I was thinking about this earlier and I think I got a bit to why this makes me feel uncomfortable.
It is not unusual for girls / women to be treated as a collection of attractive / appealing / sexy body parts by men that they encounter around the place (street harassment etc). Many of us will have been addressed by strangers referring to a part of our body that they like the look of. We know that in many societies female submission is de rigeur. In our own terribly advanced western society I am sure that many of us will have experienced a man behaving in a aghast manner when we express some knowledge / an opinion about something that they didn't expect us to know about / something they don't think you should have an opinion on. My grandfather for instance had excellent form for this. Financial matters and gardening were two areas where he woudl actually get quite angry if a female chipped in.
Anyway. So we know this. We know that a depressing number of men the world over would quite like it actually if we kept our bobs shut and our legs spread and the fridge stocked. Some men are around the world believe it is wrong for us to do anything else. Maybe throw some production of babies and childcare in there.
So anyway. I think what jars for me is that this is a literal representation of that. A selection of holes in a female body which is not responsive / responds exactly as you want to it (animated / or not).
With men, and male sex toys, how many women literally think of men as just hard penises? And sure yes we can objectify men but the history and all that, it's not quite the same. Women on the whole do not think of men in anything like the terms that we know a depressingly large number of men think of women as.
So there was that. I do think that this underlying knowledge of how lots of men think about and treat lots of women is why some women on this thread have a really instinctive adverse reaction to this.
Then on the "it's OK to have an adult woman one but not a child or an animal". Why?
If it's a sexual fantasy with no carry over into real life, why not?
If it's to do with crimes, the consent of the doll is not sought, it's inanimate. The man might well not "make lurve" to it he might punch it in the face and assault it. Sexual violence as a fantasy is hardly rare. Would the men have to promise that they would not be nasty to the dolls otherwise they couldn't have one? It's nonsensical.
What about dolls of 16yo or elderly women, are they OK? I asked that upthread not sure if people who are pro some dolls but not others responded to that.
Then there's the point that if it's not moving, then it's simulating an unconscious / asleep / dead woman, just there for the man to do whatever to, that also gives a fairly visceral reaction for all the women who have been in that position themselves I would think.
Sorry that was an essay!