# Is using a Real Doll (for sex) misogynist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223 "2009-09-15T20:35:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/21 "2009-09-15T22:24:41Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Given that many of the guys I know who think like this are, if not misogynistic, at least misanthropic, I think that for some, the practical effect of availability of a “girlfriend experience” bot would be to drive demand for IRL girlfriends down, which lowers women’s options/pools if it happens. If they’re misanthropes that can get everything they want in a relationship by fucking a sex toy, why do you _want_ them in the dating pool? ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/22 "2009-09-15T22:25:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I honestly don’t think it will ever come to that: the greater part of the pleasure of sex is in giving pleasure to others - a sex doll could never simulate this unless it could pass a Turing Test, at which point it would have the capacity to turn guys down. 😉 There’s plenty of selfish people out there and it wouldn’t take a whole lot of men deciding a super realistic fuck doll is superior to a girlfriend to upset the balance of things. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/23 "2009-09-15T22:27:54Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > There’s plenty of selfish people out there and it wouldn’t take a whole lot of men deciding a super realistic fuck doll is superior to a girlfriend to upset the balance of things. Just remember. For every super model out there, there is some guy who is tired of her shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/24 "2009-09-15T22:28:28Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The latter is merely an aid to masturbation: the former looks more like a replacement for human interaction Yeah! How DARE it intrude on the Internet’s turf?! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/25 "2009-09-15T22:32:17Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > There’s plenty of selfish people out there and it wouldn’t take a whole lot of men deciding a super realistic fuck doll is superior to a girlfriend to upset the balance of things. Yeah, it will remove from the dating pool the kind of guys who would prefer a fuck doll to a woman. Frankly, if I was a woman I could see an upside to this. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/26 "2009-09-15T22:34:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Yeah, it will remove from the dating pool the kind of guys who would prefer a fuck doll to a woman. It will also remove women who nobody wants to fuck from the gene pool as well. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/27 "2009-09-15T22:34:37Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If they’re misanthropes that can get everything they want in a relationship by fucking a sex toy, why do you _want_ them in the dating pool? I’m agnostic on the point. Actually, no, that’s not true – if someone were born shy or solitary, and the only reason he had to feign social conviviality is the urge to get some, that’s artificial, and it’s probably at least a marginally good thing if such a guy now has the option to “just be himself” (classic female advice, right?), and/or feels he has more options in being able to take or leave a GF or dating prospect who, exercising the longstanding female prerogative to just be **herself** , might be treating him in a way that he would not accept from an employee/male friend/relative but accepts from her for the prospect of sex/companionship. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/28 "2009-09-15T22:35:42Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > the Sybian, something with more horsepower than my car. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/29 "2009-09-15T22:39:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Yeah, it will remove from the dating pool the kind of guys who would prefer a fuck doll to a woman. > > Frankly, if I was a woman I could see an upside to this. 😉 Removing men from the dating pool makes it easier for the remaining men to be choosier. If all of the sudden there’s only 80 men for every 100 women the bottom 20% of the attractiveness charts better hope the male real dolls learn how to cuddle and kill spiders. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/30 "2009-09-15T22:42:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Frankly, if I was a woman I could see an upside to this. 😉 Actually, no. Attractive women already have at their command lots of resources for treating losers or weirdos (or, “losers” and “weirdos”) as de facto invisible, and can afford to err on the expansive side of defining these categories and waiting for something better. Any guy who expressed or seemed as though he might be “the type” to express an interest in porn, strippers, bots, would be effectively largely screened out of the dating pool of desirable women anyhow, and if he slipped through and got a first date, he wouldn’t get a second. Really, if virtual sex ever became a reality, the only way I spin it as an upside for women is if the men used the bots simply to bleed off an imbalance of sexual desire, leaving them to have the remaining amount of sex that their IRL wife/GF is amenable to and to turn to the IRL GF/wife for whatever analog abilities/interests they had in common. Works for mafia dons, sort of, I guess. As noted, it depends on the IRL women making sure they bring more to the table than the bots in terms of personality, agreeableness, etc., when their former trump card may have been reduced in value. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/31 "2009-09-15T22:45:55Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Really, if virtual sex ever became a reality, the only way I spin it as an upside for women is if the men used the bots simply to bleed off an imbalance of sexual desire, leaving them to have the remaining amount of sex that their IRL wife/GF is amenable to and to turn to the IRL GF/wife for whatever analog abilities/interests they had in common. Works for mafia dons, sort of, I guess. As noted, it depends on the IRL women making sure they bring more to the table than the bots in terms of personality, agreeableness, etc., when their former trump card may have been reduced in value. And the putang is never on the pedestal ever again… ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/32 "2009-09-15T22:46:40Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > There’s plenty of selfish people out there and it wouldn’t take a whole lot of men deciding a super realistic fuck doll is superior to a girlfriend to upset the balance of things. _Selfish?_ Doesn’t using that word here, with regards to an area where the right to opt out at a moment’s notice for any reason is held to be _absolute_, in a situation where there isn’t even a supposedly wronged party that they are being selfish to, suck all meaning out of the word? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/33 "2009-09-15T22:47:06Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Removing men from the dating pool makes it easier for the remaining men to be choosier. If all of the sudden there’s only 80 men for every 100 women the bottom 20% of the attractiveness charts better hope the male real dolls learn how to cuddle and kill spiders. Christopher Caldwell had a very interesting piece on demographics that said that, basically. It was inspired by a trip to Germany, where, he claimed, the middle aged women all wore shapeless sacklike smocks and the men were heavily involved in tanning, feathered hairstyles, jewelry. His theory is that given that men date/marry younger women in most societies, women will try harder in societies with high birthrates (Third World, hence the proverbial mail order bride/war bride), because there’s always a larger cohort of younger women nipping at their heals contending for any given population of (n+7 year old) men. In low birthrate population, each generation of men has a smaller, and getting smaller still, population of (n-7 year old) women, so the women can be a lot choosier. No idea if his stereotype of Germany holds true or if his evolutionary biology is sound, but it’s very consistent with your post. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/34 "2009-09-15T22:47:46Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Removing men from the dating pool makes it easier for the remaining men to be choosier. If all of the sudden there’s only 80 men for every 100 women the bottom 20% of the attractiveness charts better hope the male real dolls learn how to cuddle and kill spiders. I doubt it will work like that in reality. For one, chances are reasonably high that the majority of the market for such dolls will be exactly those guys who would not otherwise be getting dates _anyway_. So the effect of their removal on the dating scene is likely to be minimal. I truly find it difficult to believe that a man who is capable of choosing between having an actual sexual relationship with a real woman (however they would rate in attractiveness) would deliberately choose instead to have sex with a doll, however attractive. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/35 "2009-09-15T22:55:01Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Actually, no. Attractive women already have at their command lots of resources for treating losers or weirdos (or, “losers” and “weirdos”) as de facto invisible, and can afford to err on the expansive side of defining these categories and waiting for something better. Any guy who expressed or seemed as though he might be “the type” to express an interest in porn, strippers, bots, would be effectively largely screened out of the dating pool of desirable women anyhow, and if he slipped through and got a first date, he wouldn’t get a second. > > Really, if virtual sex ever became a reality, the only way I spin it as an upside for women is if the men used the bots simply to bleed off an imbalance of sexual desire, leaving them to have the remaining amount of sex that their IRL wife/GF is amenable to and to turn to the IRL GF/wife for whatever analog abilities/interests they had in common. Works for mafia dons, sort of, I guess. As noted, it depends on the IRL women making sure they bring more to the table than the bots in terms of personality, agreeableness, etc., when their former trump card may have been reduced in value. Huh? An interest in porn isn’t remotely similar to an interest in realistic fuck-dolls. 😕 I happily shared porn with the woman I eventually married (admittedly not on our first date 😃 ). The notion that the simple act of sexual release is woman’s “trump” is nonsense. Guys can _already_ masturbate, they don’t need a doll for this. What is “trump” is having a sexual relationship with another person, which is quite different from wanking. A doll would only be able to simulate this if it was able to pass the Turing test - at which point, it could turn creepy guys down as easily as a real woman. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/36 "2009-09-15T22:55:12Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > _Selfish?_ Doesn’t using that word here, with regards to an area where the right to opt out at a moment’s notice for any reason is held to be _absolute_, in a situation where there isn’t even a supposedly wronged party that they are being selfish to, suck all meaning out of the word? Damned good point there. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/37 "2009-09-15T23:03:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I > I truly find it difficult to believe that a man who is capable of choosing between having an actual sexual relationship with a real woman (however they would rate in attractiveness) would deliberately choose instead to have sex with a doll, however attractive. I don’t believe very many guys would choose video games or football over a sexual relationship, but I find it very likely that many opportunities for sexual relationships were missed because so much time/energy was spent playing video games or obsessing over football. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/38 "2009-09-15T23:04:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > For one, chances are reasonably high that the majority of the market for such dolls will be exactly those guys who would not otherwise be getting dates _anyway_. So the effect of their removal on the dating scene is likely to be minimal. Not quite IMO. The loser men will no longer have to accept the loser women or do without. Loser men will be much more likely IMO to fuck the bot and get on with life. The loser women will be left out on in the cold. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/39 "2009-09-15T23:05:35Z")
The selfish quote was in response to this: > [@](#): > > the greater part of the pleasure of sex is in giving pleasure to others I think for a not unsubstantial number of people the greater part of the pleasure of sex is in getting pleasure themselves not on giving it to others. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/40 "2009-09-15T23:09:02Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > I don’t believe very many guys would choose video games or football over a sexual relationship, but I find it very likely that many opportunities for sexual relationships were missed because so much time/energy was spent playing video games or obsessing over football. Heh, WoW is a far, far greater “threat” along these lines than any sex-doll could ever be. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223.md?page=3)