Human Connection

River

Active member
I just read (well, part of) an article which begins, "There’s nothing weird about owning a sex doll. Most of us would, if they were cheaper." (Source: https://medium.com/@JessicaLexicus/everyone-should-buy-a-sex-doll-459de0e40c7f )

Okay, I didn't even get far into that article before coming here and posting this. I'll read the rest later.

I found that claim startling! Most people would own a sex doll ... if they were cheaper?!

This claim does several things, but one of them is that it reveals how many of us imagine other people are much like ourselves, so that we make predictions about others which presume others are motivated in the same way, by the same things, as we are. That's an interesting psychological and social phenomenon all by itself, and worthy of discussion on its own terms.

Honestly, I cannot even imagine for a second wanting a sex doll. And this helps reveal why, for me, what I sometimes call "the human connection" is so crucially central to what sex is about for me. It's mostly about that: the human connection. Obviously no sex doll or AI robot could ever provide a genuine human connection. So why go there? Why?

Now I can see wanting or having a vibrator. That makes sense. It's simply a higher tech, zippy way to masturbate. In this case, the human connection is not between man (or woman) and machine, but between me, myself and I. (Note: I don't actually own a vibrator, though I have played with them and enjoyed it, long ago.)

A sex doll (or AI robot) is meant to resemble a person. But it has no more person-ness than a pumpkin or a tree stump. Right?

This thread is obviously not about poly relationships, per se. It's about the relationship of sex and ... the human connection. It's about what intimacy and love are. It's a weird way to explore, a kind of "thought experiment"... meant to reveal whatever it may, in conversation. Perhaps it could help us understand poly relationships -- and relationships in general, somehow? Le'ts find out.
 
Last edited:
What you said in...

Now I can see wanting or having a vibrator. That makes sense. It's simply a higher tech, zippy way to masturbate. In this case, the human connection is not between man (or woman) and machine, but between me, myself and

...is along the lines of this from the article....

How does sex with a doll feel? You’ll think I’m weird, but it felt just as good as any night with a real person. That’s because I didn’t want all the emotional attachment that comes with fucking one. So I didn’t miss the pillow talk, the cuddling, the sweet nothings. I’ll give my doll four stars. She was an extremely advanced form of masturbation.

I don't want a sex doll. Much easier to have and store a vibrator. But I pretty much view it through that same lens -- sex dolls are another way to masturbate. I don't think a sex doll is going to replace shared sex with another human. Because it isn't shared sex. It's solo sex.

Galagirl
 
I see a sex doll the same way as GalaGirl. It's an elaborate form of masturbation. I imagine the novelty would wear off quickly.

A robot. OTOH, might be creepy.
 
I would actually consider a robot. Although the AI would have to be much more advanced than anything currently available.

A sex doll would be more trouble than it would be worth. I would even say that about a vibrator -- for me personally.
 
I'm certainly not "most people" then.

I adore the connectivity of sex with another person, and the truly bad sex in my life has been when there is an unanticipated disconnect.

As for a doll as a masturbatory aid, I cannot imagine enjoying that, but then again, I didn't try out vibrators until my 30s and at first got put off by the sensations in my fingertips. I adapted.

As for the assumption of similarity over difference, that's a massive thing to unpack, psychologically and sociologically. Difference, and fear of it, seems to be the main foundation of societal tension, and it is rife. I suspect the author, probably subconsciously, believed that they were talking about people they never saw as other in the first place.
 
What you said in...



...is along the lines of this from the article....



I don't want a sex doll. Much easier to have and store a vibrator. But I pretty much view it through that same lens -- sex dolls are another way to masturbate. I don't think a sex doll is going to replace shared sex with another human. Because it isn't shared sex. It's solo sex.

Galagirl

The main difference between a sex doll and a handheld vibrator is that the vibrator is not made to look like a human body / person. That it is simply a vibrator is not even attempted to be concealed. It's obviously just an electrical device. A sex doll is deliberately made to look roughly like a person, and to have a similar shape and size. But it feels nothing, cares for nothing, likes or loves nobody, and isn't very good at conversation or sensitivity.

If the sex doll is merely a tool for masturbation, why do they go to the trouble of making it look roughly humanoid.?

Oh... It's good I'm not stuck on reading that article right away. It turns out I've surpassed my free monthly access to articles for this month, and I don't want to purchase a subscription (it's cheap, yeah, but I don't do credit cards online. I'm just weird that way).
 
A sex doll is deliberately made to look roughly like a person, and to have a similar shape and size. But it feels nothing, cares for nothing, likes or loves nobody, and isn't very good at conversation or sensitivity.

Yup. And I doubt I would use a sex doll looking for those kinds of things.

Though here's a weird slant I only thought of because of my parents. What about seniors with dementia who still want to have sex? Maybe sex dolls fill a need there. Maybe that's close enough for them and maybe that's good.

Cuz I told my mom to be careful. Dad's much bigger than her. And he's not in his right mind. And nobody want to think about senior marital rape. Much less senior dementia marital rape.

And in literature? I have found VERY little to help her in that area. It's really sad. It's like people don't want to talk about senior sex much at all, much less senior sex with a patient person. Yet how many seniors deal with being caregivers to a spouse?

If the sex doll is merely a tool for masturbation, why do they go to the trouble of making it look roughly humanoid.?

I wonder that about vibrators made to look like a penis. Or fleshlights made to look like female genitalia.

I suppose the main reason is to try to sell product. Maybe it makes it easier for some people to pretend it is a person even when it isn't and pretend that there is some sort of human connection even if they don't have it in their lives. These tools are fantasy aids too. Not just masturbation aids.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Had anyone see the movie "Lars and the Real Girl"? Ryan Gosling plays a young man who has difficulty being around people. He orders a Real Girl sex doll online. He is under the delusion she is real. It ends up helping him out of his shell.

I imagine there are people who would get diluded like that.
 
Yup. And I doubt I would use a sex doll looking for those kinds of things.

Though here's a weird slant I only thought of because of my parents. What about seniors with dementia who still want to have sex? Maybe sex dolls fill a need there. Maybe that's close enough for them and maybe that's good.

Cuz I told my mom to be careful. Dad's much bigger than her. And he's not in his right mind. And nobody want to think about senior marital rape. Much less senior dementia marital rape.

And in literature? I have found VERY little to help her in that area. It's really sad. It's like people don't want to talk about senior sex much at all, much less senior sex with a patient person. Yet how many seniors deal with being caregivers to a spouse?



I wonder that about vibrators made to look like a penis. Or fleshlights made to look like female genitalia.

I suppose the main reason is to try to sell product. Maybe it makes it easier for some people to pretend it is a person even when it isn't and pretend that there is some sort of human connection even if they don't have it in their lives. These tools are fantasy aids too. Not just masturbation aids.

Galagirl

These are all fascinating questions. They verge on the rhetorical question, but are more open and loose than that. I love it!

I've been rather astonished and amazed -- and sometimes worried -- over recent time as it becomes more and more apparent that a great deal more people than I had ever imagined appear to lack the capacity to form genuinely intimate human relationships. That's a weird and convoluted sentence, of course. I'm sure with effort I could significantly improve upon it, but ... nah. You get the point. (Or with some effort you might.)

Fantasy seems to fill in for a lack of ability, capacity, to actually connect with others.

It also seems to be working in politics. Sigh.
 
Had anyone see the movie "Lars and the Real Girl"? Ryan Gosling plays a young man who has difficulty being around people. He orders a Real Girl sex doll online. He is under the delusion she is real. It ends up helping him out of his shell.

I imagine there are people who would get diluded like that.

Hmm. I'll have to look into this movie. I've never heard of it.

Let's see... Maybe there's a trailer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcs9DrKYRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9aISYBJXY

Oh, that could be fun. I'll see if my local renter of antiquated DVDs has a copy.
 
Last edited:
more people than I had ever imagined appear to lack the capacity to form genuinely intimate human relationships.

I could understand that.

But that's not been my experience. Over time? I noticed that it is a mixed bag. And more time just confirmed to me that it has always been a mixed bag.

  • Some people? Know themselves really well. They have good INTRApersonal skills. Some don't know themselves well at all.
  • Some people? Know others well. They have good INTERpersonal skills. Some people don't do well with others.
  • Some people? Have both intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Some don't have either set of skills.

There's all the shades in between.

Fantasy seems to fill in for a lack of ability, capacity, to actually connect with others.

Sometimes fantasy works for that. I'm ok with that. A large part of my Dad's life right now is in fantasy. Lately he's been talking to ghosts. Mom dismisses it as more of his barmy, but it can also be an "end of life" stage signal. (Before death a lot of people start seeing things or people from the past.)

Fantasy is sometimes also just for fun. People have fantasy related sex with each other. Why not with a sex doll?

Galagirl
 
Fantasy is sometimes also just for fun. People have fantasy related sex with each other. Why not with a sex doll?

What if we turn the question around the other way, "People have fantasy related sex with a sex doll. Why not with a each other?"

And what about those people who cannot, for whatever reason, actually be with another person in sex, since fantasy is the only access they have to "eros"? Real sex, apparently, for some, is ... not so fantastic. Pun intended.

Anyway, it's one thing to allow a little fantasy to spice up your "sex life". It's quite another for your "sex life" to be entirely taken over by your "fantasy life". The movie Vinsanity just mentioned is simply an over-the-top (and comedic) exaggeration of the almost rhetorical question I'm less rhetorically exploring here.

Real human intimacy is (at times) ... genuinely challenging. Sex dolls ... aren't. Maybe a lot of us aren't willing to take on the challenge, but our need for "connection" doesn't seem to care much? It just goes on doing what it does, even if it verges too far into fantasy for our feet to land on the ground?
 
What if we turn the question around the other way, "People have fantasy related sex with a sex doll. Why not with a each other?"

Isn't that what prostitutes are for?

Two people in a relationship don't always share the same fantasies. If they did they would probably be realities instead of fantasies.

Not all fantasies should be shared.

This raises another question. Is it okay to quietly fantasize something while having sex with a partner, or is that just turning them into the equivalent of a sex doll?
 
I don't worry about who does or does not like sex dolls.

I am however, very data oriented and trained in finance.

The latest dolls are earning more than $100 an hour and can be in use over 16 hours a day. At even 300 days a year that is a half-million dollars in revenue per year. The dolls are making more money than the real prostitutes, and by a long margin. They are being opposed politically of course, where investors are trying to deploy them. But it isn't as easy as banning prostitution because... it technically is not, lol. You need a human to make the charge.

I don't argue why people like Anchovies on pizza or like gay sex or whatever, I just acknowledge what they tell me or in this case what the market is saying about sex robots.

The innovations going on right now with artificial intelligence, limbs, articulation, etc. is incredible. It's the battle robots that sober me up, scary. But I follow the conferences and read their papers. A lot of different branches of research are going on independently and simultaneously, some working on the AI, some working on the fine limb movements, some working on human locomotor ability, etc.

It's obvious to me that all these things are beginning to merge together and will very quickly produce a unit that can make a sandwich for a guy, and that's possibly the end of humanity, lol.

The author's stament regarding demand for sex robots being so responsive to price reductions: I think it needs to be understood in the context of tech prices generally. The first computer was a million dollars and couldn't do much of anything. Decades later we have something called *gasp* personal computers.

Decades more, and every kid has a new $600 I-Phone that makes Houston Control, NASA and the moon landing look like an abacus. Used, they're a hundred bucks or whatever.

This is how it is going with humanoid robotics, as with robotics in general. The chinese are putting out a lot. Little doggies and nannies and task-oriented units. With mass consumer market prices. And people love their little robot doggies.

Here is where empirically what you say does not appear to be true generally, at least with robot doggies or ones that don't even take an animal shape: people project life onto them. So what the robots lack in "human connection" will be projected onto them by the owners. Or rather, people are already proving they do that for ridiculously poor androids.

If you look on Youtube for "Boston Dynamics Atlas Parkour"...

That is their Atlas robot running, jumping, flipping, it can climb, etc. It's amazing.

This is more what I follow on robotics. When you put a brain on that guy, you have the Terminator.

Watching these conferences and reading their technical papers, I would say that in 20 years a guy will probably be able to pick up a used female sex-capable robot for $1k and it will be able to walk, climb stairs, lay down in the bed, and boogie. Guys will fall in love with them.

Across genders they are obviously the far greater threat to women.
 
Some people can't tolerate being touched by another human being. Sometimes that's because of a sensory integration disorder, autism spectrum disorder, or something along those lines. (A child in my family couldn't even tolerate being tapped on the shoulder, let alone anything like a hug or kiss, because of sensory integration issues that were part of their autism.) Sometimes it's because of physical and/or sexual abuse or other trauma.

In my case, it was partly sexual abuse and partly years of bullying that included other kids acting like they were freaking out and panicking if I even accidentally brushed against them in the hallway or something. After a couple of years of that, I developed a phobia of touching anyone else or being touched; even though I obviously managed to overcome it somewhat, or I wouldn't have had two kids with my ex, I never managed to be fully comfortable touching or being touched until I met Hubby. Touch is his primary language of love and connection, and I learned to accept it and then actually want it because it was what he needed. (Unfortunately, my kids, especially Alt, suffered because of my difficulty dealing with human touch; I was sometimes not able to tolerate any physical contact at all, including hugs from a child who really needed a hug.) I enjoyed sexual sensations and orgasms, but hated sex with someone else because it involved letting someone else touch me.

I didn't have a sex doll, or even try a vibrator until I was in my late 30s, largely due to not knowing such things existed and to an upbringing and marriage (to my kids' dad, my ex) that taught me women weren't supposed to want or accept sexual pleasure. But if I'd known those things existed and had learned anywhere along the line that sexual pleasure was a good thing and an acceptable thing to want and seek, I might have tried them sooner, because I would have been able to enjoy the sensations I wanted without having to accept someone touching me. I needed--though generally didn't have--*emotional* human connection, but *physical* connection was a difficult, sometimes traumatic thing for me until my late 30s.

From my experience, and my observations and conversations with a number of people, *not* everyone craves or even wants any type of connection with other human beings. Sometimes, as with me, it's the opposite; they're averse to it and don't want any of it. Sometimes it's like with Hubby; while touch is his primary means of connection with other people, he's perfectly happy not connecting with other people at all, physically or emotionally. It isn't that he doesn't want it, he just doesn't feel the need for it; it's nice if it's there but no big deal if it isn't.

So I definitely can see a place for sex dolls and other solo-use sex toys in the lives of those who are touch-averse for whatever reason, or who aren't particularly interested in or don't feel the need for human connection. Not wanting to be touched or not caring whether or not you're connected to others--or not wanting to have such a connection--doesn't automatically negate the need and/or desire for sexual pleasure and release, so it makes sense that that would be available in a way that doesn't require another human being. With sex dolls specifically, someone might experience physical attraction, and might want a sex "partner" they find physically attractive, but aren't able to have or tolerate an actual human partner, so a sex doll would fulfill the desire to have a physically attractive "partner" and the need to not have to have physical contact with a human.
 
This raises another question. Is it okay to quietly fantasize something while having sex with a partner, or is that just turning them into the equivalent of a sex doll?

Yeah, it's okay. But, in my experience, the most ecstatic sexual experiences are those where the actuality / reality is better and more exciting than any fantasy could be.

This can get challenging for those of us who are a bit hung up on youth, and youthful good looks, as we and our partners age. (Yes, I speak from experience here.)

Certainly if we're always fantasizing about being with someone else other than our partner while we're with them physically we're depriving them--and ourselves--of the fullness of our presence. And often it is our presence they most want and need -- and we most want and need. (Obviously, this principle applies to other activities other than sex just as much.)
 
Guys will fall in love with them.

For philosophically inclined people, like myself, this statement really pops out!

It certainly raises some interesting questions about "love". It also raises interesting questions about how a toaster is different from a person. It raises a LOT of really fundamental questions about what a human being ... is.

If there is a sci-fi like future where people have robot companions which they've commonly fallen in love with I suspect there will be "criminal gangs" which seek to break the trance these fellas are in by doing criminal political "actions" meant to point out that, however fancy the machine is, it's fundamentally like a mid twentieth century (antique, by then) kitchen toaster. That is, it has no experiences of its own, cannot feel, cannot care, cannot love....
 
From my experience, and my observations and conversations with a number of people, *not* everyone craves or even wants any type of connection with other human beings. Sometimes, as with me, it's the opposite; they're averse to it and don't want any of it.

No. Not everyone. But certainly a very strong majority do. And in the cases of exception, generally there is trauma and pathology involved.

Human beings are primates, and social animals, by nature. But we're also a very adaptable species which appears to be capable of wandering off and away from its own most basic animal attributes. Though I've not yet read it (waiting for the softcover), Johann Hari's book, Lost Connections, seems to address this modern phenomenon, in which whole societies have drifted off and away from the recognition and honoring of the basic human need to live in 'connection' with others. https://thelostconnections.com/

I'm very interested in the topic of psychological well-being, and also the very related question of what are basic human needs are. That we are diverse in many respects is certainly true, but it's also true that most of us share a common set of needs which can be either acknowledged and addressed or ignored and neglected. This can happen in the micro-immediate scale or even on a broad, wide scale such as a whole culture or society. When a whole culture / society loses track of what our basic psychological needs are we end up with psychological pandemics. And I'm pretty damn sure we're in the midst of a global one right at this very moment. But, as Albert Einstein once said, "Fish will be the last to discover water". We often have difficulty seeing what we're immersed in.
 
If there is a sci-fi like future where people have robot companions which they've commonly fallen in love with I suspect there will be "criminal gangs" which seek to break the trance these fellas are in by doing criminal political "actions" meant to point out that, however fancy the machine is, it's fundamentally like a mid twentieth century (antique, by then) kitchen toaster. That is, it has no experiences of its own, cannot feel, cannot care, cannot love....

I'm not sure if the AI is sophisticated enough that one can fall in love with it that you can't say it loves back. Consider the AI in the movie She, or the holographic companion in Bladerunner 2049.
 
Back
Top