it important. Now, the conversation here -- that impacts society considerably more than some guy doin' a doll in his bedroom.

On the other hand, the conversation here impacts society considerably less than, say, a big article in Salon. So nu?

karpad [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:26 PM:

Frankly, I find FURRIES more disturbing than this guy...

I'd call it even, actually. Furries are definately more obnoxiouos (I'd love to expound on that at length) but these RealDoll guys have a lot more "creepy stepford evil misogyny plus there but for the grace of god" sort of thing. I mean, if I were lonely to the point of delusion, would I start imagining a deep, emotional relationship with my appliances? ones with orifaces and baby oil and other creepy? maybe.

still, I think right now, I need a drink. or five.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:30 PM:

Since you don't see why this is worth talking about, maybe you should shut up and let people who do think it's worth talking about talk instead of filling the thread with whining, "This is lame!!! We're not even talking about anything I want to talk about!"

Seriously, this thread would have been a brief discussion of why this was so disturbing and probably would have ended more than 200 comments ago if it weren't for people telling us to STFU because they don't see what's so [fill in the blank, important, harmful, sick, different, etc.] and us trying to explain why it is to US (not to you, to US, we're allowed to be disturbed by different things than you, right?). It's great that you aren't all that disturbed by this, but I am. And I wanted to discuss it so that I could refine just exactly why my gut reaction was to be so deeply disturbed.

Terribly sorry that our discussion wasn't sufficiently about you and what does disturb you, I guess.

evil_fizz [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:35 PM:

I'd like to take a stab at this whole "what if the genders were reversed." VH1 ran a series for a while (I think it was called Totally Obsessed) and one episode featured a woman who thought she had a relationship with cardboard cutouts of the Lord of the Rings characters. Seriously, she would take them to restaurants, seat them and "ask Frodo" if he wanted the steak or the chicken. It was *freaky.* Even if she had confined her hobbit collection to her house and snuggled with the Aragorn cutout at night, I would still be having the "um, you're a freak" reaction.

I'm not sure that it's important that people are responding with "you're a freak." I think that what is important is that we inhabit a world where someone would become convinced that a relationship with a doll is better than a relationship with a real woman. That in of itself is pretty freaky.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:36 PM:

I mean, if I were lonely to the point of delusion, would I start imagining a deep, emotional relationship with my appliances? ones with orifaces and baby oil and other creepy? maybe.

I'm not lonely, but I have taken to calling my coffeemaker Serge. Hey, a girl needs coffee after a late night, and that domestic god Serge makes me a cuppa Joe like no other. Though he gets very jealous of Joe 'cause he says I pay more attention to Joe than him.

Which isn't true. I tell Serge that of course I love him--Joe's not the kind of guy you bring home to mother, he's just good for a trifle, a taste. He'll let anyone taste him, what girl can respect that? Serge, being so good in the kitchen, and being so devoted to wait for me when I get home, has my heart. Hey, he's met my parents! Well, he's been there when I've had my parents over for dinner. And they think he's swell.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 04:44 PM:

I heart WookieMonster.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:06 PM:

*blushes* Thanks!

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:06 PM:

I think that what is important is that we inhabit a world where someone would become convinced that a relationship with a doll is better than a relationship with a real woman. That in of itself is pretty freaky.

There are 6.44 billion people in the world how many of them have relationships with a) no one, b) an invisible entity that is all powerful, c) more than one invisible entities that share/battle power, d) brand names, e) nothing except for a few pets, f) their car g) their tv h) one of 12 constellations in the sky i) Gaia j) their therapist/rent-a-friend k) a bottle of alchohol l) others in their harem, m) ...?

There are more things in heaven and earth, evil_fizz, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

What "freaks" you out is more telling about your own hangups than about Davecat's.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:17 PM:

You're adding absolutely nothing to the conversation, Flathead. Big whoop, there are other issues in the world. This post and thread are about a specific issue. If you don't like it, read something else.

I've been reminded by this thread of the "silencing attempt techniques" threads a while back at Ampersand, particularly the "Repeat same argument ad nauseam no matter what in an attempt to derail the thread and make it about you" tactic and the "This isn't my blog and I have no authority here, but you need to stop talking about this" tactic.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:18 PM:

I just want to know *how* someone has a relationship with an inanimate, lifeless object.

Though I suppose the $6500 price tag has a lot to do with it.

(And FYI, everyone, Serge was a gift, but he's not cheap. Nosiree!! He's a Rules Boy.)

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:19 PM:

Not to mention the fact that for someone who thinks so little of Amanda, old Flathead sure does love to frequent her threads.

You'd have more cred if you pulled your nose out of her butt, kiddo.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:31 PM:

Sheelze: He doesn't. He thinks he does. From that point on, everyone's been talking past each other.

Pretty much everyone agrees (except for the gent in question) that it's not their flavor of tea.

Most people -- myself included -- think there's a definite psychological problem there.

Most people -- myself included -- think it's up there with "furries" in terms of "Well, ewww...".

After that, it gets a bit muddier.

There are some that are convince he's a closet woman-hater, and that's why he prefers the real doll. I -- and a few others -- find that argument insufficient, and it seems like projecting.

It's obvious he prefers the doll to women, but claiming it's because he hates women is kind of circular. I think his admission he'd never been on a date coupled with the early fascination with manikins, as well as the specific language he uses, indicates his problem is more akin to severe social anxiety -- he can't deal with intimacy period. The fact that it's targeted at women is merely an accident of his gender and sexuality.

Others are convinced the issue is nothing more than a man and his very expensive masturbation toy, akin to a vibrator (well, Sybians leastwise), and everyone's overreacting by being squicked by it.

What is pretty common is what appears to be a very thorough pattern of deliberate misunderstanding, as better to accuse someone else of being a closest (or open) misogynist, or a freak, or to make snide remarks about their own sexuality.

I've got a very SIMPLE take on it: I think he's distributed, but the very nature of his psychological problem renders him harmless to society -- ergo, none of my business. If he was someone I knew, I would urge counseling. I don't think he's misogynistic, and I think gender here is a total red herring -- at least for Dave here.

I'm here because I find the reactions very interesting coming from a crowd that is normally very live and let live when it comes to sex -- and more than a little worrisome. I also find it amusing to get accused of misogyny. Reminds me a bit about the old jokes about we never kill civilians in war time -- they were all insurgents or terrorists or collaborators.

There are never innocent bystanders. At least I've had to suffer few snide comments about my sex life, which generally seems to be the case when I take a minority stance on issues like this.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:33 PM:

Disturbed, not distributed. I'm beginning to hate my distributed systems class -- the terminology is taking over my world.

Frederick [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:38 PM:

The Real Doll is the perfect thing for the Neanderthal guy: a "woman" reduced to her one essential attribute -- cum dumpster.

pecunium [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:39 PM:

I wasn't going to chime in here, because most of what I might want to say has been said already; and strawmen built, and burned as a result.

Adding more heat to the fire would shed no more light.

But then I saw the comment of Davecat (who, for all that he as been, because of his comments here the subject of no small amount, has not been the focus for most, merely; perhaps the catalyst), 2) Addressing the whole 'iDollators just want a passive woman that lies around, ready for sex,' again, that's erroneous. Many iDollators would prefer Gynoids. my WTF meter went off.

Gynoids WTF.......? I aver that the reason so many of them have problems is, perhaps, revealed in that word. They don't want relationships with women, they want relationships with gynoids. That implies an objectification (because I can't see any irony here, nor even satire) of the female sex which strikes me as great hurdle to seeing them as people (if not an implication they are completely incapable of it).

The structure of the word, with it's use of gyn, and oid, as if it were a mechanical pussy, instead of a person, that squicks me, in a way that the believing in relationships with inanimate things merely bothered, and to some degree, inspired pity.

TK

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:42 PM:

Actually, we've pointed out why we thought he had problems with women, and his second post didn't help any. Gosh, women probably lie to get their own ends, and he's got to deal with the unrealistic expectations of women. Came across as pretty misogynist to me. And *that's* what people here have a problem with. Not that he's choosing not to be in a relationship, or that he's using a sex aid. That he's calling his sex aid his girlfriend and basically blaming women for it.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:57 PM:

Actually, we've pointed out why we thought he had problems with women, and his second post didn't help any. Gosh, women probably lie to get their own ends, and he's got to deal with the unrealistic expectations of women. Came across as pretty misogynist to me. And *that's* what people here have a problem with. Not that he's choosing not to be in a relationship, or that he's using a sex aid. That he's calling his sex aid his girlfriend and basically blaming women for it.

You have to look at it all. If people were honest -- especially about themselves -- we wouldn't need shrinks.

As I said before -- his admission he'd never been on a date and his early encounters with manikins sets a different tone.

Could he have been raised in such an incredibly misogynistic household as to automatically assume women are liars and he could never meet one he could tolerate? Yes -- but that'd be pretty damn rare. It's certainly not the "US Culture" at large which -- while certain reinforcing negative stereotypes of all sorts -- doesn't go to that extreme.

His actions speak louder than his words. The man's never been on a date -- he's not speaking from personal heartbreak or bad experience. He never even tried. Those sound like excuses, rather than reasons, to me.

He was hitting up store dummies back when he was too young to know it was "wrong". His claim about being "allergic to women" reinforces the social anxiety, the discomfort with emotional or mental intimacy, more than it does misogyny. (Hate women, don't trust women, think they're gold-diggers...but allergic? Strange metaphor, don't you think?).

I just don't buy the whole "he's a product of the culture" BS that getting spread along. Misogyny in this case is an excuse, not a cause.

This whole thread started with Amanda talking about how Dave here was fucked up because he was brought up to believe women should be passive and obediant -- an argument I find particularly stupid, just in generalities.

It doesn't matter if I'm 100% ass wrong here and Dave was raised in a misogynistic household and steeped in the belief that women should be passive and obediant and raised to firmly know that he would NEVER meet a girl that held to those standards, so don't bother ever even going on a date......

That'd be Dave and his fucked up family. If our damn 'patriarchal culture' was that powerful and that influential, there'd be a shitload more Daves out there.

From anecdotal experience, the only culture actively reinforcing those particular 'patriarchal values' is certain subsets of evangelical fundamentalism. Had I any evidence Dave came from that sort of background (or hell, anywhere in Alabama or Arkansas at all) I'd give a bit more credence to the notion he was a born-and-raised misogynist and not a social misfit who is blaming women because's he's male and straight (and who would be blaming men if gay, or female and straight) and acting the same damn fool.

But to tar the whole culture? To casually lean back and say "Oh, well, of COURSE American culture is so steeped in negative stereotypes and male dominance that it would casually instill such utter distates of women that you don't even attempt to date" is utter foolishness. How the hell did the hundred and fifty million married and dating males in the US manage to escape that awful fate?

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 05:59 PM:

Why the fuck is it "worrisome" that we find this creepy? Are we trying to make it illegal? No, we're not. It shouldn't worry you at all.

I think "Gynoid" really says it all.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:02 PM:

social misfit who is blaming women
Blaming women for your social misfit status is misogynist.

because's he's male and straight (and who would be blaming men if gay, or female and straight) and acting the same damn fool
But. He's. Not. A. Gay. Male. He's. Not. A. Woman. Okay?

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:04 PM:

I should add to "the only culture actively reinforcing those patriarchal values" should be rephrased "The only culture promoting those patriarchal values, to that extreme". It's a more accurate summation of my thoughts on it.

I have a great deal of symapthy to the point that American culture tends to reinfornce some nasty stereotypes of women -- more so than it does of men, leastwise. And that one should be vigilant to ensure that things continue to improve, and not backslide, as some well-funded and quite vocal groups would like.

However the notion that Dave and his Doll-love somehow represents or is a product of the American culture -- good parts OR bad -- is laughable. There's at least an order of magnitude more American furries than there are guys like Dave.

About the only thing American culture contribute to Dave was the freedom to own a rather freaky doll and the freedom to speak about it to an interviewer.

In America, we celebrate and front-page our freaky folk. I guess they feel more comfortable coming out that way.

In the end -- worry more about the furries. There's a lot more of those, and there's even WOMEN furries -- we don't have to speculate on it, they've been spotted. We need to take care, because if our culture is throwing out furries, who knows what negative impact that'll have on future generations? Not to mention the potential rise in bestiality!

Crys T [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:13 PM:

"The fact that it's targeted at women is merely an accident of his gender and sexuality."

Now, see, I don't believe that. I don't believe that you would find gay men with analogous behaviour, saying analogous things, in anything like the same (relative, of course) proportions. And it's pretty much a self-evident fact that, even though there are MORE adult, straight women in the world than there are adult, straight men, you don't find ANYTHING LIKE the numbers of women displaying analogous behaviours/attitudes as you do men.

Given that this is true, it's pretty obvious to me, and to many others here, that culture--and more specifically culture's patriarchal elements--are coming into play here.

Amanda and a couple other women here have brought up the hostile response that a woman who has actually suffered real-life rape and physical abuse would get if she suggested she had no need of men. That example isn't hyothetical: I've seen it not only in real life, but here on the internet. Incredible hostility towards women who have very real reasons to be afraid of contact with men. It's always brought down to being *their* problem.

I can't help but contrast the callousness and even abuse I've seen dealt out to victims of rape with the support Davecat is getting. I mean, for fuck's sake, a woman who's been through real-lfe hell gets less compassion from a lot of you than this guy who makes clear that he's shut himself away in his little fantasy world specifically because real women, with their lying and demands and inconvenient personalities, just fucking annoy him too much to deal with.

It's not just Davecat's misogyny, it's the fact that so many of you are bending yourselves over backwards to defend it, or pretend it doesn't exist, contrasted with the shit that gets dumped on any woman who's really suffered at the hands of men and dares to complain. When we do, all we get is you lot wailing about how unfair we are to tar men with the same brush, how "misandrist" we are for daring to make a class-based analysis of the problem, rather than "just taking everyone as individuals" (which of course clouds the issue by making it impossible to see connections or understand structures...great, though, for defending the status quo).

But of course, we all know what the real truth is here: nothing is so sacred in this society as Man's right to come. Nothing. Women who've been raped swearing off men? Not permissible: hell, the rapist's right to come already overrode the woman's right to bodily integrity anyway, and if she shuts herself off from men totally, she might deprive another random man the right to HIS orgasm, so no way are we giving sympathy to HER. Man with overpriced fucktoy says, hey, plastic is better than real (lying bitches) anyway, so he's shutting out real-life women? Well shit, it's HIS RIGHT TO COME anywhere, anyhow, any way he wants. No, you can't even *criticise* him--even if you aren't REMOTELY suggesting you're going to take his fucktoy away--because his fucking to right to come overrides EVERYTHING, even, or even especially, the humanity of women in this world.

Nice.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:16 PM:

But. He's. Not. A. Gay. Male. He's. Not. A. Woman. Okay?
Let me break this down into. tiny. words.for.you.

If you want to claim this is a product of a misogynistic culture, you're going to have to show that ONLY males feel this way about ONLY females.

If you've got women preferring toys to men, or faking relationships with -- as someone noted -- cardboard cutouts of hobbits or gay men who prefer toys to real men, then you run into a snag.

I think the problem here is that there's the "it's a product of a patriarchal culture" bit and the "Dave's personal psychological issues" bit and then there's the "What's a cause versus what's an excuse" bit.

Do I think guys having relationships with dolls is weird? Yes. Do I think it's misogyny? No -- that'd have to be taken individually, because there's no reason to believe that it's solely a straight male phemoneon, which rules out misogyny of patrairchal culture as being all that terribly vital an input.

Try a thought experiment: When my wife and I travel, I always drive. I can't relax when my wife drives.

Does that make me mysognistic? You could say yes -- but what if I can't relax when anyone but myself drives? Whether they're male, female, or even take a taxi ride because I can't handle someone else driving?

That'a a horse of a different color. Now let's say I justify always driving by claiming women are "bad drivers". My reason is misogynistic, but given the facts at hand (I cannot handle ANYONE of ANY sex driving) my reasons are not -- thus blaming a culture of "bad women driver" jokes would be wrong. It might have fed me an excuse, but claiming I'm a victim of a culture that perpetrates stereotypes of poor driving by woman would be utterly wrong.

Kind of the issue with Dave here. It's not like Dave can switch gender or sexual orientation and see if the problem is "women" or "relationships with actual people" -- which is the point I'm trying to make. Getting past his excuses to his behavior implies to me -- and I don't know Dave from a hole in the ground -- that Dave's real problem is people. Social anxiety.

I confess I don't really note his misogynistic statements towards women because I've heard women say the same thing about men. That sort of bullshit is rather common with people who are bitter over the lack of -- or failed -- relationships. From men towards women, from women towards men -- across ever bad, failed, or never-started relationship in the world. Sometime's it's just the bitch or bastard in question, but a lot of time -- especially for the truly fucked up folks -- it's the entire gender in question.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:24 PM:

You're imposing a black-and-white standard on misogyny, Morat.

Sexism and misogyny come in shades of gray.

Like racism, it's a matter of degree. If we only acknowledge its existence at the extreme ends, we don't examine the behavior and attitudes that are uncomfortably close to our own.

So, you demand to know that only men feel this way about only women in order for you to accept this as misogyny. That's very nice and pat, but that's not the way the world works. Because in the real world, disproportion rather than absolute exclusion is the real indicator. For instance, you could say that because there have been two black Secretaries of State, there is no more institutionalized racial discrimination in politics. But you would be wrong.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:25 PM:

Crys: Here's a clue: I've never dumped shit on a rape victim. Ergo, my support -- which extends as far as 'He needs a shrink, but who am I to tell him' towards Dave -- has absolutely NOTHING to do with what mean people have said about rape.

If you're going to blame ME for what random members of my gender said to people I've never met, in conversations I wasn't around for, how is that NOT sexism?

So fuck off with your "YOUR GENDER NEEDS TO FEEL GUILT AND SHAME" bullshit. I have enough guilt and shame for the jackass things I've done in my life. I'm not taking up a boatload for some other jackass.

I happily support things like affirmative action and laws to undue a legacy of racism, sexism or any other sort of bigotry (formal or cultural) because I firmly believe that it's required to make sure everyone has a fair and equal shot at life.

But I didn't rape anyone, I didn't dump shit on rape victims, and I take NO FUCKING BLAME OR RESPONSIBILITY for what "other men" do. NONE.

My "support" of Dave is that I think he's mostly harmless, certainly disturbed, and that his misogyny is probably an excuse not a root cause. Oh, and I don't believe it's the result of a patriarchal culture, unless he was raised by the more ass-backward Morman bigamist nutjobs.

Which -- in that case -- has jackall to do with me, since I didn't raise him...I'm not even Mormon.

If you want to accuse people of sexism, make sure you're not practicing it FIRST.

Morat [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:29 PM:

So, you demand to know that only men feel this way about only women in order for you to accept this as misogyny. That's very nice and pat, but that's not the way the world works. Because in the real world, disproportion rather than absolute exclusion is the real indicator. For instance, you could say that because there have been two black Secretaries of State, there is no more institutionalized racial discrimination in politics. But you would be wrong.

As I said -- I could be wrong about Dave. He COULD be a misogynistic bastard.

But I'm NOT wrong about generalization EVERYONE with a real doll as a mysognist. That's sloppy damn thinking, at the very least.

If I'm wrong about Dave, well -- at least I was giving someone the benefit of the doubt and hoping they were a better person than they were.

But if we're going to say that ONLY misogynistic men would buy real dolls and have fake relationships with them -- if we're going to make that sweeping generalization -- then you damn well need to show that ONLY straight men do it.

Else the only difference between that and misogyny is scope. Half the world's female, but there's a only a handful of fucked-up Daves -- but just because it's smaller scale doesn't make it right.

Medium Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:37 PM:

Hmm. What was that TV show called; the one in which there was a guy tapdancing faster and faster until he burst into flame?

Jemima [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:45 PM:

I think a huge leap is being made here in assuming that Davecat is a misogynist. Did he say anything that implies that he hates women? Does the action of having sex with a love doll really mean that a man hates women?

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But to assume it based upon the comparatively little that we know about him, based on this article, is patently unfair.

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:45 PM:

It is interesting that a post on the paraphilia of a tiny sector of the population has generated over 360 posts (that have become an arguement over the motivations of an individual, and arguements over arguements over such motivation) and there are none over the need to politically reform Ohio, which determined the last election.
I'm praying this isn't some sort of parable of liberal paralysis....

might [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:46 PM:

Why is misogyny suddenly only the province of straight men? It's not possible for gay men or women (straight, gay, or otherwise) to be misogynistic?

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 06:56 PM:

Who said only straight men could be misogynist? It's just that THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION HERE. It's irrelevant because we're talking about straight men here. Of course women and gay men can be misogynist.

If you want to claim this is a product of a misogynistic culture, you're going to have to show that ONLY males feel this way about ONLY females.

Um, no. That makes no sense.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:08 PM:

Gosh, women probably lie to get their own ends...

You're getting closer to honesty, but still not quite there yet. Once again, he said any woman he might be involved with could possibly be lying. Not "would be," not "probably" -- "possibly."

FoolishOwl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:18 PM:

What gets me about this discussion is that we've got extremely blatant sexism, from someone who can't see anything in sexual relationships but a set of physical sensations, and who openly stated that he prefers a doll to a human being because of his hatred and fear of women -- and there are people who still insist that there's no misogyny in it!

Isn't this of a piece with the people who insist that there was no racism involved in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- because no police officer openly said he was firing at people because they were black? And with the people who insist Bill Bennett didn't say anything racist, because he didn't actually call for genocide?

Do you bigots really think we're that stupid?

Aster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:40 PM:

Maybe Davecat is misogynistic, but I don't see that in his "a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends" comment. It sounds like he's just extremely paranoid and insecure which I find sad, not offensive.

FoolishOwl [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:50 PM:

It sounds like he's just extremely paranoid and insecure which I find sad, not offensive.
He's paranoid and insecure ABOUT WOMEN. That's misogyny. And Amanda was clear at the outset that she feels sorry for the men whose lives are crippled by that sort of misogyny.

Contradictory Ben [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 07:52 PM:

Hi all,

Lurker with a small point of information for this heated, but interesting, discussion.

ginmar at 11.58 AM suggested that "Charlie is for gay guys." Here in the UK, Channel 4 recently showed a programme that dealt with the Real Doll phenomenon. A female representative from Real Dolls mentioned that although most of their customers are men, some are women. Among the customers interviewed was a woman who keeps a whole series of female real dolls for company (though notably she didn't mention using them for sexual satisfaction).

According to his first post, Davecat prefers his Real Doll because there is no possibility that it could lie to him. Given the mental effort they often invest in imagining their Real Dolls personality, do any Real Doll owners imagine their Real Dolls as people who could lie to them?

At 1.33 PM, Hershele Ostropoler wrote:

My girlfriend is a different person from me. Someone I'd had programmed to spec would be limited by my imagination. My girlfriend cooks things I'd never have thought of, and vice versa. She has a different perspective on social and cultural issues -- not necessarily opposing, but different. She likes artists and writers I've never thought much about, or even heard of. She's creative in bed -- not (necessarily) more than I am, but differently, which is even more important.

No robot could ever replace that.

Perhaps the key phrase here is programmed to spec. I recently wondered what it would take for people to truly care about virtual or artificial lifeforms (over at my blog):

1. Just like a dog or a cat, AIs will need to have a relationship with the rest of the world apart from their owner. There should be no off switch and it should not be possible to just put the AI away.

2. AIs will need to be genuinely unique individuals whose consciousness (or emulation of consciousness) is the result of somewhat miraculous processes like artificial evolution and learning rather than automatons directly programmed by a human being.

In his second comment, Davecat writes (emphasis mine):

Many iDollators would prefer Gynoids. If I could have a version of Shi-chan that walked, spoke, and acted of her own volition, that would be my absolute ideal. I would prefer someone that I could go see films or concerts with, or drive to work, or whatnot.

But if your Real Doll acted of its own volition, how could you be sure it wasnt lying to you?

Jemima [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:12 PM:

"He's paranoid and insecure ABOUT WOMEN. That's misogyny."

What the hell? Since when did paranoia and insecurity become *hatred?*

I'm paranoid about the burners on my stove...but I don't hate them. I'm insecure about my ass -- but I don't *hate* it.

Anyone with doubts about their possibilities with someone of the opposite gender is now a misogynist or a mishomonist? (what is the technical term for a man hater, help me out here?)

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:18 PM:

As has been emphatically pointed out it is about the "relationship" these guys have with inanimate objects. By that everyone is thinking relationship in tems of social, dating, loving, etc.

No, Swift, we're thinking of 'relationship" in the sense of "two people connecting at some level".

There's only one person and a large hunk of plastic involved here. Unless said hunk of plastic has been possessed by the bride of Chucky, there's no relationship possible.

It's not about dating, not about loving, not about being social. It's about the simple fact that you can only have a relationship with another person.

piny [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:21 PM:

If I were "paranoid and insecure" about, say, the black men who work in my building and the possibilities of mugging and purse-snatching thereof, would you hesitate to call me a racist? What if I were "paranoid" enough to believe that the kids on my street were scheming to break my windows? Or "insecure" because I thought the women at the grocery store had to be saying nasty things about me because they were speaking Spanish?

"Misogyny" covers negative opinions about women as a class. If, for example, I feared that all women were out to snare me in marriage and suck the life out of me, I would be both paranoid and misogynist.

Antigone [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:31 PM:

Let's see if I can sum up this extremely long thread (wow, MRA posts don't get this much).

1) Nothing wrong with sex toys and kinks. You like a vibrator? Groovy. Blow-up Betty your thing? Good for you.

2) Not one single person on this entire 350+ post is advocating for anyone to not be able to play with said toys.

3) Sex Dolls are not inheirantly sexist. Saying that dolls are better than living breathing humans is. End point. This is really not arguable: the person in question may just be misanthropic instead of sexist, but prefering non-thinking, non-loving, lumps of plastic and saying that they are better than really people is sexist.

4) There is harm in allowing sexist actions to exsist without condemning it. Go back to number 2, no one is advocating for making it illegal. I don't want there to be universal mind control to make them not-sexist, not-racist, non-violent either but I can still condemn acts of sexism, racism, and violence, even when it doesn't "hurt" anybody.

5) This whole thing about patriarchy seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't think. If you point to an individual action in an individual person doing a sexist thing, and showing how this is allowed in a patriartical society, we are looking at an exception. But when we say that there's a majority oppinion in the cultural narrative (such as the high amount of rape cases and protrayal in media and women-as-inept stereotype that has been proven in social experiments) the arguments go to the exception. Pick one people.

5) No one's telling anyone they HAVE to do anything. Counseling honestly sounds like a good idea, but no one's saying it should be forced, or he should be treated like a social parriah.

6) Way the heck up there talking about vibrators and sex play: a girl using a vibrator is not a sign that you're a "bad lover". It's a sign that she wants to make the sex better, and needs different stimulation. The fact that some guys feel the need to dictate what a girl is "suppose to" enjoy makes me laugh and want to hurt someone simutaneously. It's like a guy describing to me what PMS is suposed to feel like.

As was stated previously, a man-hater is misandrist.

If there was a male-version of this (that wasn't nearly so expensive and maybe vibrated or something) I'd probably buy it. I wouldn't think of it as a replacement of human contact. See Dresdon Dolls: "Coin Operated Boy" (snarky and remorseful). Incidentally, when I played this for my guy friends, they missed the point entirely and accused me of man-hating. Interesting, no?

Furries are weird. But harmless. So are scat fetishists. But whatever.

Did I miss anything?

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:31 PM:

Shorter Davecat: "I don't want a doll that just lies there - how dare you! ...I want a ROBOT!"

Look on the bright side - I'm sure Davecat would prefer a REAL woman, just as long as it was brainwashed enough to open its legs when he wanted it to, keep it mouth shut when he wanted it to, and do whatever he wanted when he wanted it to.

It'd be easier to maintain, for one thing. And so much more lifelike.

Pronoun used deliberately.

Homework assignment: Watch this movie. Note who goes home with the guy at the end. Bonus - big bazookas used as negotiating tools!

Jemima [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:33 PM:

"Misogyny" means "hatred of women."

"Racism" does not mean "hatred of", rather discrimination or prejudice against people of color.

There is a difference.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:36 PM:

(what is the technical term for a man hater, help me out here?)

If you'd read the thread (which I suspected you hadn't from your first post) you'd know the term is "misandry."

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:38 PM:

So assuming women are liars isn't a prejudice?

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:43 PM:

Mr. Bill: I'm praying this isn't some sort of parable of liberal paralysis....

I don't think so. I think it's just that this is such an easy topic on which to have an opinion, while the topic of politically reforming Ohio is full of messy facts and information. We're all humans, we all have relationships, we all desire companionship, we all have some sexual experience, we even all have owned some form of doll or action figure or something at some point. On the other hand, it's not a given that we'd know anything about Ohio. You've got to be informed to have an opinion about that, but you don't have to know a damn thing to have an opinion about a guy with a doll.

This isn't about liberalism; this is about the Internet.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:45 PM:

Okay, time for me to weigh in here.

I spent a lot of time talking to Davecat, and I do not think he's a misogynist. Eccentric, yes. Misogynist, no.

Questions?

--Author of the article

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 08:55 PM:

So preferring dolls and robots to women isn't misogynist? We're just supposed to think it's cool that there are people out there who wish we wouldn't talk and have free will?

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:00 PM:

mlaslocky: Questions?

Oh, cool. Assuming that's really you, of course.

Okay, I'll play. As I alluded to in an earlier comment about dressing the dolls up and putting makeup on them, did you get the impression from Davecat (or anyone in the article) that any part of the appeal of the dolls came not from the act of controlling a woman, but from the act of participating in being a woman?

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:01 PM:

Eccentric misogynist? Can such a thing exist? I'm not sure. Someone questioned whether someone could be a racist asshole earlier, which sort of startled me since I thought the modifier sort of made the noun.

might [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:08 PM:

What Davecat is or isn't is really not the main issue here, at least for me. What is misogynistic is the very premise that a non-organic, polymer-based replica of a woman, designed for masturbatory purposes, is as good or better than a living, breathing woman who moves and thinks and shits and lactates and has underarm hair.

For me personally, nothing highlights the fact that women in this country remain the sex class quite so well as some guy waxing poetic about the tightness of his sexbot's mouth, vagina, and anus. To then have said sexbot equated to myself, my mother, and my friends is beyond creepy. It's infuriating. What you fuck, with whom, and where is none of my concern. If those attitudes keep me from getting along in the world, because the idea that I mainly consist of a triumvirate of holes, that damned well is my concern. And I don't care that people believe that these are men with little power or social capital. To believe that these attitudes are isolated to these few men is laughable.

This is why a lot of the women on this thread are using the dreaded "m" word. If you strapped a uterus and a clear set of eyes on, it might become more apparent to you that this is merely the latest in a string of "the ladies are best when they look pretty and their legs are open and their mouths are shut" messages that women receive all the time.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:13 PM:

He never said that he would want *all* women to be dolls and robots, and he never said that he would rule out a relationship with a real woman. In fact he told me that he does hope to someday meet a real "special someone." It just hasn't worked for him thus far, and in the meantime, he's enjoying Sidore because he happens to have a fetish for artifice (Davecat, jump in here if I'm misrepresenting). And he never said that all women were liars, either, only implied that maybe he'd had that experience.

As far as I know, Davecat has women friends and he appreciates and enjoys women, and nothing in our countless conversations ever indicated that he hated women.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a feminist through and through, and when I first started research on this story several years ago I was horrified that Real Dolls, and men who would want them, existed. But when you actually get to know some of these men, it is not at all as simple as it seems.

I do find it fascinating that everyone appears to be jumping on Davecat of all the men in the article. Why? Because he opens the story? Because you can't get as much of a grip on the other, some would say even more provocative men?

I haven't been able to keep on top of every post of this thread, but it means a lot to me that this is stimulating such vigorous debate.

--ML

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:24 PM:

mlaslocky, I suspect that not everyone read the entire article (due to Salon's ad/sub deal). For instance, I'm assuming the lack of mention of the Japanese man who totally mutilated his RD is because a lot of people just didn't read it. Hell, a number of people commenting here apparently haven't read the *post*.

Also, echoing what might said. If any of you still don't understand why people find this creepy, read her comment again.

Rumblelizard [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:27 PM:

ML, I think the reason so much attention has been focused on DaveCat was that he came here and made some kind of startling statements, which many posters found offensive or interesting or comment-worthy for manifold reasons.

Aster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:29 PM:

He's paranoid and insecure ABOUT WOMEN. That's misogyny.

First, as Jemima said, paranoia and insecurity!=hatred.
Second, I'm not convinced that he's paranoid and insecure about women because they're women, rather than because they're the people he's romantically attracted to. I'm getting more "I'm don't want to be in a real relationship because I would always be afraid that the person was lying to me" than "I don't want to be in a real relationship because women are dishonest."

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:39 PM:

You're adding absolutely nothing to the conversation, Flathead. Big whoop, there are other issues in the world. This post and thread are about a specific issue. If you don't like it, read something else.

I've been reminded by this thread of the "silencing attempt techniques" threads a while back at Ampersand, particularly the "Repeat same argument ad nauseam no matter what in an attempt to derail the thread and make it about you" tactic and the "This isn't my blog and I have no authority here, but you need to stop talking about this" tactic.

annejumps, you're teh funay!

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:41 PM:

I try my best.

SDB [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:41 PM:

After reading all the comments I am suprised that no one has mentioned that the "Charlie" doll somewhat resembles Benjamin Bratt.

Or is it Eric Close?

Must be the hair...

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:42 PM:

I find it intriguing that in the midst of all of this bizarre (and misandrist) deconstruction, no one has connected the obviously ironic connection between idollator and idolater. I suspect it's because there's an enormous sense of humor missing amongst the participants here.

might [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:46 PM:

Has anyone seen my enormous sense of humor? The last time I saw it, it was hanging out with Amanda's gigantic cock.

That's the last thing your mind-bogglingly large phallus will steal from me, Marcotte!

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:47 PM:

Well, I keep my sense of humor in my giant cock. Which I have to tape to my leg in order to even walk. Bow-legged.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:48 PM:

Yes, yes, humorless feminazis oppressing men by objecting to being equated with plastic dolls, etc., etc.

Oh, by the way, suggesting that you stop reading something you continually criticize, and pointing out your lack of contribution, is not the same as telling you to shut up.

I'm reminded of the whole "it's worse to call someone racist than it is to be racist" turn things have been taking. I guess it's worse to call someone misogynist than to actually be misogynist.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:49 PM:

Where do you keep her beak?

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:50 PM:

Actually, my giant cock has one at the end of it.

Norah [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:50 PM:

I find it intriguing that in the midst of all of this bizarre (and misandrist) deconstruction, no one has connected the obviously ironic connection between idollator and idolater.

Duuuh? Er, no, Flathead, it's just that it was so fucking obvious nobody but you felt the need to point it out.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:53 PM:

Uh, you have failed to demonstrate that anyone is being misogynistic. In doing so, many of you have exposed your own misandry.

Funny. Not funny ha ha. Funny sad.

suggesting that you stop reading something you continually criticize, and pointing out your lack of contribution, is not the same as telling you to shut up.

oh, okay. by that logic you're right, you have indeed demonstrated that everyone that disagrees with you is misogynistic.

might [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:55 PM:

Obvious, and...

...wait for it...

...not funny!


OMG, the angry feminists don't think the pun is funny. Holy crap, it must be that time of the month! Quick! To the mattresses! And don't forget the gynoids - this could take a while...

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:56 PM:

Hahahaha. Because we object to being equated with plastic dolls -- nay, plastic dolls are preferred to us -- we hate all men. I get it now. I have seen the light.

Flathead, did you say at some point you had a daughter? Is she the same as a plastic doll? I'm not trying to make a personal jab; I'm honestly curious.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 09:56 PM:

Where do you keep her beak?

Actually, my giant cock has one at the end of it.

Yeah, like I feared, no sense of humor.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:08 PM:

Strain, motherfucker! That turd will come out any day now. I think I finally figured out why you and your friends obsess about me. It's not fun anymore sitting around pretending feminists have no sense of humor when we're so much funnier than the, "Yeah, well I never liked sex anyway so I'm glad I don't get laid" crowd. Really, though, you should have some dignity and not pretend that a joke is evidence of "no sense of humor". My god, next thing you know, you'll be posting pictures of women in the throes of ectasy with men (not you, but we knew that) and using it as evidence that women hate men.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:11 PM:

But I'm NOT wrong about generalization EVERYONE with a real doll as a mysognist. That's sloppy damn thinking, at the very least.

What's sloppy damn thinking is to think that anyone here has said that EVERYONE with a real doll is a misogynist. I, myself, was quite careful to point out that I thought that Michael Kelly, while perhaps a fool for dropping $24K on three of the things, had a healthy attitude about their function and purpose. To him, they were masturbatory objects, and he didn't assign humanity to them, even in an ironic way.

If I'm wrong about Dave, well -- at least I was giving someone the benefit of the doubt and hoping they were a better person than they were.

And then Dave showed up here and elucidated his paranoid and crabbed worldview.

But if we're going to say that ONLY misogynistic men would buy real dolls and have fake relationships with them -- if we're going to make that sweeping generalization -- then you damn well need to show that ONLY straight men do it.

See my first point. Nobody has said that the mere ownership of these things is misogynistic, only the use of them as substitutes for relations with real women on the grounds that all women ("organic" women, in the creepy terminology of several in the article) lie, don't live up to expectations, would like you to help them lift heavy things, etc.

mlaslocky, if you actually are the author of the piece, I think you're being highly disingenuous. I read all five pages, and you referred to these people several times as pathetic, the kind of person you'd be afraid to be in a room with, etc. Sure, Davecat was the first one featured in the piece, but he's also the most specific about his reasons for rejecting real women in favor of plastic, and those reasons -- both in the article and in his appearances here -- have been tinged with hatred and loathing of women.

Other doll owners, as you point out, have a more realistic vision of them as elaborate fucktoys, and some are apparently just desperately lonely with cash to spare.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:14 PM:

What I like the best about zuzu is how she dismisses Davecat, and then dismisses mlaslocky too. Why bother with first hand sources or second hand sources when you can make your own facts?

I admire your self-confidence.

Amanda Marcotte [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:22 PM:

How dare bitches have self-confidence? My god, don't they know that they have vaginas? They should kill themselves and yet don't....so strange.

Pierpont, not everyone speaks the language of the nicer members of the male sex.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:25 PM:

Oh, my God! I drew conclusions after having read the articles and comments in question!

How will I ever forgive myself?

J-Ha [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:27 PM:

nothing in our countless conversations ever indicated that he hated women.

Is it just that people are hung up on the 'm' word? Can we call him sexist w/o people saying "Oh no, he doesn't hate women!"

And you know since when has being nice, lonely, sad, awkward, pathetic etc ever exempted someone's sexism? I mean, these guys could cry themselves to sleep every single night. They could rescue puppies and kittens and have a group of female friends they have coffee with once a week. I don't give a fuck. When someone pays thousands of dollars to stick their dick in a piece of plastic and then talk about their *relationship* to said spooge-bag as being better than having a relationship with (hateful, lying, living) women, I reserve the right to call that sexist and to be utterly creeped out by it.

Because when you call ejaculating into a human shaped piece of plastic a relationship, you are reducing real women down to the dolls level. Saying it's better than a real woman (or at least comparable) is saying that all you need are 3 orifices, long hair and no will and you'll have a perfect girlfriend.

The fact that he can them come back and say "oh no no the lifelessness isn't what I like. I wish I could program her to move and stuff too." and people would still defend him is just mind-boggling.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 12, 2005 10:28 PM:

Oh, and as I told someone recently: it's not my fault if your story has holes in it.

My pointing out the holes does not eliminate the fact that the holes exist.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:40 AM:

How dare bitches have self-confidence? My god, don't they know that they have vaginas? They should kill themselves and yet don't....so strange.

Pierpont, not everyone speaks the language of the nicer members of the male sex.

Yes, well I don't speak that language either, as you well know.

I would prefer you condemn me for things I actually say, not things that you would prefer to hear from me. I know you dislike not stereotyping. I know that makes your job as blahger and your positioning yourself as uber-radical-chic-feminist that much more difficult. The difficulty really lies in your poor debating skills and dishonesty.

Anyway, the other conclusion left out of the summary above is there is not a sliver of difference between the Freepers, the dittoheads, or the Amanda Armada. In a different time and for a different cause, you would proudly put on a brownshirt and persecute jews, gypsies, and gays for the icky practices and thoughts.

Fundamentalist extremist is fundamentalist extremist is fundamentalist extremist regardless of whether they worship Allah, Dobson/Jebus, Hera or Dionysus, or Dworkin.

laura [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:02 AM:

What is so different between using a real doll for companionship and sitting around posting comments on this site all evening? Sheesh. I get the feeling that a lot of people who are criticizing Davecat need to get a life of their own.

And whatever happened to the idea of reading to acquire a greater understanding of humanity and our fellows, rather than using what we read as a jumping-off point for shrill accusations and quick judgments? I thought the story was great and did what good journalism is supposed to do -- offer an opportunity for greater understanding of our world. Sure, on the surface I have little in common with Davecat, but who hasn't been desperately lonely at times, or dissatisfied with the people in his or her life? Yeah, we don't all buy dolls, but it surprises me that so many of these posts are vitriolic and judgmental. I thought that story left some room for empathy, too.

J-Ha [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:23 AM:

I get the feeling that a lot of people who are criticizing Davecat need to get a life of their own.

But the ones constantly jumping to his defence are just doing so in between glamorous parties?

I thought that story left some room for empathy, too.

Wow and I thought there was room enough in my brain for multiple feelings. I thought, for example, they're might be a way to both express sympathy for what society has done to these guys and to express judgement and anger for how they view women. You know, like the original post for example.

karpad [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:33 AM:

And whatever happened to the idea of reading to acquire a greater understanding of humanity and our fellows, rather than using what we read as a jumping-off point for shrill accusations

ok, pet peeve bitching time: the word "shrill." when I hear "shrill" my brain automatically shuts off. too much use by wingnuts. it's their favorite club when they want to say "I don't like what you say, so I mock you."

the written word cannot be shrill. shrill is a sonic quality. and you went and used shrill, which forces me to make assumptions about both your political persuasions, and by extention, your intelligence. and those are mean assumptions, and probably untrue.

yeah, that's right. I'm derailling a thread about perverts* who hump manniquins to complain about a word that is a painful cliche in the blogosphere. because I think it's a better use of everyone's time, I think we've all runout of anything to say.

and because for the love of god, I REALLY want the word "shrill" excised from the vocabulary of anyone not talking about literal Banshees.

*yes, they're perverts. no, I don't care if that makes me judgemental. You get props for not being as creepy as NAMBLA, but that's a low, low hurdle to clear.

Jesurgislac [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:11 AM:

J Pierpont Flathead: I would prefer you condemn me for things I actually say

That's ironic, because there's been two consistent patterns of behavior from you on this thread.

One is your condemning other people for things they didn't actually say.

The other is complaining about other people condemning you for things you actually did say.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:32 AM:

Because when you call ejaculating into a human shaped piece of plastic a relationship, you are reducing real women down to the dolls level. Saying it's better than a real woman (or at least comparable) is saying that all you need are 3 orifices, long hair and no will and you'll have a perfect girlfriend.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I'm willing to concede that Davecat might not be malicious enough to actually *hate* women. And sure, we all have our social problems. But he's still sexist.

yes, they're perverts. no, I don't care if that makes me judgemental. You get props for not being as creepy as NAMBLA, but that's a low, low hurdle to clear.

Exactly. "Yeah, we don't all buy dolls, but it surprises me that so many of these posts are vitriolic and judgmental."
Hey, if you want to think it's okay to be equated to a doll, you go right ahead.

might [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:51 AM:

I don't understand the assumption that tolerance means absolute tolerance of everything, all the time, and why I'm supposed to shut up about my feelings to spare the feelings of some other person. I'm not saying, nor is anyone I've read in this thread, that these RealDoll owners should be forced to give up their masturbatory aids. I have not said they should be punished in any way. I have not advocated restricting their sex lives, or any other aspect of their lives. I have not said that I would try to keep a RealDoll owner from living next door to me or from coaching Little League.

What I am saying is that I find the idea of equating the use of those masturbatory aids equivalent to a relationship with an actual human being offensive. I am, last I checked, allowed to be offended. I don't see the difference between my taking offense at this and a devout Catholic taking offense at the little girl fucking herself with a crucifix in The Exorcist. It IS offensive. The problem would arise if I were to use my sense of anger and - yes - contempt, and try to force Davecat to do something other than what he is doing. I'm not doing that. No one is persecuting Davecat. No one is having an effect on his day-to-day life one way or the other.

People can set themselves up as his defenders, but no one is actually harming him. We're allowed to have opinions about this. We are the living versions of these fake women, so its a cultural phenomenon that we might be expected to have some strong feelings about.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 08:15 AM:

You're getting closer to honesty, but still not quite there yet. Once again, he said any woman he might be involved with could possibly be lying. Not "would be," not "probably" -- "possibly."

Great. So someone who would rather not deal with live Black people because they could possibly be stealing to achieve their own ends isn't racist either.

Glad we cleared that up.

Aster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 08:36 AM:

Great. So someone who would rather not deal with live Black people because they could possibly be stealing to achieve their own ends isn't racist either.

What if she lives in a neighborhood with only black people? In that case, it's not obvious whether her fear of interaction is based on their race, or she's just afraid of people in general. Same for this guy--I think he's afraid of any romantic relationship, and because he's attracted to women, that translates into being afraid of women*. I don't see evidence that he would behave differently if he were bisexual.
Would the people who consider Davecat to be prejudiced against women consider the narrator of Coin-Operated Boy by the Dresden Dolls to be prejudiced against men in the same way?
Mind you, I've just read the first page of the article and most of the comments, so correct me if I missed out on something.

*I do think it's odd that people will refer to potential partners by saying "women" or "men" or (if they're straight) "the opposite sex." You know, "I can't talk to the opposite sex," when it doesn't mean that.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:19 AM:

Great. So someone who would rather not deal with live Black people because they could possibly be stealing to achieve their own ends isn't racist either.

Glad we cleared that up.

What does this have to do with your consistently changing Davecat's words to make your point sexier or more convincing? As far as I can see, nothing.

If you thought his assertion that any woman he dated could possibly be lying proved his misogyny beyond a shadow of a doubt, you wouldn't first have reformulated it to have him say women are liars, and then you wouldn't have reformulated that to say women are probably liars. You would have been honest, and said exactly what he said: Any given woman is possibly a liar.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you got there entirely dishonestly. There's a lot of carping in this thread about straw men, but no one seemed to be paying any mind to those like yours.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:32 AM:

I haven't been at all dishonest--I simply disagree with you. Pity you can't see the difference. I've cited his words, several times, in the comment he posted here.

I think the one throwing up strawmen here is you.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:56 AM:

You don't see any dishonesty at all in characterizing this:

...but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends.

as this:

And then, after being called on it, tacitly admitting to having mischaracterized his words by recharacterizing them as this:

Gosh, women probably lie to get their own ends...

Really? Not at all dishonest?

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:58 AM:

Whoops, missed pasting in your first quote. That should be:

as this:

Women are liars, according to Davecat.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:00 AM:

Would the people who consider Davecat to be prejudiced against women consider the narrator of Coin-Operated Boy by the Dresden Dolls to be prejudiced against men in the same way?
Mind you, I've just read the first page of the article and most of the comments, so correct me if I missed out on something.

Well if the dresden dolls assume that all men are liars because all men could possibly lie to them, and then decide to actually forfeit all interrelationships with other people because there is no difference in their mind between a humaniform sex toy and a real person.

Then yes.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:12 AM:

but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends.

Ignatius, Davecat has foregone all relationships with other women because in his mind all women could be lying to meet their own ends.

He's made a logical jump from "possibly" to "all women are liars" by nature of him being a idoliphile, do you see?

That's the context you need to read sheezlebub in ignatius, taking her statements out of context will make it seem erroneous because the statement relies on the context of davecat having given up on ever having a relationship with women and then giving his reason as women could lie to him, which implies to any sane person that he considers all women to be liars and thus not worth trying to form a relationship with.

Come on Ignatius, Give me a "C"!

Give me an "O"!

Give me a "N"!

Give me a "T"!

Give me an "E"!

Give me a "X"!

Give me another "T"!

What does that spell? CONTEXT!

WOOOOO!

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:21 AM:

Well if the dresden dolls assume that all men are liars because all men could possibly lie to them...

This logic doesn't really work. Again, Davecat said any woman he dates could possibly be lying to him, so he has decided, for the time being, not to date. This does not mean that he assumes all women are liars. It merely means that he has weighed the benefits and drawbacks of his decision, and found that the benefits (not being lied to) outweigh the drawbacks (not meeting a woman who doesn't lie to him). This doesn't mean he assumes all women are liars. It just means he doesn't think the possibility of meeting an honest woman is worth the risk of being lied to.

When I'm driving, anyone else on the road could possibly be a terrible driver. Of course, I don't assume that everyone on the road is a terrible driver. In fact, I know for a fact that is not the case. I know for a fact there are a lot of good drivers on the road with me. But any given person could be a terrible driver, and so I take reasonable precautions when driving to protect myself from bad drivers. That's exactly what Davecat has done; he's just (to most of our minds) overcompensated badly and protected himself too much, cutting off any possibility of happiness to minimize the possibility of despair. But it's not because he thinks all women are liars; it's just because he knows some of them are.

Anyway, I don't disagree with either of you. After reading everyone's thoughts and thinking about this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that his behavior certainly qualifies as misogyny. But not because of that line. That's just a sad cocoon he's wrapped himself in to protect himself from the realities of the world. It's not misogyny, it's just poor risk analysis.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:24 AM:

If the poor risk analysis comes from attributing a behavior to be avoided to an entire class of people based solely on their membership in that class, then you have a discrimination problem on your hands, Ignatius.

R. Mildred, I think I love you.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:32 AM:

R. Mildred, response above, with (I think) a notable lack of snark,.

Once again, he could think the exact same thing of men, but not care nearly as much, since he doesn't want to date them. It doesn't matter if a man may lie to him in a relationship, as he will never be in a relationship with a man.

Any given pilot could be an alcoholic. However, I am more concerned with airline pilots who are alcoholics than with private pilots who are alcoholics, as I don't expect to be hiring a private pilot any time soon.

And once again, he has not "attribut[ed] a behavior to be avoided to an entire class of people." He has merely attributed the possibility of a behavior to be avoided to an entire class of people (rightfully so, as it is a possibility for all people) and decided to avoid that risk to himself entirely.

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:37 AM:

What R. Mildred said. Context is key. I've been honest in my assessment of Davecat's posted statements. Disagreeing with them doesn't make me dishonest.

Your average racist or sexist is far too savvy these days to say that all women are liars or all Black people are theives or all Latinos carry knives. They say things like, I'm not racist or sexist, but some may do it and so I don't want to deal with them.

That's more than I can say for the folks who've argued against points we've never made. If it weren't for the strawmen thrown up here (oh! we're anti-sex toy! Oh! We're prudes! Oh! We're trying to keep individuals from enjoying their personal freedoms!) I would have stopped posting long ago.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:39 AM:

One last thing:

R. Mildred:...because the statement relies on the context of davecat having given up on ever having a relationship with women...

This is untrue. According to both the article and the (purported) author of the article, he says he is still open to the possibility of a real relationship.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 10:49 AM:

That's more than I can say for the folks who've argued against points we've never made. If it weren't for the strawmen thrown up here (oh! we're anti-sex toy! Oh! We're prudes! Oh! We're trying to keep individuals from enjoying their personal freedoms!) I would have stopped posting long ago.

So it's okay for you to argue against something Davecat never said, as long as you think that's what he really means, but not okay for others to do the same to you? Is it possible you've misconstrued Davecat as others have misconstrued you? Who gets to decide what each of us really means? When is it a straw man and when is it an honest assessment of a statement's true meaning?

Aster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:06 AM:

Well if the dresden dolls assume that all men are liars because all men could possibly lie to them, and then decide to actually forfeit all interrelationships with other people because there is no difference in their mind between a humaniform sex toy and a real person.

Then yes [they're prejudiced against men].

I didn't ask that. Judging by the lyrics of the song, would you say the narrator is prejudiced against men?
I don't understand how "I'm terrified of being lied to so I don't have relationships" is the same as "I think all women are liars so I don't have relationships." He's said he doesn't possess the "relentless stick-to-it-iveness" to continue dating real women after failing a few times--it's a disability, not a principle.
Also, I'm not sure not wanting to date a gender means you're prejudiced against them; by that logic, couldn't everyone who wasn't bisexual be labeled a misogynist/misandrist/misanthropist?

Sheelzebub [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:14 AM:

So it's okay for you to argue against something Davecat never said

Except that's not the case. Remember the C word--context. The folks insisting we're against sex toys and personal freedom lack in their strawmen, and you lack it in your continous accusations of my supposed dishonesty. Stop taking my words out of context--I put Davecat's words in context, quoted him, and answered his quotes. I'm not going to do it at every single post I make. But if you bothered to take the context of what he said--and what I said--into account, you'd realize your accusations about my non-existant dishonest were baseless.

This is untrue. According to both the article and the (purported) author of the article, he says he is still open to the possibility of a real relationship.

And then he posted a second comment saying that he'd prefer a gynoid.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:27 AM:

This is untrue. According to both the article and the (purported) author of the article, he says he is still open to the possibility of a real relationship.

The man fucks a sextoy and calls it a relationship! Of course he would like a real woman but he has a standard that only coma patients and highly disfunctional austic women could pass.

Come on, they have to be incapable of lying, that sounds to me like an expectation that's less realistic than his doll, and one that just so happens to allow him to convince himself that even trying to make a relationship with a women work is a lost cause before it even begins.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:43 AM:

But even in context, your objection doesn't make sense. It is as ridiculous to me to take "I don't date because I might be lied to" to mean "I don't date because all women are liars" as it is to you to see your objections here parsed as really being after-the-fact justifications for an inscrutable brand of squeamishness.

You say you're giving an honest assessment. Fine, that may be true. It just may be totally wrong. But your assessment strikes me as being as far off the mark of Davecat's true meaning as you think the objections raised against your objections are. Yet you appear to have no qualms with accusing others of dishonesty.

So, again, who decides when a person's just offering an honest but incorrect assessment, and when they're dishonestly setting up straw men?

Anyway, I just want to reiterate, I agree with the consensus conclusion around here. Davecat's behavior and explanations are clearly misogynist. But not because of that line. It's misogynist to prefer a doll to a real woman, and to feel that the doll is equivalent to or better than a woman--any woman (well, except maybe a few--murderers, child abusers, Touched by an Angel fans). That's the misogyny. Not that he's afraid of being lied to in a relationship, so he's decided to forego relationships. That's just an overreaction to a possible harm, and there just so happens to be only one group that can do that harm to him.

Your objection sounds to me like claiming I have some sort of anti-Earth bias because I don't want to skydive for fear of my parachute not opening and me slamming into the Earth. It's not the Earth I'm afraid of, it's the slamming into the ground. Earth just happens to be the only ground I can slam into. I wouldn't want to skydive on Mars, either, if the possibility presented itself. (And please, spare me any treatises on gravity, thanks.)

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:51 AM:

It's misogynist to prefer a doll to a real woman, and to feel that the doll is equivalent to or better than a woman--any woman (well, except maybe a few--murderers, child abusers, Touched by an Angel fans). That's the misogyny. Not that he's afraid of being lied to in a relationship, so he's decided to forego relationships.

I thought we'd already decided that...?

Mr. Bill [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:54 AM:

Are you guys still arguing over Davecat's misnogyny?
All I would assert is that humans are complex critters, and there are probably multiple causes for the poor sod's doll lust. I doubt our ability to discern just what is in the heart of anyone, much less mind.
That's not taking up for the dude, it's in the category of 'epistimological uncertainty".
"Oh god, forever would you us keep/
from Single Vision and Newton's Sleep.."

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:00 PM:

annejumps: I thought we'd already decided that...?

Uh, yeah, I was just, you know, giving my opinion and stuff.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:02 PM:

Okay, I was just confused because in different forms, that conclusion has appeared throughout the thread.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:14 PM:

Yeah, I know, but I was arguing with someone who seemed to disagree with half of it.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:17 PM:

As the author of the article, I think that one thing that is missing here is an appreciation for/understanding of Davecat's relationship with Shi-chan as fiction, and as such as art (albeit one that people aren't used to thinking about yet). Perhaps that got lost in the published version, or perhaps it just wasn't clear to begin with. I think it's fair to say that Davecat *knows* that Shi-chan is a proxy, and as an incredibly imaginative guy, he has fun with creating a character and a relationship that are, he'd be the first to admit, imaginary. I find this thread fascinating, but I confess that as the one person in this thread who actually knows Davecat and as the writer of the article, I thought that the fascinating thing with Davecat was that his "relationship" with Shi-chan was perhaps as much about art as it is about sex/companionship, and not particularly indicative of "misogyny." There is a playfulness and a self-deprecating irony, in Davecat that I think you all are missing (again, perhaps my own fault if that didn'tn come through in the article, for those of you who read it).

I will soon post a much longer version of the article that touches on these ideas, and others, on another web site, and I will let you all know when it is up. I hope that you all will read it.

--ML

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:23 PM:

Well gravity works proportionate to the mass divided by the distance between two bodies squared ;p

Do I have to break the pom poms out again?

but I'd rather be in a relationship with a Doll, rather than be in one with a real woman who's possibly lying to meet her own ends.

This guy isn't afraid of slamming into the ground because his parachute might not open, he's afraid of slamming into the ground because he's thinks all parachute instructor are going to snip his cords because he once had an argument with a parachute instructor in which death threats were made, and so has a complicated series of bungee cords attached to his bedroom ceiling so that he can "experience the joys of parachuting" without fear of instructors (any of whom could want to kill him also) hurting him.

It is true that parachute instructors might want to kill him by snipping his parachute cords for whatever reason, Absolutly 100% logically true, but is this guy not implying too much intentional malice on the part of all parachute instructors by foregoing ever parachuting just in case another instructor wishes to kill him?

And before anyone says anthing, the Geneva Convention doesn't count when it comes to torturing analogies.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:30 PM:

mlaslocky, I didn't really get that impression. I got the feeling he was an arty sort of guy, but it seemed less like whimsy than pretension. It really did seem like he thought he had a relationship with the doll. That's what I came away with.

WookieMonster [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:37 PM:

Yeah annejumps, especially from his own words here on this post. I, personally, have a really hard time seeing someone who says he's in a relationship with a doll actually not thinking that he's in a relationship with a doll. Unless, of course, he's a compulsive liar, in which case there's a whole hell of a lot of projection going on with his, "but a woman could LIE to me" justification.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:39 PM:

That might be true, if lying and murder were even on the same plane of malice.

As you said, you've tortured the analogy to the point where it's useless. Is bungee cord guy implying too much intentional malice on the part of skydiving instructors? Of course. Is Davecat implying too much intentional malice when he's afraid of being lied to in a relationship? Not at all. How many of us have lied in the course of a relationship? I'm willing to bet more than half of us have both lied and been lied to in a relationship. Lies in relationships happen every day; not so much skydiving instructors murdering their students.

Davecat's expectation is not extreme at all. In fact, it's fairly likely. It's just his reaction to that expectation that's extreme.

karpad [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 12:58 PM:

Davecat's expectation is not extreme at all. In fact, it's fairly likely. It's just his reaction to that expectation that's extreme.

Except his reaction points to his believed severity. Half of us have lied or been lied to in relationships, but "you look fine in that" or "I didn't really have anything planned, so it's ok that I dropped everything" aren't the ballpark of abandoning real relationships. that's the sort of thing you get when you expect the "lying in relationships" thing to be "I didn't sleep with your best friend" kind of thing, which kinda does place it in the same realm of betrayal as the bungie cord man.

the position Davecat has is that "the likelihood of a massive, scarring betrayal is so great that I cannot possibly risk a real relationship"

One would think, taking precautions in a relationship would prevent that eventuality (a healthy, open relationship where problems are talked about, for instance), at least to the degree that it becomes unlikely enough that human contact is still seen as reasonable. So either Davecat is entirely unwilling to have a communicating, adult relationship with normal give and take, or he IS willing to do that, but is so phobic of evil, betraying women that he sees it as a likely probability.

neither one of those options speaks very highly of him. and both are inarguably sexist.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:07 PM:

You have no reason to expect that little white lies wouldn't bother Davecat to that extreme; that's just you talking. Sure, maybe not the examples you gave, but maybe something more along the lines of "I never slept with anyone before you." Not necessarily a relationship-breaker, but certainly worse than the lies for the benfit of others you proposed.

Look, we are talking about someone who has abandoned real human relationships in favor of a doll, so if we're going to be honest, we have to allow that the chances that maybe he just is that sensitive to untruths are at least as likely as the conclusion most people here are so eager to jump to--that he thinks all women are evil, scheming bitches. Both are extreme. Why do we entertain one and not the other?

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:07 PM:

Salon has response letters up. Many are from people wondering why this was a big enough deal for a feature and a long article. Naturally, one guy whined that some women say vibrators are better than men. Another said that articles like this help convince him that "leftist women" hate men. I'm still amazed at the "Saying women shouldn't be considered equal to dolls means you hate men" meme.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:12 PM:

So either Davecat is entirely unwilling to have a communicating, adult relationship with normal give and take, or he IS willing to do that, but is so phobic of evil, betraying women that he sees it as a likely probability.

neither one of those options speaks very highly of him. and both are inarguably sexist.

Forgot one thing.

Like I said earlier, I think it's probably your first explanation. (Although I don't think he's necessarily "unwilling"--I'm sure a lot of us know that there truly is a point where "unwilling" becomes "unable.")

Secondly, your second explanation is not necessarily sexist. As has been said numerous times, maybe he's afraid of all evil, betraying people, but only women are capable of betraying him in love. Maybe he also refuses to have a business partner of any sex dues to the same fears of lying and betrayal. That's not sexism.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:23 PM:

(Although I don't think he's necessarily "unwilling"--I'm sure a lot of us know that there truly is a point where "unwilling" becomes "unable.")

Except that he's used "I'd rather" formulations to express his reasoning instead of "I am unable" formulations.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:29 PM:

So that's one of the instances where we're not allowed to interpolate his real meaning?

Okay, gotcha. So confusing.

Anything to say about the rest of the points, or just that one little nit?

whateverdidiwants [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:30 PM:

Because of this discussion, I've had this song running through my head for the last 2 days:

"Yeah, I'm in Love With An Android" by Say Hi To Your Mom

We have a great relationship
Based on things that can't be said
She has a great relationship with our television set
Yeah, I'm in love with an android
But so what?
Stranger things have happened
Stranger things have been loved

http://www.sayhitoyourmom.com/sayhi_android_full.mp3

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:34 PM:

Your whole point seems to be that we should assume that he is so paralyzed by overreaction to little white lies in this and only this area of his life that he is unable to form relationships with real women. Without, I might add, pointing to any concrete examples of this paralysis.

His own words, however, indicate something else: he's using formulations which indicate preference and choice, not paralysis.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:35 PM:

Okay, okay, I think we should all lay off Davecat. We've all got bizarro things about us; Dave's just brave enough to speak about it. If we are to be tolerant and inclusive, as those on the left like to claim, then we need to give Davecat a break.

Is it really misogynist, per se, to be disillusioned with women after some bad experiences? Or is it just a symptom of trauma? It is not considered strange for women to be disillusioned, or even vitriolic, about men after some bad experiences. Sure, you'll hear some folks call us harpies but by and large, it's accepted that men are cads.

Now, while I believe both sexes need to move on from their bad experiences -- really, try your best to disengage from your trauma, don't let it win -- it's certainly not an overnight process. I think Davecat is doing the best he can with what he has to give currently. Humans are all driven toward intimacy, and if this is the way Davecat achieves this, who are we to judge?

That said, getting a doll like the Real Doll may seem extreme. Maybe it *is* extreme. I don't know. I'm sure there are some serious weirdos using the dolls, but better the silicone than a real person who can experience pain. It's just not our problem -- if it even is a problem -- and I don't think it's emblematic of the male population at large. Only 12,000 people belong to the "Hello, Dolly" Web site community -- in a nation of, what, 135 million men, give or take? I'm not worried that Mr. Honeydew will eventually have me muzzled, waxed and painted.

I hope Davecat can emerge from his shame and isolation, value himself, take his crappy experiences forwhat they are, and try for some live humans again. I suspect he's got more to give than he's giving himself credit for.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:39 PM:

My whole point is that we don't know nearly enough about him, his situation, and his past to nail this down to one cause (if it ever could be even with everything known) and that there are other possible explanations. Yet most here have discarded every possible explanation but the one they like best (discarding many of them, in fact, for the same reasons they embrace their preferred explanation).

Secondly, the suggestion that maybe he was unable to form those relationships instead of just unwilling was just one more possibility. If you'll go back and read the discussion, you'll see most of my suggestions were phrased as choices of his. I was just offering up one more thing to consider when it presented itself.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:40 PM:

So if I don't accept that dolls are equal to women, I'm not only a man-hater, I'm also not a real liberal. hahaha.

This thread is just funny to me now. It's ridiculous the way the same things are being said over and over.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 01:42 PM:

By the way, anyone reading this who is confused as to what the much-bandied-about term "straw man" means, here's a pitch-perfect example:

Your whole point seems to be that we should assume that he is so paralyzed by overreaction to little white lies in this and only this area of his life that he is unable to form relationships with real women.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 02:49 PM:

Oh, get over yourself, Ignatius. You know as well as I do that I was responding to your snark about nitpicking over unable/unwilling.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 02:52 PM:

My ultimate point is that I don't believe we should judge Davecat specifically.

And yeah, Annejumps, I think some tolerance is in order if you are to claim the label, "liberal." Liberalism would seem to require that we be tolerant of all sorts of different behavior -- someone does XYZ because of ABC (class, race, sex, you name it), so what can you expect? -- thus, I don't see why Davecat deserves special scrutiny because his choices (and I want to emphasize the idea of choices here for anyone) have sexual and gendered implications.

It's *his* issue. Look upon it with some compassion: He is not hurting anyone but himself. He's missing out, maybe. I firmly believe that his problem, *if it can be called that*, is not based in a hatred of women. It is not based in a fear of women. I'm not even sure it's based in a fear of intimacy, per se. I think it's mostly a fear of vulnerability and pain, all of which you have to risk when entering into a relationship. What would we say if a woman expressed similar concerns? We'd say that we understand, that men are nasty and in search of only one thing which has been demonstrated over time (a theory to which even I would agree has some truth to it). But remember: some people can file their trauma away and learn from it quickly; others need more time. It's not just women and the disadvantaged who have trouble. Why does Davecat get less time to recover, as he deems necessary, because he's a man?

(Of course, Davecat might be perfectly happy as it is. Strange as it to the rest of us, who cares? He alone is not going to reinvigorate patriarchy with his singular desire. Let's remember utilitarianism and John Stuart Mills: A results-oriented approach is often useful when assessing the reality of an issue. Is this really going to make things horrible for society as a whole? I think not.)

If the left is the side of compassion and tolerance, I'd like to see more of it. Just because many men have -- and still hold -- a significant advantage does not mean that many other men don't deserve our compassion. I believe that it is too simplistic to say that a penis equals privelege automatically and absolutely.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 02:58 PM:

Tolerance does not mean utter lack of criticism.

And criticism is not oppression or intolerance or censorship.

It's *his* issue.

And he chose to air his issue in the pages of Salon, making it fair game.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:02 PM:

Honeydew, we aren't persecuting him, we're not sending the law after him, we're not trying to make RealDolls illegal, okay?

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:07 PM:

zuzu: Oh, get over yourself, Ignatius. You know as well as I do that I was responding to your snark about nitpicking over unable/unwilling.

Actually, I didn't. It was an honest misreading. Sorry.

But, even as applied to only that statement, it's not a valid restatement of the point. You added qualifiers of your own ("this and only this") and removed those I used ("necessarily"), both in actual usage and implication, just to name one problem.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:13 PM:

Having visited room 101 this morning, let me recant. I agree now that DaveCat is guilty of thoughtcrime..

Personally, I think he has sluggishly progressing schziophrenia and I am not sure that counseling will be sufficient to cure him as folks in this forum have suggested. I hope they deal with this with the usual cure, psychoactive drugs.

Based on the Salon article, I also hope to hear soon that Davecat is banned from clothing departments where we can expect he might find passive victims of his continued thoughtcrimes.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:29 PM:

LOL. This is hilarious. It's like screaming into the wind. I guess all we "misandrists" are committing thought crimes too.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:47 PM:

Zuzu and Annejumps, of course Davecat and the others cited in the Salon piece are not immune from criticism. And please, please understand that I do not mean in the slightest to make my comments personal to anyone here.

What I would like to posit is that to call specifically Davecat "misogynist" perhaps does not recognize the trauma under which he may be operating. This is not say the other users of real Dolls are not misogynists; obviously some users cited had some really foul things to say about women. And there's certainly something that seems on the surface to be, well, um, hateful (?) or at least, disparaging and immature (?) about preferring silicone women to the real thing.

Does this mean that Davecat is justified in leaning on his trauma? Using it as a crutch? Well, I would love to tell him that he should get over it, and that we all get screwed repeatedly (figuratively and literally), but I can't. I could, but it's his business. He deals with his issues as he wishes. Being intolerant and labelling him harshly -- and by this I don't mean uncritically -- doesn't do him any good.

It doesn't do us any good, either. There are many varieties of the human experience, many of which we can safely judge to be deviant. I'm just not sure that an unusual attachment to a doll is one of them, at least in Davecat's case. In the end, I think we should just let him do what he wants, and forget about it.

Having said all that, thank you all for letting me debate with you! Other places are not so willing to do so.

Agent Honeydew

Linnet [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:49 PM:

I know what grounds I use to take a moral stance -- harming others.

I would include harming yourself as a moral ill. Is it often difficult to judge whether or not someone is harming himself? Certainly. But if someone blabs about their personal lives in the pages of Salon, it makes them fair game for such judgment. Should people have the legal right to hurt themselves? I definitely think so. But that doesn't make it morally right.

And Morat, in order to prove that Davecat is a misogynist, you don't need to prove that "only men feel this way towards only women." White people sometimes dehumanize and insult other white people--does that mean that a white person saying "black people are all liars" is not racist? I've no doubt that Davecat's problem is affected by factors other than misogyny, but it's ridiculous to say misogyny isn't a strong component.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:51 PM:

LOL. This is hilarious. It's like screaming into the wind. I guess all we "misandrists" are committing thought crimes too.

I know it's pointless to keep arguing, but we're so close to 500 comments that I feel the need to nose the thread past the line.

Medium Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:52 PM:

Such strenuous efforts attempting to deny what's completely obvious! Interesting, to say the least.

J Pierpont Flathead [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 03:57 PM:

BTW, mlaslocky if you're still around, while I do see the light now that Davecat is a danger to me personally, I still feel that it is necessary to disagree with one of the Salon letter writers.

Since I do not believe there is any such thing as objective reporting, I really (truly) did not see any misandry in the comments that letter writer quoted. Instead I was able to see a bit more about what your thoughts were at the time, so thank you.

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:08 PM:

For those who've just turned over, here's summary of this thread so far:

Point 1: man calls masturbation with lump of plastic a "relationship"

Feminist Reaction: Ewwwwww

Point 2: How dare you be such bigots, they aren't harming anyone, so what could be possibly wrong with men who think a woman is replaceable with a lump of plastic?

Feminist Reaction: Ewwwwww

Point 3: How dare you try to make RealDolls illegal!? and they're not misogynists just because they loudly state with both actions and words, that women are nothing more than masturbatory devices for their pleasure.

Feminist Reaction: Ewwwwww

Point 4: How dare you judge these men by your mortal morality! These men are Gods who's only crime is not seeing that there's more to women than orifices, and for that petty fact you would call them misogynists!?

Feminist Reaction: Ewwwwww

Point 5: Why do you want to imprison and re-educate these people? you read 1985 and thought it was a sensible treatise for how the world should be run, didn't you, Huh!? you...you...you...facists!

And now, hopefully, a conclusion....

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:11 PM:

Now THAT'S a straw man, people!

Chris Clarke [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:13 PM:

And now, hopefully, a conclusion....

Alla you misandrist gender feminists are mistreating this poor guy by stating your opinions, which makes you, literally, a million times worse than Hitler.

(That should do it.)

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:17 PM:

Not quite yet, we haven't reached 500.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:20 PM:

R. Mildred, your post (and equivalent sorts of posts on the conservative side) are why I'm a libertarian: I sincerely believe you're not nuts, but you sound nuts! :) (I'm joking, of course!)

You do demonstrate, though, what I think is a very important point: That we all have differing opinions, and that we should be allowed to debate them in a civil manner.

But as for men being gods, well, now, that is a bit much. We know that's not true, even when said in jest. I think we all know how simple a creature they really are. Remember the thought-loop that runs through their heads: "Boobs. Engines. Poop. Food." Lather, rinse, repeat. ;)

(Kidding there, too! Honest!) :)

Agent Honeydew

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:22 PM:

Point 6: Hey, I'm stating my opinion here, don't bother me with your opinion. This is my opinion, and I'm allowed to say it. My opinion is my opinion, and that's it. Don't try to change it. It's my opinion, unlike your opinion, which is YOUR opinion. This is MY opinion, which I'm busy stating, so shut up with your opinion.

Now, here's my opinion...

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:24 PM:

Alla you misandrist gender feminists are mistreating this poor guy by stating your opinions, which makes you, literally, a million times worse than Hitler.

This wins the thread.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:28 PM:

Although now that I think about it, Chris Clarke and R. Mildred are tied.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 04:35 PM:

All right, you guys, if I'm reading things correctly -- and I may be wrong, so please tell me -- it seems that you might be taking my comments more seriously than they deserve.

Although I have a different philosophy than many here, I'm still hoping to engage in great, fun debates. Truthfully, we're on the same side, but I think we have different approaches, is all. Is that okay? If you'd rather I not post, I'll be happy to exit stage left. I don't want to disturb a comfortable community that's already been established. Just let me know.

Thanks,
Agent Honeydew

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 05:01 PM:

Honest question:

R. Mildred: Point 4: How dare you judge these men by your mortal morality! These men are Gods who's only crime is not seeing that there's more to women than orifices, and for that petty fact you would call them misogynists!?

What posts are you parodying here? The others are pretty clear and aimed at fairly commonly expressed sentiments in here (and rightfully so), but this one has me stumped. I figured it would be easier to just ask than reread through this monster again.

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 05:09 PM:

What is so different between using a real doll for companionship and sitting around posting comments on this site all evening?

Because it is possible to post comments to this site all evening.

It is impossible to use a doll for companionship. Can't happen, bunky. Requires a minimum of TWO personalities.

A cat, possibly. A piece of plastic, no.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 05:43 PM:

Well, Phoenician, I suppose those like Davecat have defined "companionship" in the only way they know how. Maybe they need therapy; maybe they're fine with it. I don't know. It seems odd to me, too, but... (at a loss and shrugs)

Medium Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:08 PM:

those like Davecat have defined "companionship" in the only way they know how.

Yes. And the point that Amanda was making way, way above this comment was that these men are not simply isolated, anomalous freaks. Rather, they're one extreme end of a continuum that has, at its other end, men who completely accept women as fellow human beings.

I think there are very few guys at that other end, frankly... the majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. It's the rare man in our society that doesn't objectify women in some way; the challenge is to move in the right direction. But unfortunately, so many prefer to sit where they are, and furiously defend their positions.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:22 PM:

Golly, but it's nice to be on vacation so I can respond straightaway.

Very well said, Medium Dave, very well said. What you describe is part of the human condition, I think -- and women are not so superior that we don't objectify men sometimes, only we express it differently.

It is also interesting that you mention a man's vociferous defense of his position. Women certainly do this as well, but even still, I have the question: Why is it that some men are so reluctant to see things differently? Is it individual? Is it endemic? Are men simply frustrated with the changes expected of them when their early socialization may not have caught up?

While with women, many of us can say that we're frustrated, and sick of the lopsided compromises to which we have been subject since the dim red dawn of time. But in 2005, is it not now more important to work together? Things are the way they are, yes? I don't know.

I realize I'm getting off-topic, but I am on vacation and otherwise have few people with whom I can speak in the abstract. :) So your thoughts are welcome. If necessary, an off-blog conversation (is that word?) is fine. Feel free to contact me via email.

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:29 PM:

Well, Phoenician, I suppose those like Davecat have defined "companionship" in the only way they know how.

Perhaps. But if someone defined "the sun" as "something that went around the earth" or "George Bush" as "the cleverest man on earth", they'd also get criticised for their delusions.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:46 PM:

HA! Good call re: your Bush comment. He certainly can't speak on his feet, can he? :)

Now, I'm not a complete relativist. And I've criticised Davecat to the extent that I think is fair. I think he's a bit immature in that he can't file away his experiences and learn from them, rather than steeping in them and isolating himself. Maybe he needs to figure out that not everyone can have a supermodel, as though that's the best you can get. I don't know.

But it's his business. And part of me feels badly for even offering my, ahem, wisdom on the issue. I know others have different ideas. Fine. I will say that I hope Davecat can view all these differing opinions, both harsh and soft, and grow a thicker skin.

Ultimately, my only concern in this case is that he is being *judged* by some as a terrible person, a misogynist -- that's different than criticism -- and I'm not sure he deserves it. That's all. He's just a dumb human, like the rest of us.

As for your sun comment, sheesh! Next thing I know you're going to tell me the earth is round or something crazy like that. Come on! :)

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:47 PM:

I don't know, maybe I'm taking this topic especially personally. Remember Amanda's post listing the flaws men she'd dated told her they felt she had? I'm reminded of that by this. I'm going through a breakup right now due to personality differences (not begging for sympathy or understanding ;)) and each defense (and there are many defenses, with some people repeating themselves over and over) of RD users is being read by me on some level as "OF COURSE robots and dolls are better than women like you, with your troublesome bodies and personalities. I can't believe you would think otherwise." It's an emotional reaction, but a reaction nonetheless.

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:51 PM:

Ultimately, my only concern in this case is that he is being *judged* by some as a terrible person, a misogynist -- that's different than criticism -- and I'm not sure he deserves it.

Honeydew, what about the people who are throwing around the term "misandrist" for those of us who think the dolls are creepy?

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:56 PM:

Annejumps, completely understood. Those who throw about terms like "misandrist" or worse are as guilty of judgment when it may not be called for. Absolutely. I'm an equal-opportunity finger-pointer. No worries about that!

noema [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 06:59 PM:

I don't think it would be possible, at this point, to add something novel to this thread at this point, but, what the hell.

A lot of virtual ink has been spilled in this thread over whether Davecat is a misogynist or not, or a sexist or not. I think, in some ways, the term 'misogynist' betrays a little in its etymology-- people see the 'mis' and assume it means some kind of categorical hatred- but many of the classic cases of misogyny in literature concerned men who resisted women and marriage because of paranoid fears of being lied to or cuckolded. Think Benedick in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing-- before Beatrice finally wins him over, his hang-up is a patent distrust of women. Given what Davecat has said, I think it's fair to call him a misogynist in this sense. It doesn't mean he hates all women, but the distrust of women in relationships is a well-defined species of what we call misogyny.

As to whether Davecat is a sexist or not, or a misogynist in the more modern sense of the term (as a dyed-in-the-woold women-hater), I'm less sure. I'm having trouble tracing out the moment when Davecat implied that the doll was 'better than' an organic woman, although that sentiment has been alluded to pretty frequently here. Assuming that he did think something of the sort, the question immediately begged would be, well, better for what? The scary sentiment is roughly that the sex doll is somehow better to have a relationship with than the genuine article, or that the sex doll is simply better, period (in the latter case, there is really no end to the questions one could raise). In this respect, it seems like a lot hangs on the word 'relationship'-- including the notion that what RealDolls is sympomatic of is an inherent or inculcated desire on the part of men to have submissive or even inanimate partners in relationships-- partners who don't cause trouble with their beliefs, desires, and other various mental states.

Without denying that that streak exists (I certainly think it does!), it's not totally clear to me how RealDolls clients who speak of having 'relationships with' their toys substantiates the claim. As people have mentioned-- you can, after a fashion, have a relationship with just about anything you are willing to impute intentional states upon. Children have imaginary friends and occasionally 'animated' stuffed animals, adults joke about their relationships with their computers, their professions, even posited aspects of themselves (as in, developing a positive relationship with your inner child-- crazy psychobabble, of course, but its matters not). The point that I want to make is that very few people, and I suspect Davecat is not among them, actually mistake these fictious relationships for the real thing. It seems to me that, to some extent, Davecat has created a character-- not unlike a character of a novelist or something like that-- and has chosen a doll to serve as *its* proxy-- rather than choosing the doll to serve as a proxy for Woman (with a capital 'W,' meaning, whoever he might otherwise have a relationship with), however his reports (given in response to specific questions, I'd wager) lend one that impression.

I am not trying to, nor would I, defend all of Davecat's expressed sentiments (as above, I think its correct to say he suffers from a streak of misogyny), but I'm not willing to make a judgment on whether this is a blatant case of sexism or not until I've determined whether Davecat makes a distinction, say, between the relationship he has with female friends, and that which he has with his doll, that cuts the same line as we would between our relationship with our spouse, and our relationship with the office Risograph machine. In the former case, the desires/beliefs/etc are imputed as real; whereas in the latter case, we recognize that the beliefs/desires are imputed as fiction.

Of course, if we were to discover that Davecat didn't make the analogous distinction, then we could conclude that his problem is not merely creepy fetishism-- it's genuine psychosis. I think mlaslocky's comments on this count are, graciously, telling.

So, critically, I think you need to confirm that Davecat and other similar RealDoll clients fail to make the relationship/fantasy-relationship distinction in order to charge that they take their dolls to be models of good relationship conduct. Because what I want out of a fantasy-relationship is conceivably *very* different from what I want out of a real relationship-- the whole comparison breaks down if the client acknowledges a qualitative difference in kinds of relationships. And in that case, it's more difficult to motivate the charge that having a 'relationship' with a sex doll actually smacks of sexism.

I, for one, suspect that if Davecat ever does venture to overcome his misogynistic distrust, he will discover that, as between the two kinds of relationship, there really is no comparison, even for the Neanderthal-- though I can't speak from experience, I have a hard time believing that a hunk of plastic makes for a better sex partner than a real live human being. For your modern homo sapiens sapiens, the quirks, differences of opinion, and mutual trust are what make the whole thing meaningful and satisfying in the first place.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:00 PM:

annejumps: ...and each defense (and there are many defenses, with some people repeating themselves over and over) of RD users is being read by me on some level as "OF COURSE robots and dolls are better than women like you, with your troublesome bodies and personalities. I can't believe you would think otherwise."

Well, I can only speak for myself, but the only viable defenses for doll owners I can think of are defenses purely of having/using the doll, which in and of itself is no worse than any of a hundred other things a person probably wouldn't want an article written about but does anyway. I can think of no viable defense, however, for what you describe--that is, preferring the doll over an actual woman. I can think of reasons, of course, but not defenses.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:10 PM:

I can't respond to Noema. The comment is too long and I'm not that smart. Where's my Michelob Ultra? :)

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:13 PM:

To clarify, I don't think all or even most men who get RDs necessarily prefer them to actual women. To be honest, I'm tired of thinking about it. But again, I'm not against the RDs themselves, even though I think they're creepy.

Phoenician in a time of Romans [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 07:46 PM:

But it's his business.

Honeydew, what he does in the privacy of his own home is his business. However, he went on Salon and came here and talked about his "relationship" with the $5,000 pseudo-woman. That makes criticism fair game.

There's a difference between tolerance and silence. I'm liberal - I'm more than willing to tolerate him screwing his doll as long as he doesn't do it in the street and frighten the horses. But if he stands up in public and talks about "relationships" and "companionship" then, by God, he better expect people telling him he's delusional.

zuzu [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 08:25 PM:

Nothing to add, really, except to note that the dolls are $6500, not $5000, and that this is now a post with 500 comments.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 08:26 PM:

To respond to a question high up about whether the men enjoyed the act of dressing the dolls/participating in being women (a la crossdressers) and the Salon letter stating that the story was "misandric" and "unsavory" in its need to judge and condemn men(or something to that effect), here goes (and sorry to be so late to respond):

Re: Dressing, I think that the dressing of the doll is part and parcel of Pygmalionism/agamatophilia but not necessarily part of the literal arousal (from what I observed). If you read the passage in Ovid's Metamorphoses closely, the dressing is there as well. I think that the idea of *creating* even the smallest detail of what the "mate" is wearing is simply part of the overall idea of control. But I think that participating in being a woman is also part of it, and the dressing up is not unlike a cross dresser's motivation of being able to experience the world as the other gender. Not in all cases, but in some.

Re: misandry/exposing my own feelings in the article, that was a tough call, and one that I went back and forth on with the several editors who were involved in the piece over the course of months. I was at war with myself while writing it and didn't know how much of that to let come through. On the one hand, I was very offended and disturbed by the popularity of a fake "ideal woman" with 34D breasts, but on the other, I felt tremendous empathy for the loneliness and the sense of alienation that some of these men clearly felt. And I felt like they were, in part, set up by a patriarchal society to want the "perfect" woman -- at the price of her actually being real. The bottom line was that all of the men I talked with in depth reported that they were *happier* once they had their dolls.

I think that it's a bit unrealistic to expect that in a story of this nature, written and edited by women, for personal feelings to not seep in, particularly in a publication like Salon that is known for allowing personal narrative to fuse with reportage. Repeatedly editors pushed me to infuse the story with more of what I felt personally, and I respect their call on that.

--ML

R. Mildred [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:31 PM:

I think that the idea of *creating* even the smallest detail of what the "mate" is wearing is simply part of the overall idea of control

Part of the trouble with the idea of Idoliphiliacs that has caused this HUGE thread in the first place is maybe that male control over women + sex is most often seen and experienced within the context of rape (hell it's practically the definition of rape), and that is going to set off the alarm bells of past experience for a lot of women.

noema [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 09:51 PM:

Sorry for the extra-long, uber-verbose, way too pretentious comment. I get carried away sometimes.

The upshot was, people seem to be inclined to view the RealDoll phenomena as smacking of a kind of sexism-- that people like Davecat are, in a way, betraying some desire for super-submissive, trouble-free sex partners. I think people are getting thrown by Davecat's use of the word 'relationship.' People will talk as if they have relationships- even very complicated relationships, with all kinds of inanimate objects-- but they'll recognize these aren't real relationships. Ditto authors- some may tell you they have relationships with their characters, but they recognize that their partners are fictitious. It sounds like Davecat recognizes and has developed a character associated with his sex-toy, which he, after the manner of authors and everday people, has a relationship with. I think you can only argue that he's betraying some desire for some super-submissive woman if you think he views his relationship with the dummy as being of the same kind of relationship as his relationship with, e.g., his female friends.

If he recognizes that the dummy's a dummy and people are people, that fantasy-relationships are different from real relationships, then I'm not sure it's fair to call Davecat's fiction sexist. People are very quick to jump to that conclusion, but I think that springs from a confusion about what Davecat means when he says he's in a relationship with his doll. I think he means about the same thing that I mean when I say, "The printer and I are having a bit of a tiff today..." or something like that. But I could be wrong, and he could be psychotic. Whoknows.

Agent Honeydew [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 13, 2005 11:23 PM:

Good points all, Phoenician. I had been thinking that terms like "misogynist" and "delusional" might make more out of it than it is. Or that it's not even really worth examining for we Real Human users, in a manner of speaking, of course. :)

On the other hand, I suspect that those Real Doll users -- those who feel as Davecat does -- would, deep down, prefer an actual human. I hate to talk out of turn, as it were, but I can't help but note that subtext. And thus, the truth hurts for them. So, open letter: Snap out of it, fellas.

There are lots of crappy women, but a lot of men suck, too. We all get screwed, male and female, and in many cases, screwed harder than we deserve. What can you do but move on... eventually and with great difficulty? Of course it's hard. But is it wise to discontinue your search for intimacy? Should you live in your shame and rejection so much that you cut yourself off completely? At some point, should you not try to be a bit more, um, well-adjusted? It's a tough road, and you've got a sure friend in your Real Doll to accompany you (and I don't mean that facetiously, though, yes, odd to the mainstream), so what do you have to lose? What's the worst that can happen? Someone says no?

Join the club! Welcome to the world of getting pulled over in the suburbs for a mere busted tail light, told you could "lose a little weight," carded but looking "great for your age," getting fired because you don't "fit in," wondering what gravity's doing to you and whether or not you're still worthwhile regardless of what your loved-ones say. We're all not perfectly well-adjusted, nor could we be; but we move on with spouses, partners, great friends or the closest thing to that. Give it a shot.

All right, I think I have betrayed myself. I do not deny my opinion -- maybe Davecat, et al., are fine they way they are, and so be it, and so back off -- but I desperately want everyone to enjoy the joy and shite of human relationships. I guess I hope Davecat is reading.

And I may be preaching to the choir; my libertarian brethern portray themselves often as machines so often (bootstrap-types, you know) that I am lost. Apologies. In another post I mentioned that I like Skynyrd in spite of myself, and enjoy the first Three Doors Down album while I'm cooking, so what do you expect? Not much, really.

Agent Honeydew

reborn426 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 12:12 AM:

I just wanted to get the last word.................

misterniceguy1960 [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 03:48 AM:

"I'd rather have a paper doll to call my own, than a fickle-minded real-live gal!"

Is "Paper Doll" really a sexist song, though? The guy isn't exactly covering himself in glory, admittign that he's switching to fantasy because he can't handle the reality.

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 08:26 AM:

I've been away for the holiday, so here's the first of a series

Given I would have the EXACT same response if the genders were reversed (it was a girl with a guy doll) how can it by "misogyny"?

Two answers come to mind:
If the genders were reversed,
1) it wouldn't be misogyny, but it might be misandry, and besides
2) it wouldn't fit neatly into generation upon generation* of women treating men like objects, because that hasn't happened.

*That Yom Kippur liturgy gets into your bones after a while

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 08:27 AM:

Anyone with doubts about their possibilities with someone of the opposite gender is now a misogynist or a mishomonist? (what is the technical term for a man hater, help me out here?)

Are you trying to pull some "fish have no word for water" shit?

"Misogyny" means "hatred of women."

What do "sarcophagus," "pandemonium," "anti-Semite," and "homophobia" mean?

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 08:28 AM:

According to both the article and the (purported) author of the article, [Davecat] says he is still open to the possibility of a real relationship.

That's like saying "well, some of my best friends are {whatever}, but ..."

Hershele Ostropoler [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 08:30 AM:

I'm having trouble tracing out the moment when Davecat implied that the doll was 'better than' an organic woman

Well, probably around the point where he decided to have a "relationship" with a piece of fucking plastic because he heard a rumor that a woman lied once.

Ignatius [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 09:14 AM:

mlaslocky: Thanks for responding (it was my question about dressing the dolls). Interesting stuff.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 14, 2005 11:29 AM:

Ignatius,
On further thought re: dressing the dolls, how they were dressed actually informed what I saw as a difference between two distinct groups -- what I called "the husbands" versus "the hobbyists." The husbands -- a tiny percentage of the whole, at least from what I could tell -- dressed their dolls in relatively normal clothing, or at least clothing that expressed some sort of individuality -- Sidore as a goth, other dolls dressed in 1940s-style cardigans and skirts, etc. The hobbyists generally dressed their dolls exclusively in what one might associate with a prostitute/street walker, with little or no expression of personality or individuality.

Correctly or incorrectly, that might have informed my sense of just how "misogynist" the men were on a case by case basis.

--ML


--ML

flawedplan [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 15, 2005 01:51 AM:

Wookiemonster pleads we show her where any of us are, "interfering in people's private and individual lives".

"I'm sorry, but anyone who claims to be "allergic" to an entire gender is really, really fucked up and needs some serious psychiatric help....I think people should be treated for their mental illnesses and not indulged."

The fact is your subjective and tedious moral sensibilities are offended, and there's fuckall you can do about it, so you invoke psychiatric social control to buttress your coercive inclinations. But, wait. This is what the enforcer had to say:

"Dr. Douglas Tucker, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of California San Francisco's Department of Psychiatry who specializes in treating sexual offenders, says the pro-doll arguments are not off-base. Broadly speaking, intercourse with a love doll doesn't signal anything particularly wrong or unhealthy, and arousal by such a lifelike depiction of a beautiful nude woman is natural."

"Go ahead, call me judgemental." (you are judgmental, but happily, powerless). "I also think schizophrenics should be given medication and counseling for their mental problems instead of saying, "Well, they seem perfectly happy with their delusions. Why not let them be?"

GIVEN medication? GIVEN counseling? How Generous, what a friend psych patients have, giving counseling and medication, warms the cockles of my heart.

FORCE, COMPULSION, INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, are you that naive, or just too disingenuous to acknowledge the terms you've avoided throughout this thread...


mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 15, 2005 02:08 PM:

I realize that everyone is completely exhausted by this thread at this point, but for those of you who are interested, a longer version of the story, which might answer some of your questions and raise some different issues, is posted here:

http://www.saltmag.net/display.php?article_id=240&author;_id=94

and available there as a PDF. There is of course some repetition, but lots more detail in it.

--ML

annejumps [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 15, 2005 03:02 PM:

Thanks, ML. I don't recall the "3,000 dolls sold, 6 of which were the male doll model" detail having been in the Salon article. I liked the tone and details of the longer article better.

mlaslocky [TypeKey Profile Page] said on October 15, 2005 03:11 PM:

Thanks for reading. I think that detail was in the Salon version at some point but got perhaps got cut in the end.

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?