Another reason Real Dolls creep me out
There are many, many reasons I don't like Real Dolls. There are also many reasons I don't like Charlie Sheen (Men at Work, however, is not one of them). Now, that Sheen-Real Doll dislike comes together in a truly disturbing way.
Sheen, who owned a Real Doll, supposedly destroyed and "disposed" of the doll after he was laughed at for suggesting a group romp with said doll and some real women.
“They couldn't stop laughing at him,� the source told the Daily News. “Charlie got so mad that he ran the girls out of his house. Then he took a meat cleaver and chopped one of the doll's hands off. He and his bodyguard tried to dispose of it, like it was a real body. They wrapped it in a blanket and drove around in the middle of the night till they found a dumpster.�
I'm ready for this week to be over. Seriously.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Another reason Real Dolls creep me out.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6158
Sounds like someone who never quite got over losing the Best Actor Oscar for Major League II to Steve Guttenberg (Three Men and a Little Lady).
I'm sorry, but when that guy started talking about actually kissing the doll and pulled her tongue (one of three) out, I couldn't watch it anymore.
Fuckin' yikes.
I'm completely fine with RealDolls in theory, but that creeps me out so much.
And we know this is true because? Since when did Feministing become a gossip site?
He... he invited two real girls for a foursome with it?
I can't imagine anything but the most nervous laughter arising from that. And then some backing away, and then a cab being called. It all seems pretty unbelievable to me.
Anyway... guys can have Real Dolls if they want, but expecting real WOMEN to like the idea of being reduced to the status of flesh vagina is a bit much.
Does the fact that it appears on the gossip page make it less disturbing?
The fact of the matter is that someone told a reporter that story, and the reporter found the information at least credible enough and believable enough to run the story. It's possible that it's not true, but that doesn't make the story less squicky.
Some other "eewwwwww" quotes from the story:
Some deep-seated issues at work with this...
Look - I understand the need for self-satisfaction sometimes - we all do it, but to actually spend money on this thing - one who's not even interactive, doesn't talk back, where all you have to do is take off your clothes and she's yours? That's kind of squicky ...I don't think this is a case of men being misogynists, but rather, losers who can't get laid. If I need a quick fix, I've got my hands.
And, Jessica, any chances you'll by the doggy version of Real Doll for Monty? At least it'll stop him from humpting pillows. :0)
Marc
This is SO different than masturbation. In my opinion, desiring a relationship with someone "who's not even interactive, doesn't talk back, where all you have to do is take off your clothes and she's yours" is pretty much the definition of mysogynistic. We recognize the doll as "a thing" - ProFeministMale said it himself- but to these guys, the doll is the equivalent, or better, than a real woman.
That's hatred of women if I ever saw it.
Have we already discussed "Lars and the Real Girl?"
I find this totally distressing. Seriously.
IF the story is true and IF the doll does resemble his ex-wife, I think she should get 24 hour protection from this psycho given what he has already said to/about her publicly. It's not the doll so much as the violence against "it" that disturbs me.
m d, the reviews I've read of 'Lars and the Real Girl' (including this one) make it sound like Lars is supposed to be seen as a little messed up - not misogynistic or creepy, per se, but deluded. And apparently he doesn't use the doll for sexual purposes, which I find interesting. Actually, I find the entire movie premise interesting and will probably go see it at some point.
That said, Real Dolls do creep me out quite a bit. I was at the Museum of Sex a few weeks ago, and they had one on display, along with a listing of all the options available when ordering one. Most of the proportions are unrealistic, their version of natural/untrimmed pubic hair is hilarious, and the 'flesh' itself feels really icky. I can't imagine getting off with one of these things. Then again, I saw quite a few things in that museum that I didn't understand - I suppose that's what makes them kinks and fetishes.
Further evidence, if more was needed, of Charlie Sheen's problems with women. I remember well Ginger Lynn Allen's stories about trying to get out of porn, trying to get off drugs, trying to get out of trouble ... and then Charlie Sheen talked her into a weekend getaway that violated her probation. Sure, she's an adult and made a choice; but if he gave one thirteenth of a damn about her, he would have supported her and told her to stay in the US where she was supposed to be instead of pleading with her to fly out of the country.
He's got a habit of renting women's bodies. He's got a habit of making women's problems worse. He's got a habit of treating a sex toy like a woman; something usually possible only for men who either cannot interact with people or who think of women as sex toys.
Charlie Sheen has a problem.
A question for you all.
So my immediate gut visceral reaction is real dolls = bad because it is literally the complete objectification of the female body.
There is a small voice in my head though that also says to be open do different forms of sexual experimentation.
Could someone explain to me why this is different than a woman inviting two guys to have a threesome + her vibrator? Or her Antonio Banderas blow up doll?
It feels different to me, but I'm not really putting my finger on why. Or maybe it isn't different.
*I'm ignoring the whole charlie sheen dead body thing b/c that's just bizarre.
UCLAbodyimage, you're actually talking about two separate things.
The threesome with a woman and her Antonio Banderas blow-up doll is *almost* equally squicky as the Charlie Sheen and Real Doll thing. The reason it is "almost" is that women do not, in the aggregate, have issues with turning men into objects, getting mad that they won't behave like objects, and killing or abusing them to force them to behave like objects. In other words, a woman who turns a man into an object is certainly bad, but the weight of history and the law of averages says that she probably won't kill her boyfriend because he talks back to her, unlike her blow-up doll. So it merely indicates that she has issues, not that she could well be a serial killer in training.
However, a vibrator is a completely different kettle of fish than a RealDoll, or a male blow up doll. It's a tool designed to do a job, like any other tool. If it's a dildo, then the only reason it resembles a male body part is that evolution has designed that particular male body part to be best for the job, ie, providing a woman with pleasurable vaginal stimulation. If it's not a dildo, then it probably doesn't resemble a male body part at all, and is solely to be thought of as a tool. Likewise, a man, two women, and a Fleshlight (a vibrating vinyl sheath for the penis) is not squicky, because the Fleshlight is a tool for stimulating a man's penis, not a non-sentient replica of a woman.
The squick here isn't that a man is using a tool to get off instead of a real woman, but the fact that the tool so closely resembles a real woman indicates that in his mind there's actually some relationship between a tool and a woman. It's a woman-substitute, not a vagina-substitute. There's nothing wrong with a vagina substitute, any more than there's something wrong with a penis substitute or a tongue substitute. But there is something wrong with substituting an entire human.
It's not comparable to a vibrator, because there's no illusion about what a vibrator is.
It's closer to the Antonio Banderas doll, but still different because the AB doll represents a particular person (which is a different kind of creepy, more stalkerish).
well said, alerajrogers.
i agree that there is a meaningful distinction between a sexual aid made to simulate a PART of a person (or in the case of lots of vibrators, not at all) and a simulated PERSON. creepifying.
I can’t help but think that this is part of a rape culture of sort. A woman who can’t say no, who looks like a sleeping girl, who is just there for his pleasure? Hmmm. Sounds pretty like rape to me.
Oops, there I go being one of those crazy, radical, bitchy feminists again. I wonder what the guys over at feministing.com's parody site will have to say.
Wow. This is all kinds of creepy. Not only can you purchase a Real Doll and have your way with "her", you can then act out your favorite murder fantasy!
I always hated Charlie Sheen.
I like to think I have a good imagination, but I just cannot stretch it far enough to understand how Charlie Sheen sees reality. Wow.
AlaraJRogers, great explanation!
Thank you so much, AlaraJRogers! I get so sick of ignorami responding to a perfectly rational disgust about Real Dolls with "but women use vibrators, what's the diff?" Every time I hear it, I just want to take that person and shake them till their brains rattle.
Side note: from my sex shop clerk experience, more than half of the blow-up dolls sold are bought as joke items.
AlaraJRogers and Tom, thank you for the explanation. What you said makes sense to me.
"Thank you so much, AlaraJRogers! I get so sick of ignorami responding to a perfectly rational disgust about Real Dolls with "but women use vibrators, what's the diff?" Every time I hear it, I just want to take that person and shake them till their brains rattle."
That's a little harsh! I just had never thought about it much before! Please don't rattle my brain! I need it! :-).
"Oops, there I go being one of those crazy, radical, bitchy feminists again. I wonder what the guys over at feministing.com's parody site will have to say."
I think they are too busy having sex with their real dolls to post about it!
I swear, there has to be a corollary to Godwin's Law; When discussing Real Dolls, etc., the first person to mention vibrators and dildos automatically loses.
"Mom! Kitty's bein' a dildo!"
Wait, what's with this "substituting an entire human" thing. Using your Nick Cave Doll (name that band!) or Real Doll as a substitute for a human sex partner by an otherwise unpartnered person seems harmless enough. If some pathetic, poor sap dresses him/her up and plays house--so what? What would you have this lonely person do instead?
Darwin, we don't have a problem with that, but obviously, the personal is political.
I am just pointing out that perhaps these guys are poor, lonely saps because they carry the ideals and mentality of misogynistic assholes. Plus, it's kind of creepy.
It further illustrates, however, that some men would rather enjoy sexual satisfactions with an image of what they want women to be, rather than what women really are ...
PFM, they'll say the same shit that antifeminists always say about us. That we "don't count" as male voices for feminism; that we don't mean it and we say it only to get laid; of that we're not "real" men -- gay, effeminate, self-hating; whatever.
But from what I've seen of "real" men, count me out.
Thomas - let's pretend we're one of them and play a game for a second. What would you say if you were one of those dudes on feministing.org, talking about this post.
I'd say: damn, look at them, they're all so bitchy and whiny and none of them shaves and they're all men-hating and crappy looking, that we'd rather have sex with a Real Doll than a feminist. Real Dolls have more personalities and enjoy sex more.
Woot!
Your turn!
I wonder how I will make the world a better place today.
I know! I'll dream up some ridiculous strawman version of a position taken by people that I disagree with.
Take THAT, patriarchy!
"What would you have this lonely person do instead?"
Meet real people. Get counseling to address the problems keeping him from meeting real people. Dolls are not a cure for loneliness.
Oh this comment thread reminds me of something I just saw on CurrentTV about Real Dolls...
http://www.current.tv/watch/200802752
also:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ourtown/070803/amberdoll/
Oh this comment thread reminds me of something I just saw on CurrentTV about Real Dolls...
http://www.current.tv/watch/200802752
also:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ourtown/070803/amberdoll/
PFM, I'll quote the epithets hurled at me by the asshole men on my college dorm floor, who just assumed that their Y chromosomes and dicks required me to take their side over the women they harassed:
"How could you stand up for those bitches over us? Dude, I hope the blowjobs were worth it."
That was before "bro's before ho's" was in common usage.
This has already been hated on by the Hater, pretty adroitly.
http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/charlie_sheen_is_a_one_man_sitcom
This may be unsubstantiated gossip, but you can rest assured it's actually happened. I read a really long article (on Salon, I think) some while back about Real Dolls, and they spoke to a guy who repairs them. He said he sees all kinds of really disturbing, obviously purposely done mutilation. Much more than he sees normal wear and tear. And a great deal of it is focused on the face or the vagina.
There are some really sick creeps using these things. And I don't think it's paranoid to worry that some day some of them may graduate to flesh-and-blood woman.
"Please don't rattle my brain! I need it!"
You've earned a reprieve by not trying to argue further when the point was adequately explained, UCLABodyImage. :)
In any case, I mostly get fed up because the vibrator argument comes up a lot.
If you had a original version Cabbage Patch doll that you "mistreated", the company would take it away from you. Wouldn't the Real Doll dudes take Sheen's doll away from him too? And perhaps, bar him from getting another one?
RachelInga, June:
I saw a video interview with the RealDolls creator, and he actually will blacklist people if he finds out they've been mistreating his dolls (he also mentioned the mistreatment in the video).
Sorry, can't find it on YouTube. As an aside, that was probably the most disturbing search I've run in recent memory. I don't recommend trying it yourself. :/
BBC America has a documentary it airs from time to time called "Love Me, Love My Doll." Which features Davecat, one of the guys featured in the Salon article.
And it's every bit as creepy as you thought.
I'm not sure how to feel about these dolls. Lifelike mannequins in clothing stores have always creeped me out, so I definitely understand the negative sentiment people feel when they see others in imaginary relationships with these vacant humanlike objects.
I don't know if RealDolls make these men's fantasies tangible in the way violent porn makes rape fantasies come to life (and causes the viewer to think that women like violent sex) or if they are just a way for lonely and socially awkward people feel better temporarily with something that looks like their ideal partner(and, like in Charlie Sheen's case, exacerbates his already not-so-clear mental state). I'm sure there are plenty of these doll owners are generally harmless people, but I'm concerned about the severely twisted people who get their hands on one of these dolls.
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink." -George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"
It has always amazed me that the sex control troopers, who obsess about abortion rights and birth control, but support a warmongering foreign policy, torture of suspected political enemies and capital punishment and consider the assassination of physicians to be merely collateral damage in the culture war, have the audacity to call themselves "pro-life".
It amazes me just as much that self-proclaimed "pro-choice", "feminist" writers, who are strident about preserving what they oh-so-euphemistically characterize as "reproductive freedom", make haste to condemn other persons' fetishes about inanimate objects.
I realize that the discussions of RealDolls linked on this blog do not advocate criminalization or other governmental controls of willing adults' unconventional sexual practices and proclivities, but I should nevertheless pose this question: is "choice", as to adults' voluntary sexual practices, an important value when the choice doesn't involve a fetus?