Canadian doll brothels

[OrchidInTheSun]

One in Vancouver where you visit dolls on site and another where you can rent a doll for a period of time. Rent price includes delivery, set up and collection.

"House of Dolls operates in a kitchen-grade workspace, where dolls undergo a two-hour sanitizing process after use. The dolls have a metal frame with silicone flesh and realistic genitals.
“They are cleaned with antimicrobial soap and warm water from head to toe,” she said. An internal camera and a black light are used to ensure no human residues remain, inside or out."

Delicious!

vancouversun.com/news/local-news/sex-doll-rentals-licensed-in-kamloops-doll-brothel-opens-in-vancouver

And?

You understand, Gronky, that by your own logic there should be no demand for these sex dolls, as, according to you they fulfill the same role and equally realistic as an isolated orifice/dildo, which is much cheaper to own exclusively, on top of it?
The very fact that there is a demand for the dolls, disproves your hypothesis.

I'm betting prostitutes of the human flesh sort will be the litmus test for how this impacts at least a certain type of man. The sort of behaviour a man who has sex with rapes a prostitute for the first time exhibits is likely to be different if he progresses from fucking a doll first, than if it's the first time he's paid for sex rape.

Maybe there should be a rule that if you have sex with a doll you can only ever have sex with a doll from then on. That would take some d*cks (see what I did there ) out of circulation - and almost certainly the sort that wouldn't be missed.

Similarly, I would worry that someone would get used to being very violent with dolls with comparatively few consequences and then transfer that behaviour to a real person.

You understand, Gronky, that by your own logic there should be no demand for these sex dolls, as, according to you they fulfill the same role

I was exploring your logic (i.e. people don't humanise dildos/isolated orifices). My logic is that people are able to differentiate between a lump of rubber and an actual human being and that these aren't any more of an issue than dildos/isolated orifices. People have different needs and interests.

and equally realistic as an isolated orifice/dildo, which is much cheaper to own exclusively, on top of it?

I'll defer to your expertise on the TCO across the range of sex toys.

Similarly, I would worry that someone would get used to being very violent with dolls with comparatively few consequences and then transfer that behaviour to a real person.

Like violent video games?

On the one hand I'd rather a man paid for sex with a realistic doll rather than a prostitute.

On the other hand it's really unnerving to think of a man paying for sex with a completely inanimate but realistic looking woman, and also how if they fantasize about slapping or choking or punching a woman during sex (very common in porn) they'll be able to act this out in a realistic way, and who knows where that leads.

Gronky Indeed, if there were Holo-Deck types of violent video games, smell and feel and all, I‘d consider them way more impactful on the players‘ psyche than the currently available ones, which I consider more dangerous than packman (even though packman eats his enemies, no less).

Thank you for making my point with this excellent example.

if there were Holo-Deck types of violent video games, smell and feel and all, I‘d consider them way more impactful on the players‘ psyche than the currently available ones

I'm terribly sorry to 'make' your point then damage it but it seems a little bit of reading might help clear things up:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200724

In short, engagement in terms of arousal did not significantly vary between conventional (i.e. 2D screen) and virtual reality games. Moreover, recall was worse for virtual reality, showing the experience was less impactful.

If anything, I would suggest that an inanimate piece of rubber is even less harmful because the interaction is driven entirely by the user, meaning what specifically takes place is entirely the product of their own thoughts. Video games can potentially be scripted to drive the player towards violent actions and pornography (involving real people) is even worse because it could be perceived as downright instructive.

In short, engagement in terms of arousal did not significantly vary between conventional (i.e. 2D screen) and virtual reality games.

This may just be a problem of the difference between those game types not being pronounced enough to make a difference. A 3-D game bar involvement of all 5 senses ain't no Holo-Deck. If you think that one PLOS paper comparing two very similar media and not even involving paraphilia proves your point, you are sorely mistaken.

But then again, you seem to believe that a heterosexual male is fine with sucking dick, as long as the person owning said dick has a beautiful 'feminine' soul and a wig - so logic is probably powerless against your delusions.

This may just be a problem of the difference between those game types not being pronounced enough to make a difference.

If you have any inclination to explore the topic further, rather than simply running through the same conjecture, please re-read the section on cognitive loading to see how much of a difference both the virtual environment and the use of directly replayed physical interaction plays a role.

A 3-D game bar involvement of all 5 senses ain't no Holo-Deck.

I doubt the taste and smell aspects will be comparable between a lump of rubber and a living person. If anything, the presence of these differences will act to disconnect the experience further from reality than a scenario where they're purely absent (where the mind is able to fill in the blanks).

But then again, you seem to believe that a heterosexual male is fine with sucking dick

That's a somewhat creepy bit of cyberstalking but I appreciate the effort. I was advising against re-engaging in a debate with a specific 'trump card' of a point in mind and no plan for a subsequent response. My line of reasoning was purely a thought experiment for how a 'woke' person might respond rather than a personal belief.

It seems that you're really not interested in discussing the matter but rather in attacking anyone who disagrees with you, so I won't waste any more of our time. If you wish to make some evidence-based counterpoints, please do so, I'd love to be wrong.

It is quite simple, really, Gronky. Men who consume porn are shit in bed, to put it mildly. Bad enough. Now, introducing stuff that does even more, and even more intensely conveys the experience that women are there to serve male sexual needs unreservedly and silently will do nothing to make this better, but has great potential to make it worse. So, unless there is a study that unambigously proves that there is no negative impact of regularly using such dolls on men’s ability to understand and honor consent, this is just another irresponsible act that risks women and children safety.

Being accused of stalking for simply visiting another thread and reading it and referring to it, is quite funny. By that measure we mums here stalk each other regularly. Oh well.

Gronky, why do you think serial killers often start with cruelty to animals?

Because violent male pattern behaviour escalates.

Men who consume porn are shit in bed, to put it mildly.

I have a lot of issues with pornography, men getting ED isn't one of them. Primarily, I take issue with its production being potentially exploitative and, in some cases, it serving as instructive for abuse.

So, unless there is a study that unambigously proves that there is no negative impact of regularly using such dolls on men’s ability to understand and honor consent, this is just another irresponsible act that risks women and children safety.

As above, I see these as less harmful because they aren't instructive, that is, what the user does is purely of their own making. Any artificial sexual aid can be potentially harmful to relationships, for both men and women:

www.mazewomenshealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Dr-Bat-sheva-Marcus-Medical-Journal.pdf

I used this link because it lets you read the entire article without an academic registration, if you have one the pubmed page is:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205230

Please don't misunderstand, I find the idea of someone using one very unpleasant but I don't identify them as being specifically or exceptionally harmful.

why do you think serial killers often start with cruelty to animals?

It's predictive but I'm not aware of any studies that demonstrated it being contributory. Could you please provide a citation?

I read something on one of the US school shooters - maybe columbine - where a woman suggested that although video games may not turn huge numbers of innocent minds to real life violence, we should consider whether they do have a desensitising or inflaming influence on the young men who do go onto commit violence.

Cf also the men who watch strangulation "porn" and then go on to strangle women to death. Examples on this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332144-Why-is-he-crying-Laura-Huteson-death

And this young lad - who killed his stepmum Fiona Scourfield - who'd been obsessively seeking out "gore" images online. He tried to upload pictures of his stepmum dying to a gore site.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/horrific-details-murder-unfailingly-kind-15151775

I have zero doubts that sex robots will allow some men to exact fantasies on a lifeless female form, which they will then want to re-enact on something a bit more realistic.

BTW I happened on Fiona Scourfield's story earlier - she's one of the UK women who were murdered in the last year and who are being remembered by Counting Dead Women today:

twitter.com/CountDeadWomen?s=09

Why do you think it's "predictive", Gronky? That's kind of my point.

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/melinda-merck-veterinary-forensics/538575/

Why do you think it's "predictive", Gronky? That's kind of my point.

Predictive, in short, people who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans (well established within peer reviewed literature) but not necessarily contributory, wherein preventing them from abusing animals would prevent them from abusing humans. They should still be prevented, on the basis that animal cruelty isn't acceptable but I doubt simply stopping them would stop them from abusing humans later.

It's similar to how it was once thought that smoking contributed to schizophrenia, on the basis that schizophrenics smoked at a much higher rate than the general population, as well as those with unrelated mental illnesses living within the same hospitals (controlling for the environment). It later transpired that nicotine actually suppresses/eases schizophrenic symptoms, they were self medicating, rather than self inflicting (although, obviously, smoking causes other issues).

Predictive, in short, people who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans (well established within peer reviewed literature)

Yes. That's all I needed thanks. I'm not sure why you feel you're making a different point to me? Do you think serial killers carry on abusing animals for kicks while killing women? Do you not understand why that might no longer be enough?

That's all I needed thanks. I'm not sure why you feel you're making a different point to me?

Quote mining is rather poor science. Are you proposing that, if prevented from abusing animals but otherwise sent on their merry way, they're unlikely to become serial killers? In terms of the evidence I've seen (and I again invite you to present contradictory evidence), the proposed causative link is any more than 'when people open umbrellas, it causes rain' logic.

I agree that the concept is unpleasant, even disturbing, but I'm missing the link where adult men doing disturbing things to inanimate objects is contributory to violence against women.

It's the principle of escalation, Gronky. You seem confused. Are you denying such a thing exists? I realise admitting it does is mighty inconvenient to your argument.

I'm missing where I mentioned it in any other way than speculating that it might lead to more concerning behaviour.

It's the principle of escalation, Gronky. You seem confused.

'Because of course it happens that way' isn't a terribly sound argument, Ereshkigal. Wanting something to be a particular way, no matter how hard does not make it so. Bad science is a great way to undermine your cause and prevent change for the better.

I really would reccomend you read up on the difference between correlation and causation. It's not a terribly complex pair of concepts and won't take up very much of your time. To clarify, read whatever guide you find in its entirety, if you just scan until you find the bit you want without approaching the material in a critical fashion, you'll fail to learn anything of use (as you have done here). I appreciate that it's a lot easier and can feel a lot better than some introspection but I believe you're a better person than that.

I'm missing where I mentioned it in any other way than speculating that it might lead to more concerning behaviour.

By all means, speculate away but might I suggest speculating in private if you don't want others to explore (and, potentially even disagree) with your speculations?

It's the principle of escalation, a well documented phenomenon, Gronky dear. Good luck trying to pretend that violent male pattern behaviour doesn't tend to grow more extreme over time.

You appear to have completely missed my point, which isn't surprising as you went off on a boring derail about video games.

This is an article about sex robots, and how very realistic men would like them to be:

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchy-offer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/