The newest in the evolution of sex dolls is Roxxxy. She can talk and has the ability to download different personalities.
To some men, she might seem like the perfect woman: She's a willowy 5 feet 7 and 120 pounds. She'll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she'll have sex whenever you please -- as long as her battery doesn't run out.Meet Roxxxy, who may be the world's most sophisticated talking female sex robot. For $7,000, she's all yours.
"She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else," said her inventor, Douglas Hines, who unveiled Roxxxy last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada.
For some men, the perfect woman is one you can control, have sex with whenever you want and in a perfect world, vacuums and cooks. Those men are what we call misogynists.
And does anyone buy these dolls?
"Is this a viable product? Yes," said Sherri Shaulis, an editor at Adult Video News, a trade magazine for the pornographic industry. "There's a market for it. Granted, it's a very small market."Maybe not. TrueCompanion claims that more than 4,000 men have placed pre-orders for Roxxxy robots, and another 20,000 or so have requested information about the product. TrueCompanion also is developing a male sex robot, named Rocky.
Now don't get me wrong, I am all for artificial intelligence and all its potential explorations and I am all for sex toys and their progressions, but something about men pre-ordering talking sex robots just seems sad. My friend Mervyn just mentioned that these toys are generally created for people that don't want to interact with people and I would probably go as far as to say, are unable to effectively interact with women. I feel bad for some of these guys lining up to buy talking sex robots and I think it is connected to the pressure and low self-esteem that people feel around effectively finding sexual partners. On the other hand, if your ideal woman is someone who talks about whatever you want her to and has sex whenever you want her to, then it is better you subject a robot to this treatment than a person. And what does it say about the perception of women's sexuality as expendable and manufacture-able? Would there be a market for male sex robots?
Stephen Colbert has more to say about this than I.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: As If Sex Dolls Weren't Enough Creepy, Now There is One That Talks.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18127
Why does CNN need to lead the story with the "perfect woman" schtick? How about, "to some men, it might seem like the perfect masturbation appliance." They refer to the thing as a "she" instead of "it". The reporter just buys into the whole myth.
Two points:
1) This is like the third or fourth post on this particular doll. It's getting silly.
2) If someone wants to drop four grand in order to have hot monkey sex with a lump of silicon that can only spout canned phrases, then good luck to them. They're not harming anyone. (there's a joke in that first sentence, but I can't find the punchline)
1) hear hear!!! What's up with that?
2) Though I think you could have phrased this less dismissively I pretty much agree.
That's for reading 90% of my mind.
I agree about the "not hurting anyone else" comment.
I would rather for these guys to have sex with a fake blow up sex robot than to have sex with a real prostitute and possibly hurt or abuse her in the process.
Silicone. Silicone rubber. Silicon is a metalloid chemical element.
Ouch...
So? We're made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, that doesn't mean people feel like diamonds and gas.
I don't mean to be rude or ungrateful for the work that everyone involved puts into Feministing but I have to ask: Do the feministing editors actually read their own community forum? There have been at least two very active threads full of vigorous debate on this story. Now the whole discussion starts again here...
Anything for page hits, I guess.
We generally try to link to community posts that have covered subjects, but obviously that doesn't always happen - we'll try to do better. And yes, we read the community forum. No, it's not for page views.
"To some men, she might seem like the perfect woman: She's a willowy 5 feet 7 and 120 pounds. She'll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she'll have sex whenever you please -- as long as her battery doesn't run out. "
This needs to be rewritten.
"To some misogynists, she might seem like the "perfect" woman: Shorter than him as to not be intimidating, and definitely not even a pound overweight, because that'd be hideous. She'll chat with you endlessly about YOUR interests, since women don't have interests of their own and you're the center of the stage. She'll have sex whenever you please, since that's all women are good for after all! None of that pesky "foreplay" or "romance" are required!"
I think there'd be a market for male sex robots, perhaps even more so, since women are shamed to hate their bodies or hate the fact that they're sexual beings. The shame and alienation explained by a friend when she went into a sex toy store that was filled with only men who eyed her made me stay away from them myself.
They're big in Japan as well, those sex dolls, but very few are talking or mechanical ones. Japan has sex dolls made to look like little girls, too, which is disturbing on more levels than I ever want to think about.
If she weren't a woman programmed to do whatever men tell her to, I'd say this was some Skynet shit goin on.
"I feel bad for some of these guys..."
really?
What is being said in this statement of pity for the sex doll/robot consumer? We are supposed to feel bad because of an assumption that these consumers are people who don't know how to navigate human interaction?
At the end of the day women's sexualized bodies (even if it is a representation) are for sale, to control and penetrate as one pleases.
I would suggest that critical thinking about what this signifies for our culture is more important that pity for the assumed characteristics of the potential consumer.
"We are supposed to feel bad because of an assumption that these consumers are people who don't know how to navigate human interaction?"
Actually, yes. The fact is, there are a lot of people who simply cannot have access to those experiences (sexual and just intimate) that many people take for granted. These dolls are definitely problematic on many levels (why do they all look the same? Why are they being described as "the perfect woman").
That said, I can't help but think that there's a positive side to this. I mean I'd much rather have these (probably) anti-social, (possibly) super-misogynistic men get off with a doll than with one of my friends or a sex worker.
I agree—and I'm shocked at all the vitriol directed at the (imagined) consumers of these dolls. Calling them misogynists seems extreme and entirely unwarranted. Why does the idea that they hate and want to control all women (read: living, breathing human beings, who are entirely distinct from dolls) seem more plausible than the possibility that they are social awkward, cripplingly insecure, and are desperate to alleviate their loneliness?
This kind of reaction really frustrates me...feminism should be not incompatible with compassion. No actual women are harmed by the existence of these dolls. And as lucierohan points out, they may actually be spared, in a way, from having to deal with advances from men who don't understand how to interact with other people positively. They are basically sophisticated sex toys, and I thought this particular community was above going down the sex toys=deviancy route.
They're described as "the perfect woman" because if they discribed them as a "a somewhat creapy manaquin that you can put your penis in" the sales would drop off somewhat.
They all look the same because they're mass produced and that brings down costs.
To assume that the guys who buy these are misogynists is quite a step to take. Sex dolls, are a product with mass market appeal, but too high a price tag to be mass market. Sex dolls that talk to you and are supposed to be a companion are likely being purchased by very lonely guys with poor social skills. Maybe they respect women but they're just too ugly or awkward to attract them. If a talking sex doll is the best that they think they can do in terms of companionship, piling on some judgment and condescension is just mean.
The "perfect woman" stuff, that's CNN. I don't see that wording on the True Companion web site.
Good-- now those kinds of men are out of the dating pool.
exactly! I wouldn't waste my time dating a creepy, sad loser who would waste $$$ on a robot sex doll, and neither would the majority of women.
Other way 'round. People give up on human interaction and look for substitutes because people like you call them creepy, sad losers.
I totally agree with this. The comments were actually very triggering for me since I used to feel like one of these socially inept creeps referred to.
This comment's sort of ignorant and mean - I'd bet that there are people who would use this product who don't have the social ability to be in the dating pool at all, whether it stems from a disability or other issues.
I really do stand by the idea that people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights/safety.
In this case, I do have to wonder what expectations the men who buy these dolls have. I wonder why you'd want a talking sex robot but not a real human being to interact with. I am curious if a well-adjusted person would need such an item.
There seems to be a little bit of a stigma for men to have sex toys in general (small price to pay for privilege), but I can't help but get a creepy "there-may-or-may-not-be-a-dead-body-in-this-guy's-basement" feeling about someone who would want such an interactive, lifelike toy but not actual interaction with a person. (this may be related to all the Forensics shows I watch).
I can't help but wonder if someone wouldn't eventually blur the lines of what is and what is not an acceptable way to treat human women.
However..I am not the sex police. Just because I think something is weird doesn't mean that someone else can't do it. Some people like to be peed on for pete's sake. It's just not for me. I'd never be with someone who had one of these robots/dolls, but that's me. They can live their lives how they want, and maybe it is better someone who "has to" have this doll doesn't interact with real women. Maybe they are anti social or very shy. Maybe they have had a lot of rejection. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions assuming such things. Who am I to tell someone they can't do something like have a sex doll? They aren't abusing anyone, they aren't raping anyone, and they have a right to be sexual like all of us do.
I suspect that a lot of these guys are not well adjusted at all - which is why they have to go to the trouble of spending $ 7,000 on a life sized sex toy.
Our patriarchal society expects men to be the aggressors in personal relationships and to always make the first move - not every man is emotionally or psychologically able to do that.
This doesn't necessarily make them bad people - but, as a practical matter, it can (and often does) make them people who don't get to have partnered sex.
Considering that the same patriarchy that mandates that men be sexually aggressive also stigmatizes men who are not successful in getting a partner to have sex with, and you can imagine why a man (or, actually, 4,000 men, based on the sales figures cited in the article) might go to the extreme of buying one of these sex dolls.
Objection. Asked and answered.
But, to reiterate -- I have no problem with sex toys or masturbatory aids, no matter how complicated or technologically advanced. These are designed to be used either in privacy, or with a couple as a sex aid. It is a fantasy, and really nobody's business at all.
No, it isn't representative of a real woman ... but dildos aren't representative of real men either (in size, vibrate-ability, or staying power). The fact that the doll is responsive at all makes it more representative of an actual woman than is a fabricated vagina.
There is also a "no harm, no foul" element to this ... if the majority of users are in fact misogynists, they're still not hurting anyone. It is probably preferable that they take their misogyny out on a fake woman than a real one. The objectification of an object is not technically problematic -- and the more eccentric realdoll owners are likely more guilty of personifying an object rather than objectifying anything.
These would certainly be useful for people, men and women, misogynist and otherwise, who, for whatever reason, are incapable of having a relationship with a real woman.
kbz
So. Creepy. Looking. Did they model the robot's looks off a barbie doll, cuz that doesn't even look like a real human...
It's . . . not a real human . . .
Reminds me of the Stepford Wives. Here's some related videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zUWOeNfa6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALfDidqw8qk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3YuEpQyt4Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Muhrd0OvM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDMRmVp_iw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evs2LwAbSLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYVh9AhtLk
Enjoy
1) Why is this misogynistic? So men want to have sex with a doll and talk about sports to it afterwards. I hardly see this as "women hating". What if the man has a hard time dating or finding companionship? Shouldn't he be able to have an alternative to release his sexual urges?
We don't call men that buy Roomba's misogynistic because they are using a machine to vacuum their floors. Why should they be called misogynistic for having sex with a talking robot?
There seems to be this notion that using sex dolls/dildos/etc.. is only healthy when used to supplement sex. I don't see anything damning or misogynistic with people using these dolls as a replacement.
Penetrable representations of women and Roomba vacuums are not the same. That is why you wouldn't call a man who buys a Roomba a misogynist.
There's definitely a market for male sex robots if they're anything like Chester 5000 (NSFW).
VERT!
I LOVE you for this link!
I have a new favorite comic, lol!
Men ordering talking sex robots isn't sad. It's disgusting. Only rampant misogynists would even think of buying one. For that matter, only a rampant misogynist would build one, "She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else." Yeah, that only works if you only think women are good for cooking, cleaning, and fucking. If you think women are, you know, people, than "everything else" would need to include holding conversations and outside interests. A fleshlight is fine if all you want is an artificial vagina for masturbating. This thing is for men who hate women and wouldn't have sex with them if they could avoid it. This is evidenced by the fact that one of the "personalities" you can download is "Rape Victim" so you can fantasize about raping the thing.
You said: "Only rampant misogynists would even think of buying one."
I'm extremely offended at this and some of the other comments on here condemning this so much.
Why would someone who wants this product be a misogynist? To help answer - guess what - I'm a woman and for years I WISHED such a product like this existed (a male version obviously). Not everyone has the privilage of being desirable and having relationships with people they want to have relationships with. Not everyone has the prilivage to develop "real" relationships with those of the opposite sex.
What about people with disabilities? What about people with mental illnesses or social disorders? What about the scientist who gets deployed to the Arctic or in space for a few months away from all human contact? What about the couple who wants a 3-some but doesn't want the risks/hassle associated with picking up a stranger?
And what about the people who have no interest in relationships with others. Those people are not as uncommon as you think - and it IS a feminist issue to defend these people. Alot of women on this forum have expressed this position. Should they be denied all sexual agency? WHY? Answer me why.
Finally all I can say is this - this is a body autonomy issue. People have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies as long as they don't DIRECTLY hurt anyone else in the process. We rigourously defend the right to have whatever sex you want in this regard, whether it's BDSM, gay sex, etc.
Saying people aren't allowed to have sex with robots/sex dolls or that those that do are sick, twisted, misygonist assholes is EXACTLY the same as saying that people who sex before marriage are wrong or that PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX WHO HAVE SEX IS WRONG. It's the EXACT SAME!
In all cases you are policing what others do with their bodies when what they are doing has no impact on you. IT'S WRONG and it disapoints me to see such positions on a feminist forum.
I get what you're saying, and surely it is wrong to call someone who legitimately cannot interact with other human beings sexually, or just do not want the complications that can bring about, a chauvinist. I'm with you on that.
But when I read an article that claims a doll is like "the perfect woman" that's going too far, and yes, DOES represent misogynist values. Ok. So that's just the reporting, one might reply..
Leave the reporting aside and go back to what the INVENTOR of the product said: "She doesn't cook or vacuum, but she does just about everything else." Now, I don't know how you chose to interpret that, but I know of precious few people who expect their sex toys to cook or clean for them. There are, however, quite a few men who like women to do that.
When you take the way the product is marketed to men into account, it's not SUCH a leap to call it out as representative of a chauvinist culture. Now, is that the ONLY purpose for these dolls? Of course not, but you can't ignore that side of the coin.
I think it's fair to critique some of the comments made about it and perhaps some of the consumers of such a product.
But that is entirely different then writing off everyone who would buy such a product.
A hammer is good if I use it to build a house but bad if I use it to whack someone in the head. But it's not the hammer that is to blame.
You can't bring a sex robot into space. It costs about $2000/lb minimum to lauch something into orbit. Noboby's paying a quarter of a million dollars to launch a sexbot into space.
And that's a good thing or else WTF CYLONS!
When sexbot technology approaches Tricia Helfer, I'll be worried/intrigued. For the next few centuries, however, sexbots will just be silly and the Committee for the Prevention of Vice here's outraged whining even sillier.
Ok, the way the creator described the robot can be labeled misogynistic but I am talking about the actual act of having sex with a sex robot.
The act of sex with the robot and how people are describing it are two different debates and arguments.
There are a few companies that make both male and female sex robots. Is it then fair to say they are misandrist as well as misogynist?
What is your rationale for saying that dildos/fleshlights are ok...but using an actual representation of a person is somehow disgusting?
Sex robots are just a tool for sexual release. A man could buy a fleshlight and just use it for his sexual pleasure. He may also completely take himself out of the dating/marriage/relationship pool because the fleshlight satisfies his needs.
I also don't buy the "its misogynistic because it has a rape victim personality". People have sexual fantasies and "rape fantasies" are just one of them. There are countless men that like to be dominated by women in bed and there are women that like to role play with rape fantasies with their partners.
I don't really read the community posts (maybe I should start! it sounds interesting) so I apologize if this has already been said...
I think what is at the heart of this issue is that some men see their "perfect woman" as one who is submissive and has no opinion of her own. That, and the way things like this are reported. A sex doll is NOT a woman.
Should these things be banned? Of course not. Are these dolls representative of a patriarchal, kind of sick part of society? Well, when referred to as the "perfect woman", I think yes. Sure, there may be some men (or women, who knows) who enjoy these dolls because they have trouble with sexual interaction with women. But I think it's pretty clear when the creator says "she doesn't vacuum or cook" what his intent with this doll is. I don't know.
Sure, people can do whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes those desires are born out of chauvinism and patriarchy.
You also say: "Sure, there may be some men (or women, who knows) who enjoy these dolls"
Honestly why are you assuming women wouldn't be interested in a product like this? I don't understand at all. I think you'd be surprised how many women would. Hell I'm interested in it. What stops me is the pricetag mainly, and secondly that I'm married. But if was more affordable and I ever got divorced? Damn right I'd be interested.
This whole assumption that everyone has to have a relationship with someone sickens me. It's the same drivel we've fought against for years and now suddenly some are perpetuating it? I don't get it. Why isn't it acceptable for people to decide they don't want a real relationship with anyone? Or for people to supplement their lives with something like this, say in between partners or in addition to partners?
I don't assume that people have to have relationships. That wasn't my point. My point is that the guy creating the dolls is a chauvinist, and by extension, so are SOME of the people who are buying his product. I didn't say all the people. And the reason I put women as a demographic in the parentheses is because that is most likely not the intended target market for this specific sex doll.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone is the same. But I'm not going to ignore that there IS a demographic out there that likes it when their women agree with them all the time, who agree to have sex all the time, and that that desire is inherently chauvinist. And that this doll fulfills a chauvinist expectation.
I'm pretty sure my girlfriend would love it if I wanted to have sex exactly when she does and not when she doesn't. I should probably go lecture her about "chauvinism" eh? In a respectful relationship each partner's needs are as out of sync with the other's as possible, so you get to show patience.
In a perfect world, it would be great if my partner only wanted to have sex when I did, and vice versa ... But that will never happen, and expecting someone to want to have sex when you do all the time is dangerous. Wanting it, fine. Anyone can want that all they wish, I suppose. But I don't get why encouraging people to live in a fantasy world is such a good thing, though. Healthy relationships are full of give and take. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Sexual compatibility is important, but I'm not going to feel bad for not wanting to have sex when my boyfriend wants to have sex.
Sex dolls for sexual pleasure, and even so someone is not lonely, is fine I guess. But let's not pretend for a second that there aren't men who love the idea of a little automaton they can control and will do whatever they say. Sorry, but my dream partner is not an automaton. I think the idea is creepy. Maybe if the robot had some sort of agency... but then that would make the robot too "human" for some people's comfort zones I guess.
Two real people will never have exactly the same desires. Therefore, they should build a sexbot that doesn't want to have sex when you want to, and wants to have it when you don't? Brilliant.
I bet Roxy doesn't get colds or have annoying relatives or pregnancy scares or snore either. It's not a replacement model for human beings (that will come in time...) it's a pretty silly roleplaying object. Why should it be built to deliberately frustrate and inconvenience the user?
Some people find it "creepy" that someone's ideal partner is someone of the same sex. Doesn't make that fear rational.
I find it mildly creepy that there are millions of synthetic disembodied penises (penii?) out there. But that's not a rational fear, and therefore it's up to me to get over it, not for other people to change their sexual habits.
Why should your dream partner be everyone else's dream partner?
Frankly, I'm not saying people should change their habits. I think that the fantasy of a perfect woman, period, is the real problem. Now, that doesn't mean that the people should stop using sex toys, or stop fantasizing. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that and I'm honestly sorry if someone got that out of my comments...
The real problem is the societal expectations we place on women, and the invention on dolls like this is REPRESENTATIVE of that problem, not the problem in itself.
I hope I have now made myself as clear as possible.
'But I think it's pretty clear when the creator says "she doesn't vacuum or cook" what his intent with this doll is.'
I doubt he would be able to. Right now the device is little more than a parrot designed to be poked. I have watched cutting edge robotics a long time, (as it was my career of interest) and this is not it. Bipedal movement is extremely difficult, especially for a humanoid robot. Most of them still have a high chance of falling down. The ones that are the most stable keep most of their weight to the back and walk in a sort of crouched position. This makes them behave in a non simulcura nature, which would be off puting to these men, especially since the breasts would likely be a problem in the front, as to be realistic, they would have to have something in them, and this would cause a imbalance. In addition, feet are wide to provide balance. I would suppose some men would want them in high heals as well. All of these are engineering nightmares, and I doubt some hack with a speaker and a sensor in a manikin can do it. And that thing definitely lies in the uncanny valley.
I'm also reminded of this Robot Chicken skit:
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/robotic-longevity.html
Very well-said.
I wonder if any women are buying these? I don't mean a male verson either. And if women are also buying this, then how does it change the way that we think about the buyers of this product?
Like most of the other commenters said, this is just creepy. I do agree with the idea that is no harm, no foul. A good number of these dolls may be going to gentlemen who are not able (for various reasons) to have a relationship with an "organic" woman. That is sad, yes but at least it does make them happy. Are some of these men misogynists? I don't think it's a huge leap to think so. I'm pretty much echoing the sentiments of most of my fellow posters, so I'll just stop there.
Also, keep in mind a purchase of a doll like this may stem some violence against women. It may prevent an attack like the one last year on the gym in Pittsburgh where the guy killed a number of women because they represented women who never gave him the time of day. I,for one, would rather see them spend the money on a virutal companion rather then spend money on dating courses and such that perpetuate misogyny and dominance/pecking order in both men and women.
""She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else," said her inventor, Douglas Hines, who unveiled Roxxxy last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada."
Maybe that kind of thinking and sexism is why he had to resort to making sex dolls.
For some men, the perfect woman is one you can control, have sex with whenever you want and in a perfect world, vacuums and cooks
"Control" you just made up. As for the rest would you want your hypothetical dream partner to not cook, not clean and not have sex whenever you want?
I can't speak for anyone else here, but my hypothetical "dream partner" is someone who helps me with cooking and cleaning, and who I have good sex with, but doesn't feel like they have to have sex with me whenever i want.
I don't want a slave, or a daddy. I want someone who will respect me, and whom I respect.
Respect means not wanting to have sex at the same time? That sounds like fun for everyone. So you can demonstrate patience and self control, and your partner has the opportunity to show he/she loves you by considering your needs when they don't match his/her own. That sounds like a pretty crappy fantasy. Maybe you can get one programmed to want sex only when you don't.
"Respect means not wanting to have sex at the same time?"
I think what adag87 is trying to say is that whenever he/she wants sex, that his/her partner shouldn't have to be forced to have it every single time it is requested.
..."your partner has the opportunity to show he/she loves you by considering your needs when they don't match his/her own. That sounds like a pretty crappy fantasy."
Actually, that is one way you show love for your partner, it is called compromising. You compromise because no two people are exactly alike. You do things you both like, then you do things on your own to have some autonomy, and then sometimes you do things together (that you may not like) just because it makes your partner happy. That is reality.
I don't believe I have seen a better candidate for the Uncanny Valley since the The Polar Express movie.
I can think of two songs about a sex dolls for women off the top of my head:
"Robot Man" by Connie Francis
"Coin Operated Boy" by the Dresden Dolls.
Yeah, I think there would be a market for sex dolls for women. (A sex doll will always listen to your consent)
I think the manufacturers are missing the larger potential-- I can imagine there would be people interested in custom-designed sex dolls, to fulfill currently unachievable fetishes. I mean, why settle for a regular woman or man, when you could have a centaur sex doll? Or a satyr?
Anyway, sex dolls themselves are not problematic. Only creating female sex dolls for men? Much more problematic.
From the, you know, original post: TrueCompanion also is developing a male sex robot, named Rocky.
I think the way CNN and the manufacturer have marketed this product in out of line, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the product itself. I can understand why someone would want a sex robot -- personally, I own many sex toys, and I've spent over $3,000 on the perfect collection that satisfies all of my needs. Some people, for different reasons, are unable to engage in satisfying sex. I am one of those people. I don't know if I would ever buy a full-on android, but I would never shame someone else interested in the prospect. I thought this was a pro-sex community.
Maybe it's because I teach in a jr high but I can never read this sort of post without thinking of wannabe social climbers sitting in the lunchroom making fun of the nerds and social outcasts.
Which would be funnier:
1) Sabotaging the voice chips of every 10th doll at the factory to play affectionate terms for a female partner, rather than a male partner, with the assumption, of course, that essentially all of these dolls would be bought by a man.
2) Producing a news program satire clip for something like "Funny or Die" or "Saturday Night Live" with the doll's voice chip programmed to give a right-wing extremist, anti-choice point of view that would make counterarguments to points made by a reasoned, sensible, totally deadpan pro-choice progressive commentator.
If either of these acts of sabota...creative repurposing happens we'd like to take part credit for at least coming up with the idea.
I find it sad no one chose to call out sex toy james on his use of "ugly"? Um, not everyone applies to your sense of attractiveness. Your "ugly" may be someone else's "hot" and this is not the space for defining "conventional attractiveness" and a prerequisite for the choice/ability to have sex with someone else.
Not all of us are conventionally attractive, but that doesn't mean those who aren't magazine "pretty" are "ugly".
I'm ugly. It happens. Life goes on.
Consider me called out. I believe I used the term "too ugly", which is a relative usage, not indicating conventional standards. Few and far between are those for whom there is no amount of ugly that is too ugly for them to get over. I'll stand by that. I understand greatly that everyone is someone's fetish, but some niche styles have very small fan bases and can restrict one's options. I certainly don't hold anyone to magazine standards, but there are some combinations of features that vastly restrict your dating pool.
So I'm calling you out on "knee jerk issue outrage". It looks like you looked to be outraged before you applied some critical thinking to the issue.
I'm not outraged actually. I didn't even think my post that reactionary. I didn't go "looking to be outraged." You are in no place to assess my feelings about anything, you don't know anything about me.
I just find it troubling you use such language, women, especially feminists have had the "ugly angry girl" troupe trotted out forever, and I would think coming to this site would have advised you of that.
After all, everyone knows all feminists are fat, ugly and reactionary.
As to the actual topic, dolls are dolls but it is just another sexist marketing ploy. But I certainly don't think -all- of the buyers could be or should be labeled misogynist.
Sex toys are sex toys and problematically objectify human beings, yet serve a need/want in society which is influenced by the patriarchy.
Similar to the problem with porn, empowering for some, objectifying for others.
I'm sorry if I offended. I felt that you took my words out of context and placed them in another context in order to make them offensive. That appeared rather absurd to me. I commented on guys who might have a need for a companion doll, and you applied it to your negative stereotype about feminists. Apparently everyone doesn't know that feminists are fat, ugly, and reactionary since that wasn't my perception at all.
I am not going to start word policing and avoiding words that can be offensive to people when taken out of context. Honestly I think that that practice makes it look like feminism is all out of real issues to deal with, which I do know, from being on this blog, is far from the truth. Anyway, isn't that partially an offendable people issue rather than a feminist issue? I don't like to encourage offendable people. They get up to all kinds of trouble on the conservative side getting all offended by women having equal rights, gay people, birth control, and so much more. So I try to stay clear of encouraging the offendable agenda.
sarcasm doesn't come well across the intertubes, I should remember that. the statement "everyone knows.." was sarcastic. I apologize if it seems I took your words out of context, I suppose I should have used a better example of "ugly" being prerogative, but that was the first thing to come to mind. semantics aside.
In any case as to the offend able agenda. I get the gist of what you mean by that, yeah I suppose I was word police-ing, I don't know I just hate the meaning behind the word. "ugly" is used to describe so many people that don't fit into magzine pretty sterotypes, and I think offeneding these people -is- a feminist inclusion issue. "manly" women, transwomen, women of color, large women, women who don't shave, "feminine" men, large men, differently abled people.... all these of these have this slur thrown at them for something that is a part of them and I really just loath it. I'm sorry if I am soap boxing, But I just felt it needed to be said.
Your willingness to admit that you may have been wrong leaves me helpless but to respect you. You did make me think a lot.
I understand what you mean about ugly being used to describe anything that doesn't fit an unrealistic standard. I used to think that I was pretty normal, then an OKcupid survey revealed that women rated 80% of men as looking "below average". (Guys rated women's looks on a pretty even bell curve.) So, apparently I'm hideous, which was good to establish so I know ahead of time that that's something that I've got to make up for. Really though, mainstream fashion doesn't tend to account for dudes like me. In Hollywood, if you have my body type and style you'd better be funny. So I'm used to being non-standard, but it was clear early on that I was never going to be normal, so I'm not really disappointed when I don't fit into mainstream. Yet somehow I get along swimmingly well with most people, crazy.
Sorry about going off on the offendable agenda. That's my issue. Offendable people seem to like to tell people what to do and I tend to push back when pushed. Also, in a world where those with the biggest overreactions get their way, I am doomed to be marginalized since I tend not to get all bent out of shape about little stuff. So I have a very personal stake in fighting off the offendable agenda, for their ideal world is not a safe place for the insensitive to navigate.
I'll keep in mind your concern about ugly and try to stand up more for those unfairly judged for their unconventional styles, although I think that I might already be doing that. I'm not a dude who's comfortable to let it go when people are doing a lot of judging.
I wish you well.
And I you, James. :)