Honey Pie from California is a place. on Vimeo.
Real Dolls certainly give us feminists plenty to be bothered about, but when watching this video, the thing that probably bothered me the most is when the guy explained that when he started making these things, he got lots of questions about whether they were "anatomically correct", which is why they ended up with fuckable vaginas. And it struck me -- why, in our culture, does the term "anatomically correct" automatically equal genitals? When someone uses that term, we know exactly what they're talking about. (Sort of like how we know what the term "legal" is supposed to mean, when we're referring to young girls. Shudder.)
Shouldn't "anatomically correct" also refer to working brains? Central nervous systems? Hearts, lungs, bones, pores, blood cells, metabolism, digestion? These dolls, of course, have none of these things, but as long as they're "anatomically correct" in the way that serves the penises of the men who buy them, that's all that matters.
Posts
19 comments:
I'm dying to look at the Real Dolls site more but got worried about browsing it at work after 5 minutes of composing a male doll for myself.
I'd be interested in reading some feminist perspectives on them, if you can think of anything off the top of your head.
On one hand, I hate their supposed perfection and the idea that some guy out there isn't dating women because he can't find one that compares to his Real Doll. On the other hand, if I'm a woman who's tired of dating creeps and doesn't want to lower myself to have sex with one of them, this is awesome.
I kind of want to get some just to sit on my couch, to be honest.
Also, apparently there are also hermaphrodite dolls! Now that's the kind of anatomically correct I can get behind.
Hmmm. Feminist blogs had a lot to say about them around the time everybody was finding out about them. Like, months before Lars and the Real Girl ever came out. If you go to feministing.com and search for "Real Dolls", and you'll probably find some stuff.
I think one of the creepiest things about them is that they aren't marketed as plain old sex toys, but we're supposed to understand that they provide some sort of actual sense of companionship to tons of men. And it's weird that a big part of "companionship" is sex. If we didn't live in a culture that already objectified women so much, it would be a different story.
My understanding is that various feminist groups are working in the US and other countries to get Real Dolls/sexbots banned. Doing research on this led me to this blog post.
Unapologetically Mundane,
Since you are unsure of your own feelings, the best answer would probably be to not ban Real Dolls and to allow people to own their own sexuality and make their own decisions. Feminists tend to apply this thinking to abortion and same-sex marriage, why not apply it to the usage of Real Dolls?
UM said: "On one hand, I hate their supposed perfection and the idea that some guy out there isn't dating women because he can't find one that compares to his Real Doll. On the other hand, if I'm a woman who's tired of dating creeps and doesn't want to lower myself to have sex with one of them, this is awesome."
Bwahahahaaha!!
Double standard much!?
This adds up to:
"Man want Real Doll!? BAD! Man should be making himself useful to a woman!"
"Woman want Real Doll!? GOOD! Woman should be free to pleasure herself without dealing with men!"
Hypocrisy much!?
I stumbled upon this trying to research an strangely lost topic: getting a doll or dolls for my daughter that are not dressed like hookers, act dumb, are 10 feet tall, and weigh 90lbs. It's really, really impossible. There are baby dolls, Barbies and those terrifying new additions Bratz. But everything is being sexualized when it comes to girl stuff: costumes, shows on tv, movies- it's as if there was never a feminist movement at all. Broaching the topic of porn on my FB was a serious no comment-er. No one wants to admit it's becoming a problem on the internet because it's a billion dollar industry with lots of power. I look at this and I see something else disturbing again: I'm able to understand that this Real Doll may be supposedly helping some men as the justification by it's creator for creating it, however, I find exception in the fact that it is not okay to normalize something that really isn't normal. Normal is finding a living and breathing person for sexual relations- or companionship. Even getting a dog seems far more "normal" than this could ever be. Yes, anyone should have the right to choose this as an option, certainly, but why people are busy discussing whether this is normal or not we have men still utilizing the idea that socially they are so unattractive or incapable of having a female companion we are clearly missing the mission behind creating a more socially stable society. We need to help people by educating them about their sexuality and making women aware that they have the power to take their power back! PS: I'm a person who used to believe that liberal meant you let people do whatever they want no matter what as long as it didn't hurt anyone, but I realize now that this train of thought creates a damning social narrative useful in capitalist societies where you have artists , while exercising a need to be creative, also need to make a living and utilize these excuses for their cultivation of ideas which they can make normal. I even once watched the film, The People Vs. Larry Flynt and had no idea until later that I was witnessing the extension of the catastrophe of the 1950s bringing about Playboy. We are animals whose brains are very much affected by what we are stimulated by externally- men who use the Real Doll are not being helped- they are being sold on the idea that they will feel better if they get one.
And it struck me -- why, in our culture, does the term "anatomically correct" automatically equal genitals?
Of course it does, do you think people are getting these dolls for any other reason? Seriously.
Shouldn't "anatomically correct" also refer to working brains? Central nervous systems? Hearts, lungs, bones, pores, blood cells, metabolism, digestion? These dolls, of course, have none of these things, but as long as they're "anatomically correct".
First off, we have yet to prefect that technology, and second, if we did put all those anatomically correct things in the doll, women would be bitching about how they are being replaced.
Honestly I have to agree with Anonymous who talked of a double standard. To further illustrate, women can't stand the idea of losing some sort of control over men, but rather they want men to put up with all their nagging and abuse they dish out. But women are perfectly within their right to replace the men in their lives if they feel like there are no decent men to date.
Honestly, with all the crap that men have to put up with from selfish, entitled, bitch princesses, it is any wonder then why men create substitutes that are safer and better alternatives?
I'm interested in either doll. If only I was closer. Doll looks kinda jolly.
Well, I am not going to apologize for wanting or buying a Real Doll. It does not matter what my parents, relatives, or other people in general say.
I love Real Dolls. They look realistic and almost feel realistic. They are sexy. They can do whatever I want them to do whenever and wherever. They are indeed less complicated than some people are. I may find them better to take care than I do with even pet(s).
you know have the women hatting these things ever wondered if Misadristic feminists are the very reason that these dolls exist?
The current generation of males is being driven away towards this because of misandry feminism is no longer about equality.
What happens when sex-androids Can do everything you can With out bitching and nagging? Cost less then your leach ass? and don't suffer from generations of misadristic degenerative cultural brain washing? OOOOOH and have Built in 3g wifi to Check the scores on my favourite sports?
bitches are jealous that they have come across a product they can not compete with. Why would a guy wanna date a psycho feminist bitch where there are options that are much more pleasant?
The feminazi responce to such product displays a repeating trend that, 1) the are sexist 2) they view men as walking money bags and shopping bag transportation units.
so when you get down to it you feminazi's are worse then misogynists ever were wanting to Control male sexuality like that of a slaves. by providing a suffering free option for companion ship real dolls and the much better sex andriods provide freedom from Feminazi oppression
trying to inject some reason into the estrogen nut house
Naging psycho bitch who will end up costing me 100's of thousands of dollars before i die... pile of silicone... 6000 dollars...
sounds like a bargan
Why do you even care what certain men do with the money they earned? So what if they have certain sexual fantasies that bitches like you can't (or more likely simply won't) fulfill? Go choke on a dick.
The word is that the makers of Real Dolls are working on a new product which is more realistically suited to the desires of most women. It's a silicone penis attached to an ATM machine.
They haven't quite worked out how to get it to to all of the work in bed or to magically refill itself with money once a week, but they are taking pre-orders. My ex-wife has already signed up for one.
Feminists should be happy, they can finally be rid of men. The most annoying aspect of feminism to me is that it's always trying to focus on changing men's preferences. "Men don't like fat women? Lets try to force them to" ... It's like a guy saying women need to be attracted to unconfident men.
I am no troll, I am literally a male model, and I am financially independent from a business i started. Not wealthy , but I don't have to work. A lot of women like me, but frankly with the marriage laws, and all shit advice women get on how to behave, feminism etc. I am frankly considering the real doll as a real option if they make them a little more realistic . I do want kids though, so maybe I will do some surrogate option.
Btw I was raised by a feminist. Love my mom, but that is an insane religion (feminism)
To me, it seems that feminist women don't feel that a guy should enjoy a doll in this manner not because they think its icky. But because to them the guy doesn't simply have that right. Let me explain.
Take the typical loser-type guy who bombs with women. A woman sees this guy as below her on a social level. She doesn't want him talking to her, she doesn't want other people to see him interacting with her. She basically wants nothing to do with the guy. Let the pathetic guy be creepy with his Playboy mags and his jar of hand lotion because that is all he's good for in her eyes.
Well, now he has the option to get a hold of one of these dolls. Sure, the guy and his love doll can't go on romantic moonlight walks, go to the movies together, go out dancing together on a Saturday night, or have any type of interaction whatsoever.
But, the doll can give him what the feminist feels he doesn't deserve...a sexual experience with something that resembles a woman who is on a higher status level as the feminist is. After all, they are making these dolls to be perfect in form and appearance. How dare he cheat nature and jump right up to having a sexual experience that he wouldn't otherwise deserve? After all, he is an awkward loser who she would otherwise ignore entirely, right?
This man who she instinctively looks down upon is getting pleasure that she feels should only be experienced by a man she feels is worthy of having that experience.
So resentment toward the existence of these dolls develops. Resentment toward the creator of these dolls develops. How dare these men (who she would otherwise not give the time of day to) have the nerve to seek and get pleasure from something that so much resembles a woman who is of a higher social status than her?
She's appalled by that fact, and despite the fact that it is none of her business whatsoever what a guy does in the bedroom of his home if it isn't hurting anybody else, she takes a stand against the existence and manufacture of these dolls. She wants to see the awkward losers to go back to the Hustler magazines, the lotion, and the silent admiration they have of her as a female on a higher social status as they are. She wants them in their place, and it irks her that these dolls are giving them the feeling and experience that they are on a higher status level than they actually are.
She doesn't realize that the very fact that she feels this way is one of the main reasons that these dolls are so popular in the first place.
I do not own one of these, but I can see the temptation to have even at least a fake female to cuddle with. I am nearing 43, and because of birth defects to my hands, every woman I have shown any feelings toward has rejected me outright, simply because I do not have perfectly formed hands. The ONLY variance has been some were gentle and had the decency to at least be conscious of the fact they were rejecting someone over shallow physical shortcomings, and others were cruel and callous. But in the end, every female I made myself vulnerable to has shot me down. So please, please forgive me if I have very little empathy for your concerns. Women are every bit as shallow as men, neither gender is perfect. And if these dolls give some lonely guys like me some comfort they would otherwise not have, then leave them alone.
I can't help but feel threatened by these. Why would a man deal with me when at times I can be fickle, bitchy, disagreeable, jealous, possessive, needy, etc.? But then I remember that the purpose of sex is to produce children, and sex as recreation is highly overvalued in our society. Any man who chooses one of these dolls is stupid. Not only am I beautiful and sexy, but I'm smart, funny, and attentive. I can provide for him domestically and emotionally, even financially if needed. I can bear his children. I can make memories and have fun with him. I can be his best friend. I don't understand how one of these dolls could EVER make a person laugh like I could. Women needn't feel threatened in any way by these dolls, because the only men who are interested in buying them (other than those who have tons of money to spend on them solely as a sex toy, or even for an artist for figure drawing I can understand) are human beings who have no interest in interacting with other humans on a deeper level. I've been with guys who had the "tools" and the "moves," but the best sex I ever had was with a poorly-endowed virgin because I loved him so much. People who buy these dolls for companionship purposes are clearly missing the point.
Women....
You seriously need to stop reading so much into things like this. In most cases I can almost guarantee that any guy buying one of these has done it either just for fun, or because women always go on with shit like this. Odds are, the poor guy has been either rejected or ignored by women his whole life and so turns to these dolls as an alternative, not because he thinks women should look like the dolls, but because women continually reject him because he fails to meet THEIR preconceived ideas of the perfect man. Seriously take a look at your own behaviour before pointing fingers.
Tracey, I'm sorry, but first of all you shouldn't presume to speak for "feminists" or feminism. There is no consensus on what they mean. About the only common denominator is that women shouldn't be second class to men. I'll suggest that the rest of it is wide open.
Which means that if some women - even feminist women - want to "objectify" some or all of their sexual partners, they are perfectly free to do so and shouldn't have to worry about other "feminists" judging them. Not all people consider sex to be a sacred act nor even necessarily an act of "love." Stop feeling "bothered" by the glorious variety of humanity and learn to live and let live.
Second, why are you complaining about clear language? If everyone understands that "anatomically correct" refers to genitals, especially when the context is a sex doll, why does the clarity of the term bother you? What term would you prefer to use? Moreover, anatomically correct does not always refer to genitals or sex. For example, in breast reconstruction surgery it denotes a "natural" breast, and the term is also used with various prosthetics. Perhaps one day, when science has advanced enough to create "working brains," we will be able to talk about "anatomicallly correct brains." But until that day, Tracey, it doesn't make sense to say that we "should" refer to it.
You talk about the way that anatomically correct dolls can serve penises. Being a feminist who believes in equality (I assume), do you have equally harsh and judgmental words for women who enjoy anatomically correct sex toys?
Live and let live, Tracey, and stop giving feminism a bad name. The percentage of people who want sex dolls is a drop in the proverbial ocean, so even if it bothers you it's unlikely you'll ever meet, let alone date anyone who has one. A feminist could more productively get bothered by more common and serious problems, like child poverty and hunger? :-)
Post a Comment