Hi, first post to the headshop, please be gentle...
I'm not sure whether there is this linear scale from masturbation, to 'the anatomically correct motorised penis', to the realdoll, I think the realdoll is a whole new tangent. I can't help seeing the realdoll as a replacement for a human partner, in a way that even the surprised-looking inflatable ones so beloved of hen parties and the like aren't.
In the context of a relationship>
I'm not sure it could be argued that masturbation and toys ever take the place of a human partner in sexual relationships, whereas I feel the realdoll could. I don't think anyone would be overly perturbed if a partner expressed a willingness to use toys or cracked off a sneaky one, but I'd feel that if someone expressed a desire to use a realdoll, then that'd be flagging signals that things were not well. I realise that doesn't apply to everyone, but i'd take issue with lord henry's comment above that relationship:realdoll isn't mutually exclusive. A straw poll over the last couple of days with various folks seems to indicate it would be for the majority of people.
Outside a relationship>
Far be it from me to cast aspersions on what people do in private, but there's a certain uneasiness i feel about this. I'd view someone using an adult realdoll as an opting-out of the relationship thing, and due to the cost, opting out in a very definite way. I think I also see that the use of one long-term would be damaging, would foster a disregard for the other person in any future sexual relations (along the lines of the quotes from de Sade above), and however fulfilling the act at the time, the aftermath/comedown may produce feelings of insecurity and the like that i feel could actually increase the chances of a sexual offence in those predisposed to such acts, or at least a degree of guilt and loneliness in those that aren't.
I know it could be argued that it might stop sexual offenders, and i can see the rationale that if someone can bang away at a silicon representation of their 'target' then it might just possibly give enough of an outlet. But my gut instinct is i'm not sure it would stop abusers, rapists or the like from offending. From what I've read, I understand that there is usually an evolution of a particular sexual deviance over time: (simplified) from interest, to definite fantasies, then to aborted or committed acts. I'm not sure the realdoll, of say a child, would act as a dead end to these impulses, but would at best delay the final acts, or at worst allow, if you will, a refinement of what that final act would be.
And I think the point made above, of the utter mindfuck that would ensue if you find out someone was bumping uglies with a silicone you is valid. I read an exchange between a paedophile and a journalist (a while ago, and I'll try and find the reference), where the paedophile stated he used non-sexual pictures of children from clothes catalogues to masturbate to, and this was acceptable in his view as no child was harmed during the act. The journalist (who was a father) took issue, in that he found the very idea of a child's image being used for that purpose abhorrent, and I think this idea transfers to the discussion about the dolls. It would be based on a particular child, and that, along with the the idea that creating a sexualised representation of a child further sexualises children themselves, is the thing that gives me the creeps.
So...I guess i'd be ok with you having that tentacled furry lenin doll, that wouldn't creep me as its not based on anything real, I wouldn't feel for the safety of the real tentacled furry lenins, and therefore I don't see why there'd be a case for banning the use. But a child doll? I can't see a benefit to making them legal, and can envisage a number of reasons not to.
I also admit, that my distaste for anyone arguing to be allowed to have sex with a child or representation thereof is colouring my response somewhat. I feel you have to take into account the intent of the act. |
