# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/101 "2009-09-18T06:41:16Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > I agree that it’s sad that your jurisdiction has chosen the less logical and moral outcome. I have faith that one day they’ll recognize the merrits of free speech and move to protect it. Yes, I see what you did there. When I said ‘they’ you cleverly did the old switcheroo to suggest _my_ governing legislature! Ha! Very clever. > [@Cesario](#): > > Good to see there’s one less delusion you need to labor under. To be clear, I don’t think arguing with someone who is as irrefutable illogical and immoral as you have presented yourself to be, is fruitful. But, I wasn’t going to let your point stand unchallenged. > [@Cesario](#): > > Not too clear on how an if-then statement works, are you? If (condition; pseudo-lynchings are made legal) Then (statements; lynchings do not return smaller value) End If ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/102 "2009-09-18T06:45:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > Yes, I see what you did there. When I said ‘they’ you cleverly did the old switcheroo to suggest _my_ governing legislature! Ha! Very clever. Not exactly hard to see coming. What with your legislature being the one that’s restricting free speech. > [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > To be clear, I don’t think arguing with someone who is as irrefutable illogical and immoral as you have presented yourself to be, is fruitful. But, I wasn’t going to let your point stand unchallenged. Awe, I’m sensing a “not so different” moment. > [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > If (condition; pseudo-lynchings are made legal) Then > (statements; lynchings do not return smaller value) > End If I’ll take that as a “no”. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/103 "2009-09-18T07:03:52Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Not exactly hard to see coming. What with your legislature being the one that’s restricting free speech. Some of the the ‘merrits [sic] of free speech’, are actually meretricious, under certain circumstances. > [@Cesario](#): > > Awe, I’m sensing a “not so different” moment. Oh joy. > [@Cesario](#): > > I’ll take that as a “no”. You haven’t presented a logical argument for your opinion. Assertions do not support your case. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/104 "2009-09-18T18:45:57Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > The US Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment on that particular obscenity issue, having ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict the production, sale, or distribution of child pornography that was not created through an act of child abuse (drawings, CGI effects, etc.) Er, no, actually. Sexual depictions of minors is only legal if it is not obscene under the [Miller Test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test). If a sexual depiction of a minor is obscene, it can be prosecuted under harsher penalties than obscenity involving adults, including sexual offender status. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/105 "2009-09-18T20:45:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > You haven’t presented a logical argument for your opinion. Assertions do not support your case. I cant believe _this_ is what’s finally prompting me to respond to the thread, but… I read his comment as: “If, hypothetically speaking, lynching effigies prevents the lynching of humans, then [thumbs up for effigies]” not as a factual statement that lynching effigies is known to prevent actual lynching. Similarly, if having a childlike fuckbot means he keeps his pedophilic activities to making funny faces at kids in the grocery store and drawing morally reprehensible pictures, then by all means let the guy buy himself a fuckbot. Whether or not said effigy/fuckbot proves to encourage/promote/etc the behaviors in question is a separate argument (I think). Also: RealDolls = creepy, but I’d give that one gadget a whirl. If our androids approached Data-quality, I might be convinced on the sexbot topic. Please sign me up for pre-purchase on one Home Protection Cuddlebot (with optional attachment). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/106 "2009-09-19T12:14:05Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > I cant believe _this_ is what’s finally prompting me to respond to the thread, but… > I read his comment as: “If, hypothetically speaking, lynching effigies prevents the lynching of humans, then [thumbs up for effigies]” not as a factual statement that lynching effigies is known to prevent actual lynching. **Cesario** describes the lynching a _real doll_, rather than a human, as a ‘good thing’, and similarly **Freudian Slit** sees it as not a ‘problem’. Whilst I’m not arguing that lynching a real doll, or having sex with a prepubescent model of such, is equivalent to the same act involving a human, it is something I would view as a problem. Arguably _less bad_, but not _good_. Imagine you are black, or perhaps you already are, would you honestly view a neighbour suspending the thrashing body of a real doll from the branch of a tree, as perfectly acceptable? Unlikely. It is, in my opinion, beyond the realm of simply being distasteful, and strays into the area of incitement to racial hatred, which should be prevented in law, and is where I live. **Cesario** uses the libertarian defence that in doing so it is restricting free expression. This is true. It does; however this doesn’t make it wrong. Free expression does not always confer moral supremacy. > [@NajaNivea](#): > > Similarly, if having a childlike fuckbot means he keeps his pedophilic activities to making funny faces at kids in the grocery store and drawing morally reprehensible pictures, then by all means let the guy buy himself a fuckbot. Whether or not said effigy/fuckbot proves to encourage/promote/etc the behaviors in question is a separate argument (I think). As a moral pragmatist, whether or not this is the case is _the_ most important point my consideration. The argument for a juvenile real doll is more difficult to discern than allowing pseudo-lynchings, since lynchings are for all purposes nonexistent where I live, and at present in the US. I see little value in introducing a _less bad_ replicative phenomena, where the crime itself does not occur. Sexual assaults against children however are obviously ongoing. The benefits, or otherwise, of allowing pedophiles (or adults so inclined) to maintain a juvenile real doll, is at this point entirely speculative and hypothetical. Ideally such dolls wouldn’t be necessary, and people wouldn’t be attracted to prepubescent children, but this is not the world we live in. Adult pornography doesn’t appear to be correlated with an increase in sexual assaults, and in places such as Japan and the US, a negative correlation is observed (though not necessarily causative). The decision is really whether freely circulated representations of child pornography, or lifelike dolls are a greater benefit in terms of preventing sexual assaults against minors, than those that they might conceivably encourage, and other deleterious consequences. It is not a question I have the information available to answer. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/107 "2009-09-19T13:02:52Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > **Cesario** describes the lynching a _real doll_, rather than a human, as a ‘good thing’, and similarly **Freudian Slit** sees it as not a ‘problem’. Well, when I read those comments, I understood them in the context of: **IF** [prevents real action] **THEN** [good thing]. _Not a definitive statement that_ “lynching Real Doll” = “good thing”. Perhaps our understandings of the comments are different, in which case I’m not terribly interested in arguing over it as I don’t really disagree with you. I don’t think you’re wrong in how you feel about the lynching of effigies if that makes my point any clearer. > [@](#): > > Imagine you are black, or perhaps you already are, would you honestly view a neighbour suspending the thrashing body of a real doll from the branch of a tree, as perfectly acceptable? No, of course, not, but then again that’s not what I’m arguing. > [@](#): > > I see little value in introducing a _less bad_ replicative phenomena, where the crime itself does not occur. Agreed. I don’t think anyone was truly campaigning to get this going, it was just a metaphor. > [@](#): > > It is not a question I have the information available to answer. Nor any of us, hence the IF/THEN postulations. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/108 "2009-09-19T14:40:25Z")
I don’t see anything inherently misogynistic about a female sexual robot. And I don’t see exactly why women in this purported future will not also chose to own their own personal Brad Pitt (or whoever). In fact if technology gets far enough to create realistic robots there will be as big a market from women as from men. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/109 "2009-09-22T03:26:43Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > Er, no, actually. Sexual depictions of minors is only legal if it is not obscene under the [Miller Test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test). If a sexual depiction of a minor is obscene, it can be prosecuted under harsher penalties than obscenity involving adults, including sexual offender status. I’m afraid you are incorrect. Plenty of straight out, hardcore child pornography is perfectly legal under US law, if it’s obviously not real due to the Supreme Court ruling striking down provisions outlawing “virtual child pornography”. It’s the stuff that involves real kids that’s only legal if it passes the Miller Test. > [@NajaNivea](#): > > Well, when I read those comments, I understood them in the context of: **IF** [prevents real action] **THEN** [good thing]. _Not a definitive statement that_ “lynching Real Doll” = “good thing”. > Perhaps our understandings of the comments are different, in which case I’m not terribly interested in arguing over it as I don’t really disagree with you. I don’t think you’re wrong in how you feel about the lynching of effigies if that makes my point any clearer. > No, of course, not, but then again that’s not what I’m arguing. > > Agreed. I don’t think anyone was truly campaigning to get this going, it was just a metaphor. > Nor any of us, hence the IF/THEN postulations. While I know me-tooing is rather looked down upon, I figure since this is commenting on my posts, it’s valid enough. You have it precisely right. This is exactly what I was trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/110 "2009-09-23T04:23:01Z")
Am I the only one reminded of [Westworld](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld)? And later Furureworld? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/111 "2009-09-23T06:36:19Z")
> [@Projammer](#): > > Am I the only one reminded of [Westworld](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld)? And later Furureworld? I was thinking more of [The Silver Metal Lover](http://www.amazon.com/Silver-Metal-Lover-Tanith-Lee/dp/0553581279) actually. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/112 "2009-09-24T04:09:16Z")
Lets see, in no particular order: some years ago I was watching late night skinamax and they had a segment with 3 women and a lifesize male doll, they liked it and commented that ‘we really like to be in control.’ Somehow I expect that empowerment rather then misandryst would be applied to _them_. I can’t see having one of these, but I have, on occasion, masturbated in a belly down position which was worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/113 "2009-09-24T15:29:25Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > > [@JR Brown](#): > > > > Er, no, actually. Sexual depictions of minors is only legal if it is not obscene under the Miller Test. If a sexual depiction of a minor is obscene, it can be prosecuted under harsher penalties than obscenity involving adults, including sexual offender status. > > I’m afraid you are incorrect. Plenty of straight out, hardcore child pornography is perfectly legal under US law, if it’s obviously not real due to the Supreme Court ruling striking down provisions outlawing “virtual child pornography”. You missed where he specifically said \*“obscene under the Miller Test”. \*The hardcore (adult)pornography sold commercially in your hometown is material that has NOT been taken to a court and ruled obscene there under the Miller Test. \*ANYTHING **ruled obscene by a court under the Miller Test** , can be penalized, be it adult, child, images, real, unreal or text. \* Fortunately the Courts and the Law has tended to lean on the favorable side IRT adult porn, text porn, and non-real porn. Title V of the PROTECT Act, which has **NOT** repeat, has **NOT** yet been taken to the Supreme Court (but IMO should be struck down), **does** provide for more severe punishment for **obscenity** involving “depictions of minors”. What SCOTUS\*\* has \*\* ruled is that drawn/sim hardcore porn that does NOT involve real minors is by definition _NOT_ “child porn” and thus \*\*can’t \*\*be declared illegal _ **per se** _. The different standard of the PROTECT act has not been tested conclusively yet. Myself, I oppose those provisions of PROTECT Title V because I believe that in the absence of actual live minors, there should be NO difference between classes of “obscene” materials based on subject matter, and that unfortunately juries in many locations will tend to see the mere presence of “depiction of minors” as intrinsecally obscene, nevermind what SCOTUS has already ruled. Similarly I would not be bothered by “lolita” model realdolls (provided not modeled after a recognizable real person), I’d let the open market determine their fate. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/114 "2009-09-24T16:26:33Z")
Watching the Channel 5 documentary “Guys and Dolls”, I kept thinking of [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RTzIi4e2CI) (the song lyrics, not the specific video). On the one hand it was indeed sad to see the men in the documentary living in a fantasy world where they project feelings and reactions onto these dolls in a simalcrum of a “real” romantic relationship. On the other hand it makes them happy and what’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/115 "2009-09-24T20:04:18Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > On the one hand it was indeed sad to see the men in the documentary living in a fantasy world where they project feelings and reactions onto these dolls in a simalcrum of a “real” romantic relationship. On the other hand it makes them happy and what’s wrong with that? Other than scale, how is this any different than someone projecting the same feelings on a much smaller sized doll or stuffed animal? Man anthropomorphizes nearly every object with which he interacts - a screwdriver slips and stabs you in the finger, you’re going to yell at the screwdriver. Projecting feelings and reactions upon something that looks like a woman seems less crazy than some of the feelings and reactions I’ve seen people attribute to their pets “Oh, Mr. Whiskers LOVES his new hat!” ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/116 "2009-09-25T00:17:44Z")
It would be remarkably awkward if you were to find one of those things in your recently-deceased uncle’s spare bedroom. (More awkward still to toss it in the rubbish tip. The possibilities are endless.) ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/117 "2009-09-25T01:37:41Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > It would be remarkably awkward if you were to find one of those things in your recently-deceased uncle’s spare bedroom. > > (More awkward still to toss it in the rubbish tip. The possibilities are endless.) Throw it away? Seriously? E-Bay (assuming they take the listing) or an ad on Craigslist looking for someone who “needs” one. I’d be overjoyed to give one to a guy who had burns, or some other malady that made attracting a mate a near-impossibility. Maybe I’ve just know too many guys who had no luck with women to be so caviler about disposing of a toy that costs that much money. It’s medical grade silicone, and can be made sterile. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/118 "2009-09-25T01:41:01Z")
Buying a used Real Doll is like buying a used toilet seat. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/119 "2009-09-25T01:55:29Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > You missed where he specifically said \*“obscene under the Miller Test”. \*The hardcore (adult)pornography sold commercially in your hometown is material that has NOT been taken to a court and ruled obscene there under the Miller Test. \*ANYTHING **ruled obscene by a court under the Miller Test** , can be penalized, be it adult, child, images, real, unreal or text. \* Fortunately the Courts and the Law has tended to lean on the favorable side IRT adult porn, text porn, and non-real porn. > > Title V of the PROTECT Act, which has **NOT** repeat, has **NOT** yet been taken to the Supreme Court (but IMO should be struck down), **does** provide for more severe punishment for **obscenity** involving “depictions of minors”. What SCOTUS\*\* has \*\* ruled is that drawn/sim hardcore porn that does NOT involve real minors is by definition _NOT_ “child porn” and thus \*\*can’t \*\*be declared illegal _ **per se** _. The different standard of the PROTECT act has not been tested conclusively yet. > > Myself, I oppose those provisions of PROTECT Title V because I believe that in the absence of actual live minors, there should be NO difference between classes of “obscene” materials based on subject matter, and that unfortunately juries in many locations will tend to see the mere presence of “depiction of minors” as intrinsecally obscene, nevermind what SCOTUS has already ruled. Similarly I would not be bothered by “lolita” model realdolls (provided not modeled after a recognizable real person), I’d let the open market determine their fate. The law was clearly ruled unconstitutional. The second coming of the exact same law isn’t any more legal than its predesecor. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223/120 "2009-09-25T02:31:53Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Buying a used Real Doll is like buying a used toilet seat. Rule 34. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-using-a-real-doll-for-sex-misogynist/510223.md?page=7)