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
8 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.
Post a Comment