Grownup Playthings
“[I found] them super attractive,” doll owner Paul Cupidon reports, “and at the same time I was finding it creepy. It was uncomfortable to want to have sex with inanimate objects that looked so realistic.”
Howard Stern himself, a notoriously unapologetic assholes and an early champion of doll sex, admitted that while it “can feel good, you feel like a real douchebag doing it.”
Plenty of people assume that having sex with a doll doesn’t just feel douchey, it is douchey, and even without the possibility of penetrative sex, users of objects that simulate aspects of a human being, encounter staunch condemnation. Sites like Jezebel and Feministing routinely alert their readers to derision-worthy products that replicate female body parts, and while some are inarguably repulsive—like a toilet framed by a feminine form—others, like the innocuous breast or lap pillows, are deemed equally “vile.” (Dildos, apparently, are above the same reproach.)
Doll owner Szalinski said that he preferred having a full size body because “hand-held toys always gave me an eerie ‘Charles Manson’ like feeling.” Yet in opting to avoid “disturbing” disembodied items by selecting a toy in complete human form, Szalinksi, in the eyes of some, went from being vaguely icky to full-on potential rapist, regardless of his sensitivity to female desire. “[Some of what I do with my doll] I likely wouldn’t even ask of a real woman because she probably would not enjoy [it],” he says.
Cupidon echoed the sentiment: “I had this conflict between my respect for real women and these objects you can use to suit your needs in ways that would be morally unacceptable with a human.” Online and in print, doll owners are under constant suspicion of being serial killers, necrophiliacs, and women-haters. The far less sensational reality is that they’re largely a group of seemingly stable, self-aware individuals who have had or do have human romantic partners.
Howard Stern himself, a notoriously unapologetic assholes and an early champion of doll sex, admitted that while it “can feel good, you feel like a real douchebag doing it.”
Plenty of people assume that having sex with a doll doesn’t just feel douchey, it is douchey, and even without the possibility of penetrative sex, users of objects that simulate aspects of a human being, encounter staunch condemnation. Sites like Jezebel and Feministing routinely alert their readers to derision-worthy products that replicate female body parts, and while some are inarguably repulsive—like a toilet framed by a feminine form—others, like the innocuous breast or lap pillows, are deemed equally “vile.” (Dildos, apparently, are above the same reproach.)
Doll owner Szalinski said that he preferred having a full size body because “hand-held toys always gave me an eerie ‘Charles Manson’ like feeling.” Yet in opting to avoid “disturbing” disembodied items by selecting a toy in complete human form, Szalinksi, in the eyes of some, went from being vaguely icky to full-on potential rapist, regardless of his sensitivity to female desire. “[Some of what I do with my doll] I likely wouldn’t even ask of a real woman because she probably would not enjoy [it],” he says.
Cupidon echoed the sentiment: “I had this conflict between my respect for real women and these objects you can use to suit your needs in ways that would be morally unacceptable with a human.” Online and in print, doll owners are under constant suspicion of being serial killers, necrophiliacs, and women-haters. The far less sensational reality is that they’re largely a group of seemingly stable, self-aware individuals who have had or do have human romantic partners.
Interesting article!
A small quibble: I know Davecat and Everhard somewhat and both are actually quite charming. I can't help thinking that Davecat is having a private horselaugh on us all by slipping into his well-practiced doll-husband shtick whenever a reporter shows up. And Everhard's cool, thoughtful intelligence always analyzes the reporter and her audience as critically as ever they do him.