PDA

View Full Version : Real dolls have no heart


Cruddy
12-06-2005, 03:49:32
So, a sex doll for $6,000? That's a snip compared to this;-

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1361247.html?menu=news.quirkies.sexlife

stealth biased
12-06-2005, 06:56:57
or, "what venom was up to this weekend."

The Norks
12-06-2005, 11:25:28
"They are almost impossible to distinguish from the real thing, but I am still developing improvements and I will only be happy when what I have is better than the real thing."

I guess they are impossible to distinguish from the real thing if you have only fucked plastic chairs and watermelons.

I hope by 'better than the real thing' he means the dolls will hold a double first from Oxford, have won three Olympic medals and be able to expand on Einstein's theory of relativity.

Only a tosser thinks a doll is better than a real woman, and only a German goes to such ridiculous lengths for a glorified wank.

Funko
12-06-2005, 11:38:35
If he want to sell loads of them he's probably going to say they are really good no?

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 12:25:43
Does this doll smoke a fag after sex?

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:34:06
Originally posted by Funko
If he want to sell loads of them he's probably going to say they are really good no?

If I wanted to pimp child prostitutes I would say they were really good, that wouldn't make it ethically sound.

protein
12-06-2005, 12:36:05
I don't think it's unethical. It's just really, really sad. Women like shoving plastic cocks up themselves. Some sad men like sticking their cocks in plastic twats.

protein
12-06-2005, 12:36:41
I suppose the difference is that you rarely find the rest of the man attached to the dildo.

Funko
12-06-2005, 12:39:42
Originally posted by The Norks
If I wanted to pimp child prostitutes I would say they were really good, that wouldn't make it ethically sound.

How does this even compare to child prostitution?

:confused:

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 12:41:06
How much for an upgrade then? :cute:

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:43:27
Originally posted by protein
I don't think it's unethical. It's just really, really sad. Women like shoving plastic cocks up themselves. Some sad men like sticking their cocks in plastic twats.

yes but I havent designed a plastic cock with wiggling hips and a heartbeat and cold feet and realistic dead fish eyes.

Thats the sad bit. Perhaps its overstating it to say its unethical but I find it highly distasteful when someone hopes to promote a rubber fuck doll as 'better than the real thing'. I think its a horrible way to refer to women- damn us and our messy opinions/emotions/periods! If only we would shut up and just lie there and wiggle our hips more!. Nasty. Its like the Stepford Wives.

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 12:45:04
Face it Norks, you're obsolete ;)

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:45:17
Originally posted by protein
I suppose the difference is that you rarely find the rest of the man attached to the dildo.

women are practical- if we were to invest 5 grand in a doll we'd want it to mow the lawn, hoover up and cook dinner at least. Possibly we'd get a cash machine upgrade.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:46:46
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Face it Norks, you're obsolete ;)

evidently RealNorks is better than real norks. Ironic.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:49:28
Originally posted by Funko
How does this even compare to child prostitution?

:confused:

I am saying that saying something is good is not a defence for the product, its not necessarily a harmless bit of fun just because someone says it is. I think its pretty sinister on a very insidious level.

Funko
12-06-2005, 17:02:00
It's just a really expensive vibrator for men. :confused:

Cruddy
12-06-2005, 17:06:34
Originally posted by The Norks
I am saying that saying something is good is not a defence for the product, its not necessarily a harmless bit of fun just because someone says it is. I think its pretty sinister on a very insidious level.

A bit like artificial wombs - not a good idea for 50% of the population.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 18:01:35
Originally posted by Funko
It's just a really expensive vibrator for men. :confused:

depends on whether you take it at face value or whether you look at the underlying values it supports and the meaning of what the guy is saying.

Ultimately any piece of advertising or merchandising supports certain cultural values and norms. I don't like the Stepford wives- mute writhing dolls are better than women angle of what this guy is peddling.

I'm not asking you to agree. :)

Cruddy
12-06-2005, 18:07:56
He's not peddling anything just yet - he's researching what men might pay silly money for.

LoD
12-06-2005, 18:48:13
Originally posted by The Norks
depends on whether you take it at face value or whether you look at the underlying values it supports and the meaning of what the guy is saying.


The underlying truth it supports and takes advantage of is that men are, by average, much more strongly dependant on visual stimuli than women. If the opposite would hold, you can betch your ass most dildos would have a men-doll attachment to them, and no one would be saying that this is somehow derogative for men.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 23:10:02
I've never believed that old chestnut- I think its been historically less acceptable for women to look at porn or to express an overt sexuality. I think the last 20-30 have turned that round somewhat. I look at porn, so do many of my girlfriends. Conversely I still know women who think its a man thing. I've never yet met a woman who said 'oh I'm just not visually stimulated' If that were true, looks would not be a criteria for women when seeking a mate- the reactions to David Beckham/Robert Redford/Tom Jones/whoever proves otherwise :)

I think its a sad day when men are saying 'we're dumb! don't blame us! We can't help ourselves'' Men aren't dumb at all, they have been conditioned a certain way tho, and its a convenient defence. Maybe you really think you are dumb tho?!

Cruddy
12-06-2005, 23:26:57
Originally posted by The Norks
I think its a sad day when men are saying 'we're dumb! don't blame us! We can't help ourselves'' Men aren't dumb at all, they have been conditioned a certain way tho, and its a convenient defence. Maybe you really think you are dumb tho?!

Have you ever noticed the difference between males watching a female stripper and females watching a male stripper?

The men are much quieter, ie, dumb.

Although, yes, it's probably much more a conditioned response than an X or Y chromosone at work.

LoD
12-06-2005, 23:27:05
Originally posted by The Norks
I've never believed that old chestnut- I think its been historically less acceptable for women to look at porn or to express an overt sexuality. I think the last 20-30 have turned that round somewhat. I look at porn, so do many of my girlfriends. Conversely I still know women who think its a man thing. I've never yet met a woman who said 'oh I'm just not visually stimulated' If that were true, looks would not be a criteria for women when seeking a mate- the reactions to David Beckham/Robert Redford/Tom Jones/whoever proves otherwise :)


OK. Now tell me how many of them are fucking David Beckham/Robert Redford/Tom Jones/whoever proves otherwise ;)?
Seriously 'though, you're implying that I've stated something I didn't. I have not said that:
-women are not visually stimulated.
-man are exclusively stimulated
BUT
-men are, by average, much more strongly dependant on visual stimuli than women


I think its a sad day when men are saying 'we're dumb! don't blame us! We can't help ourselves'' Men aren't dumb at all, they have been conditioned a certain way tho, and its a convenient defence. Maybe you really think you are dumb tho?! [/B]

Again, you're putting words into my mouth that didn't come from it! I've only speculated about why such real dolls can be prefered by men over women!
Why do you have to turn every argument in the subject to the "big bad men patriarchy" theme? It's a good thing you're not, say, supporting Bush to the same extent, because you would habe called by "terrorist" ten times over by now!

The Norks
12-06-2005, 23:54:45
I don't believe men are more visually stimulated, but I think its a convenient way of saying 'we're dumb, we can't help it!'. As though the visual thing overides sense or meaning. Does that clarify?

I didnt mention patriarchy at all. I don't think has to do with patriarchy, I think it has to do with semiotics and societal attitudes, sure. Advertising yes. I wouldn't link it necessarily to patriarchy.

I think its relevant to say that as a man you probably are less inclined to be offended by things like this, or perhaps to notice, whereas it fucking winds me up- I take it as a personal insult when some tosser says he can invent a doll that will be an improvement on women.

The fact that he is German only adds to my ire. :D

Provost Harrison
13-06-2005, 00:08:13
Yeah, but let's face it, it's not too hard if he's comparing to German women ;)

The Norks
13-06-2005, 00:12:41
my brother used to date a Swiss- it has since passed into legend that she told him German womens evacuate their bowels before sex- out of politeness and consideration in case their partner wants to put it up the poo pipe. :lol:

Provost Harrison
13-06-2005, 00:25:06
:lol:

The Norks
13-06-2005, 02:52:39
you laugh, but he has friends who have planned holidays to Germany on the strength of that statement! :nervous:

Cruddy
13-06-2005, 08:29:58
... only to be disappointed that most of the prostitutes are immigrants and don't follow the custom.

LoD
14-06-2005, 00:57:46
Originally posted by The Norks
I don't believe men are more visually stimulated, but I think its a convenient way of saying 'we're dumb, we can't help it!'. As though the visual thing overides sense or meaning. Does that clarify?


Not really. Is that a belief, or an opinion? If it's the former, then I can't argue with beliefs. If it's the latter, what is the basis of that opinion?

OK, once again - I was merely speculating as to why men are much more likely to buy such dolls in comparison to plastic vaginas. Now, take note that those men do not think that such a "reall doll" is an improvement on women, hell, they don't care what the advertiser says. They just found such contraptions more arousing as the hetero-male counterpart to the dildo. Why? Stronger visual stimulation. And there is absolutely no chauvinistic subcontext in that, the dolls are just an Ersatz for the "real thing". Does that clarify?

MEN ARE SIMPLE, "we" tend not to put some hidden meaning into everything, try to not forget that :).


I didnt mention patriarchy at all. I don't think has to do with patriarchy, I think it has to do with semiotics and societal attitudes, sure. Advertising yes. I wouldn't link it necessarily to patriarchy.


OK, I've used the term "patriarchy" as a generalisation here. See above.


I think its relevant to say that as a man you probably are less inclined to be offended by things like this,


But then again, "we are not stupid!" :lol:. How are "we" are not stupid when we are less inclined to have a negative reaction of someone trying to pass a congloromerate of silicone and machinery as a living being? Please, Norks, make up your mind!
For the record - I'm mostly amused, and slightly offended as well as disgusted.



or perhaps to notice, whereas it fucking winds me up- I take it as a personal insult when some tosser says he can invent a doll that will be an improvement on women. [/B]

I'm not saying you should, I was talking about something completely different. See first paragraph.