The increasing popularity of the sex doll has got a lot of people hot under the collar.
The haters
Feminists are hot under the collar because they say sex dolls encourage men to objectify women’s bodies; to consider women only as sex objects for their own gratification. As women have made so much progress in the workplace and at home, many feminists find the idea that men can simply bypass women in this way extremely offensive. Sex dolls, they say, are a symbol of the capitalist patriarchy.
The lovers
For the men who buy them, sex dolls can be any number of things. First and foremost, perhaps, sex dolls allow men to release their sexual energy, to live out their desires – and to do so in/on a model of a very attractive woman. They can also do it without effort (although some can be quite heavy) or money (notwithstanding the initial purchase). For the lonely, dolls may also provide a sense of companionship, or can even act as a bridge between the loss of a real human partner, and a possible future one; beginning another intimate relationship after someone dies, for instance, can be extremely daunting.
And for those for whom it is too late to develop social skills, or who have had their fill of relationships, dolls could be a god-send.
But at the heart of the sex doll’s allure is its eroticism – there’s no point trying to deny it. Men can indulge fantasies with women they could not hope to get near in the real world. What is so wrong with that?
What are they really afraid of?
For those who despise sex dolls, what are they really afraid of? Is a man who’s bought a sex doll more or less likely to carry out a sexual assault? I say he is far less likely, for obvious reasons. Yes, the argument that he may develop an unhealthy or unrealistic view of women is still there – and I don’t think anyone has a definitive answer to that. Looking at the forums, most doll owners actually talk about their ladies with genuine affection. You can say it’s odd, but no one is getting hurt.
Deborah Orr’s 2 pence
The Guardian’s Deborah Orr, wrote in 2016, “It’s still hard to get some people – men and women – to understand quite what sexual objectification is. It’s simply an act that reduces a woman to nothing more than a sexual vessel. Sex robots, of course, are its apotheosis. The problem is not that sex robots are available: it’s that they are wanted.”
There is no irrefutable evidence that sex dolls reduce “a woman to nothing more than a sexual vessel” – that is just Orr’s opinion. An arguable one, perhaps, but an opinion nevertheless. She does not know that all doll owners take that view. If anything, they may start to live out a full fantasy life with the doll, emotional, sexual and all. Whether that’s healthy is a matter of debate too. And then she says “The problem is not that sex robots are available: it’s that they are wanted.” If Orr knew what it was like to be a young male (or even an older one), this is rather silly. Of course they are wanted. And why should Orr tell us what we should want?
And then Orr links sex dolls with the horrific Stanford sexual assault. I find this to be quite a leap. Even if dolls do encourage some degree of objectification, their take-up would only reduce the likelihood of sexual assault. In the same way that many Thai women support prostitution in their country because they believe it reduces the incidence of rape, sex dolls might do the same – and without anyone having to rent out their actual body.
Modern women talk a lot about their needs – but what about the needs of men?
Many feminists and commentators seem to equate sex dolls with the most violent forms of porn; as if all men, deep down, want to carry out nasty acts on their dolls – acts they could not get away with in real life, on real women. Aside from anything else, to believe this is to fail to understand how fragile silicone and TPE sex dolls actually are. No one is going to pay $2,000 for a sex doll, then damage it beyond use on the first encounter.
The best fat, chubby and BBW sex dolls ever
Feminists often focus on the most extreme aspects of male behaviour, forgetting that the majority of males are pretty sane and reasonable – but that sometimes their sexual needs are not met – for whatever reason. Modern women talk a lot about their needs – but what about the needs of men? Dolls go some way to addressing these issues.
But of course, dolls are not real women, and very few doll owners would say that sex with a doll was the same as making love to real woman. And there in lies the nub – sexual gratification with a sex doll is a different prospect to be being in bed with a real woman. Sex dolls are just that – elaborate toys that are extremely exciting to use.
The sex cookie jar
What about the future? Could all men end up preferring sex dolls, sex robots or virtual reality porn over real women? Could the human race die out because men no longer jump through the hoops set out in order to get them access to the sex cookie jar? Possibly. If such dolls eliminate basic male drives to be socially, sexually and economically active/successful, then yes, we could have a problem.
But that seems unlikely to me.
There are many modern inventions that might not have been a 100% good idea. Motor cars, videos games, chocolate cookies, Ed Sheeran – all have good and bad sides. But when it comes to sex dolls, people get very hot under the collar indeed.
I think sex dolls are OK because we live in free countries (USA, UK, EU states etc), and we need to be allowed to make out own mistakes, if they are indeed mistakes – as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
But more importantly, there is an irony here. Many feminists are angry about how men have, especially in the past, taken control of women’s bodies (and I agree with them, largely). From forced marriages (and marriage in general) to compelling women to occupy roles primarily as baby-making and cooking machines. But today, in our western democracies, women have it pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good. Understandably, they want to ensure that men can no longer tell them what to do with their bodies.
Of course that’s fair enough. I support that.
But women shouldn’t be able to tell men what to do with their bodies, either. A sex doll is an inanimate object. That may seem a little distasteful to some, but why should a growing number of entrenched feminists tell men that they can’t put their penis into a piece of rubber? (Albeit, a very good-looking piece of rubber). Should all sexual activity behind closed doors only function according to the world view of a few angry, vocal, man-hating feminists?
It’s not the capitalist patriarchy.
It’s just a bit of rubber.