Weird Auction of the Day
Kim
Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
--
Kim
think the unthinkable
know the unknowable
eff the ineffable
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1711633789
>
>Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
It cannot in a million years be real. It has over 12,000 hits on the
counter at noon EST, 35 bidders (it started at a buck) & it's up to
$5,400.
These things happen so close to spring break.
I guess when the guy fixed it, he filled all the cracks.
Boron
Mark Hanson
news:yY5i8.22107$106.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1711633789
>
> Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
>
RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
beyond mere sloppy seconds.
Mark
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com> wrote:
>:>
>:> Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
>:>
>: Ew. And what the hell does he mean by "fairly new"? I mean, fucking a
>: RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
>: someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
>: beyond mere sloppy seconds.
>
>I love the Ebay touch, though... as I recall, these things "only" cost
>$5,000 new, yet someone's bidding more than that for a used one. ...
>
>(checks out realdoll.com)
>
>I stand corrected. The new ones are up to $5,749 now, but I'd think it
>would be worth the extra $350 to have one that's, um, mint.
>
>--Art
Nice to know they have mints. Who wants a doll-lover with bad breath?
Boron
Stan
<boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>It cannot in a million years be real. It has over 12,000 hits on the
>counter at noon EST, 35 bidders (it started at a buck) & it's up to
>$5,400.
>
>These things happen so close to spring break.
>
>I guess when the guy fixed it, he filled all the cracks.
>
>Boron
If you look through the feedback (what can I say, I'm bored this
afternoon), you'll see that he has sold other dolls for nearly as
much. Some people have too much money.
But what's a "two head four"?
--
Stan - sze...@hotmail.com
Dana Carpender
Scratchie wrote:
>
> Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
> :>
> : Ew. And what the hell does he mean by "fairly new"? I mean, fucking a
> : RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
> : someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
> : beyond mere sloppy seconds.
>
> I love the Ebay touch, though... as I recall, these things "only" cost
> $5,000 new, yet someone's bidding more than that for a used one. ...
>
> (checks out realdoll.com)
>
> I stand corrected. The new ones are up to $5,749 now, but I'd think it
> would be worth the extra $350 to have one that's, um, mint.
>
So wash her out with Dr. Bronner's soap.
I swear, you can't make shit like this up.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Dana Carpender
Scratchie wrote:
>
> Stan <sze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : But what's a "two head four"?
>
> It means body #2 and head #4. http://www.realdoll.com
>
Real Doll: For men who enjoy necrophilia without the risks.
Carl Fink
used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
for more than 10% off the new cost.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
kay w
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1711633789
>
>Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
Ah, gicky. I suppose I can stand the idea of people owning these dolls, but
holy hell, wouldn't you think that one's that's at least third hand goods is
just too tacky (and I don't mean sticky, although that might be true, too) for
words?
Criminey.
--
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
kay w
>I'm curious: had people not already noticed the weird tendency for
>used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
>occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
>for more than 10% off the new cost.
I figure it's gotta be either auction fever, or people who don't know how to
search for things on line. There's a depilitator that sells used on ebay
(regularly...there are always one or two being offered) for just about what you
can get them new from the Sharper Image site.
I also regularly check ebay's scuba gear offerings...I almost never see items
(even used items) go for less than I'd sell them new.
StarChaser_Tyger
> Previously, Carl said:
>
> >I'm curious: had people not already noticed the weird tendency for
> >used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
> >occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
> >for more than 10% off the new cost.
>
> I figure it's gotta be either auction fever, or people who don't know how to
> search for things on line. There's a depilitator that sells used on ebay
> (regularly...there are always one or two being offered) for just about what you
> can get them new from the Sharper Image site.
>
> I also regularly check ebay's scuba gear offerings...I almost never see items
> (even used items) go for less than I'd sell them new.
I rarely look for things on Ebay that I can find somewhere
new...mostly, I wander the antique and odd stuff sections. Can find
some strange things, there. <Like the Navy stunt-butt used for
teaching how to administer enemas. I didn't buy it, and wouldn't have
even if it wasn't 200$, but it made a lousy day at work much more
fun.>
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Gary S. Callison
: Stan <sze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: : But what's a "two head four"?
: It means body #2 and head #4. http://www.realdoll.com
Dude, you gotta lay off the cough syrup. You're scaring me.
--
Huey
Chris
<StarC...@mindless.com> said:
<snip>
>I rarely look for things on Ebay that I can find somewhere
>new...mostly, I wander the antique and odd stuff sections. Can find
>some strange things, there. <Like the Navy stunt-butt used for
>teaching how to administer enemas. I didn't buy it, and wouldn't have
>even if it wasn't 200$, but it made a lousy day at work much more
>fun.>
OK, so, why is the Navy teaching how to administer enemas? I thought the days of
rum and sodomy were over.
};D
--
Some people think Windows is a virus.
They're wrong; it's a microbe....
...made by MicrobeSoft.
Carl Fink
> OK, so, why is the Navy teaching how to administer enemas? I
> thought the days of rum and sodomy were over.
Ask a veteran sailor about the shellback ritual.
Bill Diamond
back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 05:01:53 GMT that ...
>Hey, remember back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:24:45 GMT, when StarChaser_Tyger
><StarC...@mindless.com> said:
>
><snip>
>>I rarely look for things on Ebay that I can find somewhere
>>new...mostly, I wander the antique and odd stuff sections. Can find
>>some strange things, there. <Like the Navy stunt-butt used for
>>teaching how to administer enemas. I didn't buy it, and wouldn't have
>>even if it wasn't 200$, but it made a lousy day at work much more
>>fun.>
>
>OK, so, why is the Navy teaching how to administer enemas? I thought the days of
>rum and sodomy were over.
>
Aw damn. And we didn't even get to have a good closing party like
Studio 54 did.
I hate it when I don't get my invitations in the mail.
Bill
Chris
<ca...@panix.com> said:
>In article <3c8996db.6402547@localhost>, Chris wrote:
>
>> OK, so, why is the Navy teaching how to administer enemas? I
>> thought the days of rum and sodomy were over.
>
>Ask a veteran sailor about the shellback ritual.
No thanks. Some information I can do without, if you know what I mean.
GrapeApe
>
>Ah, gicky. I suppose I can stand the idea of people owning these dolls,
>but
>holy hell, wouldn't you think that one's that's at least third hand goods
>is
>just too tacky (and I don't mean sticky, although that might be true, too)
>for
>words?
>Criminey.
I think some of the people interested in them might be for the same reason
Michael Jackson wanted the Elephant Mans' skeleton.
Hmm, maybe that isn't the best example.
What I mean is, they want them as tacky curiousities, a conversation piece, a
proof that our society has become so deparaved, not as a sex partner.
I thought it pretty hilarious that the doll was wearing Lee Press on nails,
just as a real ho might. Not that I have ever seen a real ho, just TV hoes.
(although I saw some suspicious looking women at political conventions, coulda
been hoes)
MeadowMan2
>Nice to know they have mints. Who wants a doll-lover with bad breath?
>
I don't think its the breath that would be the problem.
TR
Boron Elgar
wrote:
For over 5 grand, the doll should be capable of multitasking.
Boron
tooloud10
news:slrna8im3p...@panix2.panix.com...
> I'm curious: had people not already noticed the weird tendency for
> used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
> occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
> for more than 10% off the new cost.
I often hear people say this and urge them to look a little deeper. If
you're willing to look at auctions that will end in the middle of the night
or very early morning, you can often get a great deal.
Nokia 8860 cell phone with car kit: $160 shipped when just the *phone*
usually sold for $200 on eBay
Mitsumi 2x CD-R (back in the day): $140--when I bought this thing, $300
would have been considered a good deal
'95 Miata: over 1.5 years and 20k miles later, it's *still* worth more than
I paid for it
I love looking on eBay--I never know what I might find.
> --
> Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
> I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
> <http://www.iconsf.org/>
--
tooloud10
Remove nothing to reply...
Mike
"Kim" <ki...@NOSPAMfamily-net.org> wrote in message
news:yY5i8.22107$106.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
"I did a little patching in the regular spots, behind the knees and..."
Behind the knees?
-- Mike --
Kim
"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jTpi8.1447$5S6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
You know...I wondered that, too, but didn't dare ask. I just figured
everyone else was doing something between the sheets that I wasn't
doing...and would look foolish for asking about.
Kim ~ wouldn't be the first time, though.
Dana Carpender
kay w wrote:
>
> Previously, Carl said:
>
> >I'm curious: had people not already noticed the weird tendency for
> >used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
> >occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
> >for more than 10% off the new cost.
>
> I figure it's gotta be either auction fever, or people who don't know how to
> search for things on line. There's a depilitator that sells used on ebay
> (regularly...there are always one or two being offered) for just about what you
> can get them new from the Sharper Image site.
>
I was looking for a Facial Flex -- a face exerciser. Using the thing
requires putting it in your mouth. There was one for sale on Ebay, and
it went for somewhere around what they cost new. Now, I'm not proud --
if I could have gotten a used one for, say, 1/4 of what it would cost
new, I could have boiled the sucker and felt okay about it. But for
$30, I just bought a new one.
And, BTW, 10 days later my jawline and chin are definitely firmer.
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:04:36 GMT that ...
Perhaps she's a bit more fragile when held by the knees.
I'm not gonna say any more than this on the subject.
Bill
Dana Carpender
I was figuring it was from the flexing when you did her on her knees...
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:48:02 -0500 that ...
>
>
>Bill Diamond wrote:
>>
>> Good old "Kim" <ki...@NOSPAMfamily-net.org> wrote in
>> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 17:04:36 GMT that ...
>> >
>> >"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jTpi8.1447$5S6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Kim" <ki...@NOSPAMfamily-net.org> wrote in message
>> >> news:yY5i8.22107$106.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1711633789
>> >> >
>> >> > Gotta love the description of the repairs - and locations of same.
>> >>
>> >> "I did a little patching in the regular spots, behind the knees and..."
>> >>
>> >> Behind the knees?
>> >
>> >You know...I wondered that, too, but didn't dare ask. I just figured
>> >everyone else was doing something between the sheets that I wasn't
>> >doing...and would look foolish for asking about.
>> >
>> >Kim ~ wouldn't be the first time, though.
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps she's a bit more fragile when held by the knees.
>> I'm not gonna say any more than this on the subject.
>>
>
>
>I was figuring it was from the flexing when you did her on her knees...
I was thinking more of stress along seams.
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 13:25:53 GMT that ...
Who wants a doll that multi-tasks? I can hear it now:
"Honey, the ceiling really does need to be painted".
Bill
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:01:13 -0500 that ...
>
>
>kay w wrote:
>>
>> Previously, Carl said:
>>
>> >I'm curious: had people not already noticed the weird tendency for
>> >used things to sell on eBay for new price? I have only looked on
>> >occasion, but I have *never* seen a mass-market consumer item sell
>> >for more than 10% off the new cost.
>>
>> I figure it's gotta be either auction fever, or people who don't know how to
>> search for things on line. There's a depilitator that sells used on ebay
>> (regularly...there are always one or two being offered) for just about what you
>> can get them new from the Sharper Image site.
>>
>
>I was looking for a Facial Flex -- a face exerciser. Using the thing
>requires putting it in your mouth. There was one for sale on Ebay, and
>it went for somewhere around what they cost new. Now, I'm not proud --
>if I could have gotten a used one for, say, 1/4 of what it would cost
>new, I could have boiled the sucker and felt okay about it. But for
>$30, I just bought a new one.
>
>And, BTW, 10 days later my jawline and chin are definitely firmer.
Ah. Um. What precisely is the objective of this oral exercise device?
What benefits does it provide not found in ummm natural options?
Bill
Kim
"Bill Diamond" <bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote in message
news:k3nk8uc30v60qph9o...@4ax.com...
> Good old Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote in
> alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 13:25:53 GMT that ...
> >
> >For over 5 grand, the doll should be capable of multitasking.
> >
> >Boron
>
>
> Who wants a doll that multi-tasks? I can hear it now:
> "Honey, the ceiling really does need to be painted".
Can the doll talk with her mouth full? Now that's multitasking!
Kim ~ you guys are corrupting me.
StarChaser_Tyger
> Hey, remember back on Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:24:45 GMT, when StarChaser_Tyger
> <StarC...@mindless.com> said:
>
> <snip>
> >I rarely look for things on Ebay that I can find somewhere
> >new...mostly, I wander the antique and odd stuff sections. Can find
> >some strange things, there. <Like the Navy stunt-butt used for
> >teaching how to administer enemas. I didn't buy it, and wouldn't have
> >even if it wasn't 200$, but it made a lousy day at work much more
> >fun.>
>
> OK, so, why is the Navy teaching how to administer enemas? I thought the days of
> rum and sodomy were over.
> };D
<grin> Don't look at me...it was an ass-in-a-box, with Realistic
Cheek-Moving Action!, labeled 'enema trainer' and 'US Navy'...
Chris
(GrapeApe) said:
<snip>
>I thought it pretty hilarious that the doll was wearing Lee Press on nails,
>just as a real ho might. Not that I have ever seen a real ho, just TV hoes.
>(although I saw some suspicious looking women at political conventions, coulda
>been hoes)
If they're not in the garden, chopping weeds, they're not hoes.
Might be whores, but not hoes.
PS: Yes, I *D*E*T*E*S*T* the un-word "ho". Say "whore", or talk about something
else, *please*.
Mike Miller
> Ew. And what the hell does he mean by "fairly new"? I mean, fucking a
> RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
> someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
> beyond mere sloppy seconds.
So, every girlfriend you've ever had was a virgin?
Rick B.
[snip]
> the biggest problem with ebay is that its audience
> is so large that if there's any crazy rich fuck anywhere on the planet
> who's willing to pay some stupid price for something, it goes for that
> stupid price.
Actually, you need *two* crazy rich fucks for that to happen. If you
only have one, the item goes for one increment over the highest bid from
a sane and/or middle-class fuck, and the craze-o thinks himself lucky.
chris greville
I would have thought the nose would have been better. You usually find
that when they are full the nose runs.
Chris "no personal experience" Greville
rebecca sprang
Scratchie wrote:
> I'm not sure what's creepier... the testimonials from couples or the
> testimonials from guys who say "I'm saving up for my second one!"
I vote this guy: "If I had any extra cash, I would buy 20 of them
and leave them around my home in various
positions of
readiness. "
Rebecca (glad I'm not his housekeeper)
--
"The internet was invented specifically for displaying pictures of one's
cat."
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/wondertwnz
The AFCA Kid
>ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
>:>I'm not sure what's creepier... the testimonials from couples or the
>:>testimonials from guys who say "I'm saving up for my second one!"
>
>: I'd rather a guy who isn't quite as well balanced as he might be, has sex
>: with a doll every night, than lets his frustration build up inside him
>: until he does something that affects someone else adversely. Yeah, it's
>: kinda creepy when they refer to the doll as if it were a real person, but
>: maybe the doll is keeping him from doing something everyone else would
>: regret.
>
>I agree with you there. It's probably better for everyone if guys who are
>willing to spend almost six grand on one of these things are removed from
>the dating (not to say breeding) pool.
Well, while I certainly suspect the majority of them wind up fucked at least
once or twice, I wonder if the majority of them aren't purchased as something
between decoration and gag gift.
You know, kind of like...an awful lot of guys probably keep a few panties or
other items of women's underwear as trophys or mementos, or something in
between, and if you've got a stash like that,, all it takes is a momentary
lapse of ordinarility and suddenly you're wearing women's underwear.
--
"I have been paid a lot for my work, but never everything." -Chris Adams
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:"Mark Hanson" <mpha...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<a6asvh$grq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>-:> Ew. And what the hell does he mean by "fairly new"? I mean, fucking a
>-:> RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
>-:> someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
>-:> beyond mere sloppy seconds.
>-:
>-:So, every girlfriend you've ever had was a virgin?
Insufficient data. Please rephrase your question.
--
This space left intentionally blank
The AFCA Kid
>
>The AFCA Kid <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote:
>: Well, while I certainly suspect the majority of them wind up fucked at
>least
>: once or twice, I wonder if the majority of them aren't purchased as
>something
>: between decoration and gag gift.
>
>For six grand???
You think Howard Stern really fucked his?
Lots42
>: Well, while I certainly suspect the majority of them wind up fucked at
>least
>: once or twice, I wonder if the majority of them aren't purchased as
>something
>: between decoration and gag gift.
>
>For six grand???
>
Actually, there are cheaper blow up dolls that go for gag gift prices.
Mike Miller
He's creeped out that the doll may have been, um, used, before, and I
asked if his (actual, real, human) girlfriend/SO was similarly "broken
in" when they met. It's just as easy to wash a RealDoll as it is to
wash your SO, y'know...
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<8gbn8usnm6nqju2ps...@4ax.com>...
>-:> On 10 Mar 2002 02:25:20 -0800, mikem...@yahoo.com (Mike Miller)
>-:> wrote:
>-:>
>-:> >-:"Mark Hanson" <mpha...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<a6asvh$grq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>-:> >-:> Ew. And what the hell does he mean by "fairly new"? I mean, fucking a
>-:> >-:> RealDoll is creepy enough, but even if it wasn't, would you really want
>-:> >-:> someone else's doll that had already been, er, broken in? This goes well
>-:> >-:> beyond mere sloppy seconds.
>-:> >-:
>-:> >-:So, every girlfriend you've ever had was a virgin?
>-:>
>-:> Insufficient data. Please rephrase your question.
>-:
>-:He's creeped out that the doll may have been, um, used, before, and I
>-:asked if his (actual, real, human) girlfriend/SO was similarly "broken
>-:in" when they met. It's just as easy to wash a RealDoll as it is to
>-:wash your SO, y'know...
Insufficient evidence that he's ever had a real girlfriend.
Barbara
>:>testimonials from guys who say "I'm saving up for my second one!"
>
HBO's Real Sex has featured the real dolls a few times .... it's a hysterically
funny show guaranteed to make your sex life, no matter how unusual, seem
tame....and they try to gloss over a lot of it with the "sex is beautiful and
natural" schitck )..hint to the producers....if I want to masturbate I can do
it without designing and engineering a 5 ft diameter wagon wheel with leather
sneakers dangling from it, and if I do want to design and use such a device I
will do it privately, thank you.....and they always seem to feature an African
American segment like they really think that the "Big Black Booty" pageant held
at the all-nude "Black Chocolate Bar" and sponsored by "Hot Dark Pussy"
magazine helps promote the dignity of African-American women..well, I digress.
Anyhow, on one of the segments the woman had purchased the doll for her
boyfriend, apparently because he was hot for a threesome and she really wasn't,
so it seemed like the ideal way to give him what he wanted and shut him up,
expensive for the girl but it probably beat getting dumped, and the guy showed
no hesitation in naming the doll( ANGIE, Angie...she looks like an Angie) and
"immediately" testing it out.
Anyway, they also featured the male realdoll, although I have difficulty
believing that *women* are into those, and that one has a coupla different
snap-on tools, and it seems as if the idea is to just sit around and watch TV
with your realdoll boyfriend (he never watches sports unless you want and won't
hog the remote) in his flaccid state, then when it's bedtime you just switch
dicks and attach the hard one (it's kinda a push and twist procedure that would
make any REAL guy wince)and it's time for romance.
Barbara -
"I've got something inside me
Not what my life's about
Cause I've been letting my outside tide me
Over 'til my time runs out."
Taxi
Harry Chapin
Barbara
My local sex emporium has a "blow up dominatrix" for sale.......WTF..the mind
boggles.
GrapeApe
>mind
>boggles.
The limbs and torso probably each have their own separate blow up valve.
"Okay now suck my Toe you dog!"
Dr H
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Dana Carpender wrote:
}
}Scratchie wrote:
}>
}> Stan <sze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}>
}> : But what's a "two head four"?
}>
}> It means body #2 and head #4. http://www.realdoll.com
}
}Real Doll: For men who enjoy necrophilia without the risks.
Actually, the necropiliacs should go to "Corpses for Sale":
Dr "public service" H
Chris
accident...@aol.compuserve (Barbara) said:
>>Actually, there are cheaper blow up dolls that go for gag gift prices.
>
>My local sex emporium has a "blow up dominatrix" for sale.......WTF..the mind
>boggles.
Sounds like something Crazy Harry would like-----oh wait, you mean *inflate*,
not explode.
Never mind.
Dr H
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Scratchie wrote:
}GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
}
}: I think some of the people interested in them might be for the same reason
}: Michael Jackson wanted the Elephant Mans' skeleton.
}
}: Hmm, maybe that isn't the best example.
}
}: What I mean is, they want them as tacky curiousities, a conversation piece, a
}: proof that our society has become so deparaved, not as a sex partner.
}
}Who would pay $5000+ for camp value when they could just point their
}friends to the realdoll website? A Tijuana Bible from the 50s is a
}conversation piece; a realdoll costs more than most of the cars I've
}owned.
That's nothing. Several months back somebody bought a collectable beer
can (empty) off eBay for $5100, that the guys on the breweriana lists
were saying was worth $350, tops.
Not that *I've* ever bought a beer can worth $350, empty OR full.
Dr H
Andrew Gore
"Realdolls", yu may know, are the artifical women, the
lifelike mannequins, if you will, that are intended as 'sex toys' for
those so inclined. Costing over $5000 each, they give the user the
feeling of having a 'sex slave' who will do your bidding, no matter
how kinky.
Since RDs were discussed here recently, i want to ask what
folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
http://www.realdoll.com/sample7.html
Understand I am NOT defending or promoting it, just wondering
what the reaction would be. Two attitudes come to mind:
- Most people would probably find this repulsive and disgusting. But
should it be illegal? How exactly would you make a child-doll illegal?
It is, after all, just a big hunk of molded latex, used as a
masturbation aid.
- Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
I dunno. What say you?
(Top-posting to remind people of the issues)
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:33:56 GMT, ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:45:10 GMT, Scratchie wrote:
>
>>ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
>>:>I'm not sure what's creepier... the testimonials from couples or the
>>:>testimonials from guys who say "I'm saving up for my second one!"
>>
>>: I'd rather a guy who isn't quite as well balanced as he might be, has sex
>>: with a doll every night, than lets his frustration build up inside him
>>: until he does something that affects someone else adversely. Yeah, it's
>>: kinda creepy when they refer to the doll as if it were a real person, but
>>: maybe the doll is keeping him from doing something everyone else would
>>: regret.
>>
>>I agree with you there. It's probably better for everyone if guys who are
>>willing to spend almost six grand on one of these things are removed from
>>the dating (not to say breeding) pool.
>
>Sex is an enormously powerful drive. Certainly there are people who are
>able to sublimate it and go completely without it, but most people need to
>have some kind of gratification, and I don't think the monetary price of
>that gratification should cause a judgment on it as either normal or
>not-normal. Suppose we made RealDolls available to kids as soon as they
>hit puberty? It wouldn't replace the desire to have sex with real human
>beings, but it might cut way back on the number of stupid decisions made in
>the heat of the moment.
>
>So a vibrator costs $30 and a RealDoll costs $6000. They are both merely
>tools for gratification. Owning and using the Doll isn't creepy. It's
>when the owner treats the doll as a real person that it's creepy. Big
>difference. How many normal guys would say, "Oh, no thanks, I don't want
>sex with a real woman, I'd rather stick with this RealDoll"? Even with the
>tough parts of having to deal with a human being, the doll doesn't love you
>back, or go places with you, or laugh at the same movies you like, or even
>just affirm your worth as a person by the fact that you have a real live
>human being who thinks you're pretty special (and realistically speaking
>human beings often do make that judgment about ourselves).
>
>People will always prefer a real person, at least until we have androids
>that are so realistic that they can pass the Turing test ("Silver Metal
>Lover" by Tanith Lee is an example.)
Joe Shimkus
Andrew Gore <dic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Since RDs were discussed here recently, i want to ask what
> folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
> the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
> kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
> spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
> came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
> 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
> made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
Strikes me as pretty sick.
> - Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
> 'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
> that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
> of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would probably have no
interest in the doll and it would have no impact on the likelihood of a
pedophile molesting a child.
- Joe
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Dana Carpender
Joe Shimkus wrote:
>
> In article <30ctauc6o8g1s90g1...@4ax.com>,
> Andrew Gore <dic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Since RDs were discussed here recently, i want to ask what
> > folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
> > the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
> > kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>
> Strikes me as pretty sick.
>
> > - Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
> > 'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
> > that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
> > of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
>
> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
> Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would probably have no
> interest in the doll and it would have no impact on the likelihood of a
> pedophile molesting a child.
>
>
I tend to agree. Pedophilia tends to strike me as being about control,
and there ain't no glory in controlling an inanimate object.
Shotgun Mosquito
> folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
> the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
> kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
> spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
> came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
> 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
> made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
> http://www.realdoll.com/sample7.html
>
OH man. There IS something like that out there now...it's used apparently
to try the souls of already convicted sex offenders to see if they've been
reformed or not. I know I've seen a site referring to that via cruel.com
or somesuch.....
Kirk Is
Well, duh.
>> - Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
>> 'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
>> that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
>> of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
> Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would probably have no
> interest in the doll and it would have no impact on the likelihood of a
> pedophile molesting a child.
Not being a pedophile, or even really studied up on the issue, I don't
know for certain, but saying "pedophilia isn't about sex" seems like a
friggin' HUGE blanket of a statement to make...a non-intuitive claim like
that doesn't stand well when unsupported.
Anyway, child porn laws are a pretty murky territory, constitutionality
wise. The only consitutionally valid arguments talk about abusing actual
children, to make the photos or whatever. Outside of that, for pure works
of fantasy, there's a lot of handwaving to make laws that respect the
community's repugnance at the whole idea, but I don't know how
constitutional they are. (I was going to say "enforceable" but I inspect
they are indeed enforced.) They seem like pretty straightforward
violations of first amendment rights.
If the realdoll jr makers made their doll using actual children as models,
there would probably be more problems than if they made one up "from
scratch".
I have no idea about the efficacy of this kind of thing. I suspect only a
certain subset of the male population as a whole has any attraction to
screwing dolls as opposed to, say, their own right (or left) hands.
Heh, I wonder when (possibly if, but I suspect when) they're gonna come
out with animatronic real dolls? The idea of a covergance between
realistic, moving sexdolls and AI techniques is a bit unnerving.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"My favorite is The Invisible Man, because in great scene Invisible Man
eats large bowl of cookies. All you see are cookies. No distractions.
Me like that."--Cookie Monster, asked to name Favorite Movie Monster
Andrew Gore
<joeyj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>OH man. There IS something like that out there now...it's used apparently
>to try the souls of already convicted sex offenders to see if they've been
>reformed or not. I know I've seen a site referring to that via cruel.com
>or somesuch.....
If you or someone could try to run down that link, it'd be
appreciated. I don't rewally understand what it is or how it's used by
your cryptic remark.
GrapeApe
>came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys?
I think Speilberg made a Kubrick movie about this.
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > Andrew Gore <dic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Strikes me as pretty sick.
>
> Well, duh.
>
> >> - Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
> >> 'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
> >> that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
> >> of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
>
> > If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
> > Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would probably have no
> > interest in the doll and it would have no impact on the likelihood of a
> > pedophile molesting a child.
>
> Not being a pedophile, or even really studied up on the issue, I don't
> know for certain, but saying "pedophilia isn't about sex" seems like a
> friggin' HUGE blanket of a statement to make...a non-intuitive claim like
> that doesn't stand well when unsupported.
>
Then perhaps you should read up on it before commenting. I have a
relative in the psychotherapy field and discussions with her indicate
that pedophilia is about power and domination and has nothing to do with
sex. And not all child sexual molestation is pedophilia. A true
pedophile is basically considered beyond help and that it is simply a
matter of time before they strike again. A child molester who is not a
pedophile is someone who usually can be helped to control/change their
behavior.
> I have no idea about the efficacy of this kind of thing. I suspect only a
> certain subset of the male population as a whole has any attraction to
> screwing dolls as opposed to, say, their own right (or left) hands.
>
The dolls are not only made for males. In particular, I know they make
male dolls for females. Gotta watch those HUGE blanket statements.
rob...@bestweb.net
>> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a
>>point. Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would
>>probably have no interest in the doll and it would have no impact
>>on the likelihood of a pedophile molesting a child.
>I tend to agree. Pedophilia tends to strike me as being about
>control, and there ain't no glory in controlling an inanimate
>object.
>--
Of course pedophilia is about sex. Parenting is about control of children.
rob...@bestweb.net
>I have a
>relative in the psychotherapy field and discussions with her
>indicate that pedophilia is about power and domination and has
>nothing to do with sex. And not all child sexual molestation is
>pedophilia. A true pedophile is basically considered beyond help
>and that it is simply a matter of time before they strike again. A
>child molester who is not a pedophile is someone who usually can be
>helped to control/change their behavior.
Then please ask her to explain to us:
(1) what distinguishes pedophilia from pedagogy (OK, child rearing); and
(2) how one can determine a child molester to not be a pedophile.
I wonder if we can distinguish pedophilia from pedantry.
Robert
Joe Shimkus
wrote:
ÂĄMadre de Dios! Do you truly believe either (or both) of those things?
Joe Shimkus
wrote:
>
> (1) what distinguishes pedophilia from pedagogy (OK, child rearing); and
Let's see...the molestation of children? Yeah, that sounds about right
unless you consider educating a child as being molestation.
> (2) how one can determine a child molester to not be a pedophile.
Motive.
RM Mentock
> Then perhaps you should read up on it before commenting. I have a
> relative in the psychotherapy field and discussions with her indicate
> that pedophilia is about power and domination and has nothing to do with
> sex.
I think you may have misinterpreted something, or maybe I'm about
to. If pedophilia is only about power and domination, how do you
explain the associated pornography? Are they getting off by
dominating the 8x10 glossies?
--
RM Mentock
Ikeya-Zhang is coming
Kirk Is
> Then perhaps you should read up on it before commenting. I have a
> relative in the psychotherapy field and discussions with her indicate
> that pedophilia is about power and domination and has nothing to do with
> sex. And not all child sexual molestation is pedophilia. A true
I really doubt in *every* case, sex doesn't enter into it at all. Like
someone in this thread said, where is the kick in dominating an 8x10
glossy? Even if sex per se isn't the core motivation, "imagination aids"
like pictures, stories, or lifesize dolls might still be sought after.
>> I have no idea about the efficacy of this kind of thing. I suspect only a
>> certain subset of the male population as a whole has any attraction to
>> screwing dolls as opposed to, say, their own right (or left) hands.
>>
> The dolls are not only made for males. In particular, I know they make
> male dolls for females. Gotta watch those HUGE blanket statements.
Drop the word "male" from before "population" and the statement still
stands.
Though I am curious, you really think "male dolls" are (exclusively,
or even mainly) "for females"?
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"What kind of a loser comes in at 12 and leaves at 2?"
"The other name for that is executive." --Dave + Bob
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > Then perhaps you should read up on it before commenting. I have a
> > relative in the psychotherapy field and discussions with her indicate
> > that pedophilia is about power and domination and has nothing to do with
> > sex. And not all child sexual molestation is pedophilia. A true
>
> I really doubt in *every* case, sex doesn't enter into it at all. Like
> someone in this thread said, where is the kick in dominating an 8x10
> glossy? Even if sex per se isn't the core motivation, "imagination aids"
> like pictures, stories, or lifesize dolls might still be sought after.
>
Material for fantasizing. Just because something is expressed sexually
doesn't mean it's about sex. Is rape of an adult about sex? Why would
rape of a child be about sex? Is there any more domineering act than
forcing oneself sexually (in the strict physical sense) on someone else?
> >> I have no idea about the efficacy of this kind of thing. I suspect only a
> >> certain subset of the male population as a whole has any attraction to
> >> screwing dolls as opposed to, say, their own right (or left) hands.
> >>
>
> > The dolls are not only made for males. In particular, I know they make
> > male dolls for females. Gotta watch those HUGE blanket statements.
>
> Drop the word "male" from before "population" and the statement still
> stands.
>
> Though I am curious, you really think "male dolls" are (exclusively,
> or even mainly) "for females"?
No, but since you chose to ignore the possibility that female dolls are
not exclusively for males, I responded in kind. Seems like one of us is
ignoring the sexuality of females.
Amy Austin
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:uavm984...@corp.supernews.com...
That's the dumbest damn thing you've ever written, Rob, and considering all
the dumb things you've said...
Let me see if I can try to explain this using small words.
The difference between a child molester and a pedophile is the difference
between someone who sets one fire, or one string of fires, and an arsonist.
The person who sets one or a few fires is doing it for the insurance money
or for kicks... The arsonist sets fires because he loves fire, he wants to
control fire, he gets off on it. Think about the movie _Backdraft_, and the
difference between the character "Axe" and the guy that they go to the
parole hearing for. Re-watch the movie if this analogy is unclear.
The Soc. of Child Abuse class I took said (and I don't agree with this, but
apparently the guy who wrote the book knows more than I do) that anyone
could become a child molester, given the right opportunity, but it takes a
special kind of mental illness to make one a pedophile. Hence the comments
upstream of this about pedophiles being untreatable, etc.
Now, as for parenting being about "controlling children," you're just wrong.
Discipline is a small part of parenting, really, if you're doing your job
right. Parenting is about shaping the behavior of children so that they can
grow up to be successful. The intent is loving and constructive. The
intent of child abuse (of any kind) is hateful and destructive. I can't
imagine what kind of life experience you've had, that wouldn't naturally
lead you to this conclusion.
Amy
Kirk Is
> In article <zrXr8.1$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Material for fantasizing. Just because something is expressed sexually
> doesn't mean it's about sex.
Well, we both may be arguing from a bad premise here; I was responding to
your statement "Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would
probably have no interest in the doll". Since they have a demonstrable
interest in the hypothetical 8x10 glossies, why might they not be
interested in the doll? (Though I would say that whether such a doll would
be an outlet for this kind of feeling, or more of a provactive practice
dummy, is an open question, and am in NO way arguing that Realdoll Jr
would be a good thing)
> Is rape of an adult about sex? Why would
> rape of a child be about sex? Is there any more domineering act than
> forcing oneself sexually (in the strict physical sense) on someone else?
Yes, I'm aware of the line of thought that "rape isn't about sex, it's
about power" and can agree with it to a certain extent. But to think that
there aren't strong elements of sex in many of the cases is absurd.
"Just because something is expressed sexually doesn't mean it's about
sex"...depending on your definition of being "about sex", this statement
is certainly false. Sex might not be the wellspring, the driving force as
it were, behind these horrendous acts, but if these acts didn't have a
strong, central sexual component, they wouldn't be rape, or molestation:
they'd be violence or child abuse.
In my opinion, I think people are too quick to declare rape as not being
about sex in order to create an absolute barrier between it and their own
(hopefully healthy) sexuality. It's easier to make a super strong
distinction between "about sex" vs "not about sex" than it is with
"healthy, consensual sex" vs "bad, non-consensual sex"
> No, but since you chose to ignore the possibility that female dolls are
> not exclusively for males, I responded in kind. Seems like one of us is
> ignoring the sexuality of females.
Not "ignoring" so much as acknowledging that it's less likely about big
expensive toys. Vibrators, yes. Dolls, much less often.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"As they say in my country, the only thing that separates us from the animals
are mindless superstition and pointless ritual."--Latka Gravas,"Taxi"
The AFCA Kid
> Is rape of an adult about sex?
I would think so, yeah. At least some of the time.
--
"I have been paid a lot for my work, but never everything." -Chris Adams
The AFCA Kid
>The Soc. of Child Abuse class I took said (and I don't agree with this, but
>apparently the guy who wrote the book knows more than I do) that anyone
>could become a child molester, given the right opportunity,
In my case, all it would take is a 5' 6", 36, 23, 34 8 year old girl with a
fake ID.
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > In article <zrXr8.1$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> > Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
>
> > Material for fantasizing. Just because something is expressed sexually
> > doesn't mean it's about sex.
>
> Well, we both may be arguing from a bad premise here; I was responding to
> your statement "Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would
> probably have no interest in the doll". Since they have a demonstrable
> interest in the hypothetical 8x10 glossies, why might they not be
> interested in the doll?
You've got a point. Pedophiles might be interested in the doll in the
same way as 8x10 glossies. My entire comment in context...
>
> > - Some will argue that use of these will make it easier for pedos to
> > 'cross the line' and attack real kids. Others will use the argument
> > that such 'dolls' will allow those so inclined to 'relieve' themselves
> > of their urges, and thus be less inclined to bother real kids.
>
> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
> Since pedophilia isn't about sex, pedophiles would probably have no
> interest in the doll and it would have no impact on the likelihood of a
> pedophile molesting a child.
... was about the doll as an outlet for their proclivities such that
real children would be more/less likely to be molested. Although I was
thinking that a pedoohile would have no interest in the doll, I'll amend
that along the lines of the 8x10 glossies but I stand by my statement
that it wouldn't have an impact on actual behavior.
>
> > Is rape of an adult about sex? Why would
> > rape of a child be about sex? Is there any more domineering act than
> > forcing oneself sexually (in the strict physical sense) on someone else?
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the line of thought that "rape isn't about sex, it's
> about power" and can agree with it to a certain extent. But to think that
> there aren't strong elements of sex in many of the cases is absurd.
Possibly, but only in some weirdly fucked up (no pun intended)
definition of sex in the rapist's mind. I simply cannot fathom how any
actual sexual pleasure (absent such altered definition) can be derived
from raping someone irrespective of the rapist's ability to achieve, at
least in males, the point of sexual congress, orgasm (for the delivery
of sperm).
> "Just because something is expressed sexually doesn't mean it's about
> sex"...depending on your definition of being "about sex", this statement
> is certainly false.
Depending on the definition, everything is false. Just 'cause a dick is
in a pussy doesn't mean it's about sex.
> Sex might not be the wellspring, the driving force as
> it were, behind these horrendous acts, but if these acts didn't have a
> strong, central sexual component, they wouldn't be rape, or molestation:
> they'd be violence or child abuse.
>
They are about violence and child abuse; a different order of violence
and child abuse. We have different "levels" of murder, we also have
different levels of other, non-fatal, violent crimes. A rapist isn't
tried for having sex but for committing an act of violence.
> In my opinion, I think people are too quick to declare rape as not being
> about sex in order to create an absolute barrier between it and their own
> (hopefully healthy) sexuality. It's easier to make a super strong
> distinction between "about sex" vs "not about sex" than it is with
> "healthy, consensual sex" vs "bad, non-consensual sex"
If it's non-consensual, I don't see how it can be sex. Sex is an
agreement between individuals to do the nasty; if that agreement isn't
there, how can it be sex? The other person would seem to only then be a
masturbatory aid (at best and ignoring the issues of rape, etc.) and,
while masturbation may be pleasing, it's not the same as actually having
sex and light-years away from the pleasures of "making love."
- Joe "my biggest sex organ is my brain"
Dana Carpender
How do you explain rape and bondage porn? Fantasies of power and
domination.
Kirk Is
> In article <PtZr8.2$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> ... was about the doll as an outlet for their proclivities such that
> real children would be more/less likely to be molested. Although I was
> thinking that a pedoohile would have no interest in the doll, I'll amend
> that along the lines of the 8x10 glossies but I stand by my statement
> that it wouldn't have an impact on actual behavior.
OK, so there's a point of agreement here; I wasn't arguing it would
necessarily have an impact on behavior.
> They are about violence and child abuse; a different order of violence
> and child abuse. We have different "levels" of murder, we also have
> different levels of other, non-fatal, violent crimes. A rapist isn't
> tried for having sex but for committing an act of violence.
Sex adds a distinct element that I believe most people feel makes these
crimes more offensive and generally "worse" than their non-sexual
counterparts.
>> In my opinion, I think people are too quick to declare rape as not being
>> about sex in order to create an absolute barrier between it and their own
>> (hopefully healthy) sexuality. It's easier to make a super strong
>> distinction between "about sex" vs "not about sex" than it is with
>> "healthy, consensual sex" vs "bad, non-consensual sex"
> If it's non-consensual, I don't see how it can be sex. Sex is an
> agreement between individuals to do the nasty; if that agreement isn't
> there, how can it be sex? The other person would seem to only then be a
> masturbatory aid (at best and ignoring the issues of rape, etc.) and,
> while masturbation may be pleasing, it's not the same as actually having
> sex and light-years away from the pleasures of "making love."
Errrrr...honestly, given the rest of what you've written (some snipped) it
seems like you equate sex with "making love", and anything that doesn't
qualify as "making love" doesn't qualify as sex. I'm sticking with a more
pedestrian definition of sex, involving genitals and bodily orifices in
certain juxtapositions.
> - Joe "my biggest sex organ is my brain"
I'll bet.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
[Stegosaurus] Two words: spiked tail. "Oh, so you're sneaking up
behind me to eat my delicious body? WHAM! Spikes! For you! In your head!"
--Brunching Shuttlecocks, http://www.brunching.com
Bob Ward
>-:
>-:I can't condone it. I also have a problem with the WWF's allowing women
>-:and men to be in the ring together--even if the woman is Chyna and she can
>-:kick the man around the arena with one hand behind her back, it just comes
>-:way too close to violence between men and women. Yeah, I know it's fake
>-:and completely choreographed (if you watch carefully you can guess where
>-:the wrestlers are preparing each other for certain falls where they have to
>-:grip the other person in a certain way to avoid really hurting him,
>-:although they are so good you can't actually tell they are doing it). But
>-:it sends the wrong message. We've worked so hard to get rid of that, do we
>-:need to even pretend it's OK?
It sounds like you are saying that violence between men or violence
between women is hunky-dory... why is that?
--
This space left intentionally blank
Adam Smith
> > Since RDs were discussed here recently, i want to ask what
> > folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
> > the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
> > kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
Go for it.
> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
> Since pedophilia isn't about sex
Of course it's about sex. The point is sexual gratification after all.
Kirk Is
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:29:24 GMT, ket...@checkmysig.com wrote:
>>-:
>>-:I can't condone it. I also have a problem with the WWF's allowing women
>>-:and men to be in the ring together--even if the woman is Chyna and she can
>>-:kick the man around the arena with one hand behind her back, it just comes
>>-:way too close to violence between men and women. Yeah, I know it's fake
> It sounds like you are saying that violence between men or violence
> between women is hunky-dory... why is that?
Just a guess, but it's not that man on woman violence is more hunky-dory,
but more likely...and more likely to be a onesided mismatch, to boot.
Of course abusive relationships can form from many different relationship
types, yadda yadda, but I'd wager given the statistics (especially among
the dumber, true-believer WWF fans) man on woman violence is a reasonable
central concern for kettir to express.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"There are two adults and one child. Majority rules.
Live like an animal or die." --James Israel
The AFCA Kid
>
>Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote in message
>news:<joe-9E8AC2.1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>> > Since RDs were discussed here recently, i want to ask what
>> > folks here thought of something that occured to me recently, as I read
>> > the daily news and am struck by the barrage of news reports concerning
>> > kiddie porn busts, pedophile priests, and so much seeming evil
>> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
>> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
>> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>
>
>Go for it.
s'prolly illegal. And no, that's not unconstitutional.
>
>
>
>> If the issue with pedophiles was about sex, both might have a point.
>> Since pedophilia isn't about sex
>
>
>Of course it's about sex. The point is sexual gratification after all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Kirk Is
>>> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
>>> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>>> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
>>> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>>
>>Go for it.
> s'prolly illegal. And no, that's not unconstitutional.
What would the charge be?
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
THE LIVING END Before long the end / Of the beginning / Begins to bend
To the beginning / Of the end you live / With some misgivings
About what you did. --Samuel Menashe
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > In article <PtZr8.2$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> > Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> >> In my opinion, I think people are too quick to declare rape as not being
> >> about sex in order to create an absolute barrier between it and their own
> >> (hopefully healthy) sexuality. It's easier to make a super strong
> >> distinction between "about sex" vs "not about sex" than it is with
> >> "healthy, consensual sex" vs "bad, non-consensual sex"
>
> > If it's non-consensual, I don't see how it can be sex. Sex is an
> > agreement between individuals to do the nasty; if that agreement isn't
> > there, how can it be sex? The other person would seem to only then be a
> > masturbatory aid (at best and ignoring the issues of rape, etc.) and,
> > while masturbation may be pleasing, it's not the same as actually having
> > sex and light-years away from the pleasures of "making love."
>
> Errrrr...honestly, given the rest of what you've written (some snipped) it
> seems like you equate sex with "making love", and anything that doesn't
> qualify as "making love" doesn't qualify as sex.
Then I wouldn't have put masturbation at one end and "making love" at
the other with sex somewhere in between.
> I'm sticking with a more
> pedestrian definition of sex, involving genitals and bodily orifices in
> certain juxtapositions.
So, if I were to come over right now, hold you down and sodomize you,
you'd be willing to consider that you and I having sex? You wouldn't
feel the need to expand on it that it was rape?
- Joe
Kirk Is
> In article <5m%r8.4$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
>> Errrrr...honestly, given the rest of what you've written (some snipped) it
>> seems like you equate sex with "making love", and anything that doesn't
>> qualify as "making love" doesn't qualify as sex.
> Then I wouldn't have put masturbation at one end and "making love" at
> the other with sex somewhere in between.
Masturbation certainly qualifies as a "sexual activity". Trying to
mentally backtrack this back to the original context, rape and molestation
are certainly forms of sex, and since sex is tied into pedophelia, a
sex/fantasy aid like a childlike real doll might be of interest to a
child molester.
>> I'm sticking with a more
>> pedestrian definition of sex, involving genitals and bodily orifices in
>> certain juxtapositions.
> So, if I were to come over right now, hold you down and sodomize you,
> you'd be willing to consider that you and I having sex? You wouldn't
> feel the need to expand on it that it was rape?
Thanks for the pleasant image.
You're creating a false dichotomy here: yes, we were "having sex", yes I
would feel the need to expand on the fact that it was rape. This kind of
act would certainly have a sexual component that, say, hitting me
repeatedly in the head with a board wouldn't have.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
The AFCA Kid
>
>The AFCA Kid <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote:
>>>> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
>>>> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>>>> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
>>>> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>>>
>>>Go for it.
>
>> s'prolly illegal. And no, that's not unconstitutional.
>
>What would the charge be?
Well, it's not pornography per se, but there's persumably something in there,
especially when you consider simulated child pornograhpy is prohbited.
rob...@bestweb.net
>> Of course pedophilia is about sex. Parenting is about control of
>> children.
>īšadre de Dios! Do you truly believe either (or both) of those
>things?
>--
I didn't even think they'd be so controversial!
rob...@bestweb.net
>Let me see if I can try to explain this using small words.
>The difference between a child molester and a pedophile is the
>difference between someone who sets one fire, or one string of
>fires, and an arsonist. The person who sets one or a few fires is
>doing it for the insurance money or for kicks... The arsonist sets
>fires because he loves fire, he wants to control fire, he gets off
>on it. Think about the movie _Backdraft_, and the difference
>between the character "Axe" and the guy that they go to the parole
>hearing for. Re-watch the movie if this analogy is unclear.
I didn't see it the first time.
>The Soc. of Child Abuse class I took said (and I don't agree with
>this, but apparently the guy who wrote the book knows more than I
>do) that anyone could become a child molester, given the right
>opportunity, but it takes a special kind of mental illness to make
>one a pedophile. Hence the comments upstream of this about
>pedophiles being untreatable, etc.
So you have someone who's set one fire or molested one child. How can you
determine whether that person's an arsonist or pedophile or not? It seems
like you'd need to be able to tell the future. Is there some way you can
tell in advance?
Robert
rob...@bestweb.net
>> (1) what distinguishes pedophilia from pedagogy (OK, child
>> rearing); and
>Let's see...the molestation of children? Yeah, that sounds about
>right unless you consider educating a child as being molestation.
So you agree that it's not about control per se? Hmm...molestation...do you
mean some kind of sexual contact? Then isn't it about sex after all?
>> (2) how one can determine a child molester to not be a pedophile.
>Motive.
>--
Explain the motives and, more importantly, how you could get an honest
accounting of them.
Robert
rob...@bestweb.net
>I simply cannot fathom how
>any actual sexual pleasure (absent such altered definition) can be
>derived from raping someone irrespective of the rapist's ability to
>achieve, at least in males, the point of sexual congress, orgasm
>(for the delivery of sperm).
and then DOES fathom it:
>If it's non-consensual, I don't see how it can be sex. Sex is an
>agreement between individuals to do the nasty; if that agreement
>isn't there, how can it be sex? The other person would seem to
>only then be a masturbatory aid (at best and ignoring the issues of
>rape, etc.) and, while masturbation may be pleasing, it's not the
>same as actually having sex and light-years away from the pleasures
>of "making love."
>--
The problem is with your definition, then. Haven't you heard of
masturbation promoted as a type of safe sex?
Robert
rob...@bestweb.net
>In my opinion, I think people are too quick to declare rape as not
>being about sex in order to create an absolute barrier between it
>and their own (hopefully healthy) sexuality.
I concluded that years ago. But didn't we have such a discussion here?
There are these two lies about rape that've gotten much currency in recent
decades for political reasons. One is the one stated above, that rape has
nothing, or practically nothing, to do with sex, or at least is "not about"
sex. The other, less commonly encountered lie is the radical notion that
ALL heterosexual conduct is rape. At least we're not seeing the latter one
here, although there's a hint of it in that post about male-female combat
sports.
Robert
RM Mentock
>
> RM Mentock wrote:
> > I think you may have misinterpreted something, or maybe I'm about
> > to. If pedophilia is only about power and domination, how do you
> > explain the associated pornography? Are they getting off by
> > dominating the 8x10 glossies?
> >
>
> How do you explain rape and bondage porn? Fantasies of power and
> domination.
Exactly. But I see that Joe has amended his statement--well,
reversed it actually--that a pedophile would probably have no
interest in the doll.
Amy Austin
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:ub1js7i...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I didn't see it the first time.
Your loss. Great flick.
> >The Soc. of Child Abuse class I took said (and I don't agree with
> >this, but apparently the guy who wrote the book knows more than I
> >do) that anyone could become a child molester, given the right
> >opportunity, but it takes a special kind of mental illness to make
> >one a pedophile. Hence the comments upstream of this about
> >pedophiles being untreatable, etc.
>
> So you have someone who's set one fire or molested one child. How can you
> determine whether that person's an arsonist or pedophile or not? It seems
> like you'd need to be able to tell the future. Is there some way you can
> tell in advance?
It's all about intent. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that there are a list
of criteria that a person must fit to be considered a pedophile. Start
here...
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm
Interesting... Pedophilia involves kids under age 5. Paraphilia is kids
between 5 and 13 (click on "paraphilia" on the above page for further info).
As I said, this was the opinion of the guy who taught my class. Child
molesters are common, true pedophiles, whose behavior over a lifetime shows
a distinct pattern, are rare.
Amy
The AFCA Kid
><rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>news:ub1js7i...@corp.supernews.com...
>Interesting... Pedophilia involves kids under age 5. Paraphilia is kids
>between 5 and 13 (click on "paraphilia" on the above page for further info).
What's 16-24?
Shotgun Mosquito
>>apparently to try the souls of already convicted sex offenders to see
>>if they've been reformed or not. I know I've seen a site referring to
>>that via cruel.com or somesuch.....
>
> If you or someone could try to run down that link, it'd be
> appreciated. I don't rewally understand what it is or how it's used by
> your cryptic remark.
>
http://www.georgekranz.com/gk/jonbenet.htm
but I think it's a joke.
Lots42
>The AFCA Kid <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote:
>>>> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
>>>> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>>>> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
>>>> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>>>
>>>Go for it.
>
>> s'prolly illegal. And no, that's not unconstitutional.
>
>What would the charge be?
Oh they'll probably make up something.
Did you know you're not even allowed to draw underage sex? Not that I would but
it's a disturbing precedent.
The AFCA Kid
You know, looking around, I now see a Michigan judge, I think it was, declared
the "simulated" portions of the law unconstitutional. Of course, there's always
community standards, so...in some areas, even fairly tame porn is considered
obscene and hence unprotected speech under the first amendment.
> Not that I would
"One Book "Drawing Child Pornography is Just the Kind of Thing I Would Do,
Baby!" by lots42
>but
>it's a disturbing precedent.
It's hardly a precedent.
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > So, if I were to come over right now, hold you down and sodomize you,
> > you'd be willing to consider that you and I having sex? You wouldn't
> > feel the need to expand on it that it was rape?
>
> Thanks for the pleasant image.
>
Science ain't necessarily pretty.
> You're creating a false dichotomy here
In your mind.
>: yes, we were "having sex",
Then I guess we'll have to disagree. To be "having sex" means to me
that it is a mutual thing; anything non-consensual isn't sex.
> This kind of
> act would certainly have a sexual component that, say, hitting me
> repeatedly in the head with a board wouldn't have.
What if I achieved orgasm as a consequence of hitting you in the head
repeatedly with a board? Is it a requisite that we physically couple?
Joe Shimkus
wrote:
> On 2002-04-07 j...@shimkus.com said:
>
> >> (1) what distinguishes pedophilia from pedagogy (OK, child
> >> rearing); and
>
> >Let's see...the molestation of children? Yeah, that sounds about
> >right unless you consider educating a child as being molestation.
>
> So you agree that it's not about control per se?
No. You wanted a distinguishing characteristic between pedophilia and
pedagogy. The fact that molestation is such a characteristic does not
eliminate power and domination as the aim of pedophilia.
> Hmm...molestation...do you
> mean some kind of sexual contact? Then isn't it about sex after all?
>
If I hit you in the head with a 2x4, is that all it was about or was I
trying to kill you?
Joe Shimkus
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Nope. I originally said "probably" and later more explicitly accepted
the possibility. A reversal would have required me to say that
pedophiles *would be* interested.
Andrew Gore
wrote:
>The AFCA Kid <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote:
>>>> > spreading over suburbia. What would you think if the RealDoll folks
>>>> > came out with RDs that were based not on 22-year-old women, but on
>>>> > 8-yr-old and 13-yr-old girls and/or boys? What if this 'doll' were
>>>> > made to look like an 11-yr-old girl?
>>>
>>>Go for it.
>
>> s'prolly illegal. And no, that's not unconstitutional.
>
>What would the charge be?
It would probly be the same charge/law that makes it illegal
to create "fake kiddie porn" of your own, something that bothers me on
some deep, basic-constitutional level. If I take a perfectly legal
picture of an adult couple having sex, and for whatever creepy reason
I cut and paste - with scissors, with Photoshop, whatever - a picture
of an underage girl's head onto the adult female's head, I have, in
the eyes of the law, created and posess a real "kiddie porn" picture.
If I use computer graphics programs like "Poser" to creeate a picture
of an underage girl in a sexual situation, even tho it's an obvious
fake and looks like a screenshot from a computer videogame, it's still
considered "real KP". If I draw two stick figures with a pencil, fer
gawd's sake, and title it "8-yr-old giving daddy a blow job", THAT is
considered KP. Nobody wants to be 'in favor' of KP, but I feel this
really crosses the line. In the RD Jr example above, it would probably
be ruled "an image of a child in a sexual situation", and be banned.
Andrew Gore
Kid) wrote:
>"Amy Austin" glea...@purdue.edu writes:
>
>><rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>>news:ub1js7i...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Interesting... Pedophilia involves kids under age 5. Paraphilia is kids
>>between 5 and 13 (click on "paraphilia" on the above page for further info).
>
> What's 16-24?
>
In your case, Dutch, it's the ages you attended high school.
The AFCA Kid
No, but I understand your confusion, since they say I graduated in a new york
minute.
Kirk Is
> In article <tq3s8.11$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
>> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
>> > So, if I were to come over right now, hold you down and sodomize you,
>> > you'd be willing to consider that you and I having sex? You wouldn't
>> > feel the need to expand on it that it was rape?
>>
>> Thanks for the pleasant image.
>>
> Science ain't necessarily pretty.
Err, random hypotheticals for the sake of arguing isn't exactly "science"
>> You're creating a false dichotomy here
> In your mind.
I would argue that I'm using more standard definitions of the terms in
question; by those defintions, it's a false dichotomy.
>>: yes, we were "having sex",
> Then I guess we'll have to disagree. To be "having sex" means to me
> that it is a mutual thing; anything non-consensual isn't sex.
>> This kind of
>> act would certainly have a sexual component that, say, hitting me
>> repeatedly in the head with a board wouldn't have.
> What if I achieved orgasm as a consequence of hitting you in the head
> repeatedly with a board? Is it a requisite that we physically couple?
I wasn't arguing that masturbation, even mutual masturbation, was "having
sex", but it definately has a sexual element. Your board example has a
sexual component as well. And that's relevant to the original argument
point; pedophelia is to some degree "about sex".
So the hypothetical sodomy rape would be sex; the 2x4gasm would not be;
but both are "about sex".
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Rationality tied to moral decency is the most powerful joint
instrument for good that our planet has ever known." --Michael Shermer
Andrew Gore
I hear talk like "rape/child molesting are crimes of power/
domination/women-hating, NOT sex" etc. I kinda agree with that, I
suppose. But ringing truisms like that have always seemed a little
trie and dismissive to me. It's like saying, "All things are possible.
.. with God's love!" Awww... that makes a nice greeting card, but
isn't very helpful or informative. As far as pedos and my Realdoll
Jr's , my gut feeling is this: You can probably understand that pedos
would be interested in kiddie porn, obviously; KP pictures and film
clips they may trade over the Net, however that works. They *really*
want to actually diddle a little kid; but that involves difficulties
and consequences that I don't need to point out. Thus, the KP serves
the purpose of helping relieve themselves and fantasize about it. It's
like, the next best thing. And, same thing with the RD Jr. I think
it's wrong to say they wouldn't be interested in it; I don't see why
not. It would be just another fantasy/masturbation aid. It is, in
fact, another form of kiddie porn.
Joe Shimkus
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > In article <tq3s8.11$641...@news.tufts.edu>,
> > Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> >> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> >> > So, if I were to come over right now, hold you down and sodomize you,
> >> > you'd be willing to consider that you and I having sex? You wouldn't
> >> > feel the need to expand on it that it was rape?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the pleasant image.
> >>
>
> > Science ain't necessarily pretty.
>
> Err, random hypotheticals for the sake of arguing isn't exactly "science"
>
I can't come up with pithy comments all the time.
> >> You're creating a false dichotomy here
>
> > In your mind.
>
> I would argue that I'm using more standard definitions of the terms in
> question; by those defintions, it's a false dichotomy.
>
And I'd argue that your definitions are whacked. Stalemate.
> >>: yes, we were "having sex",
>
> > Then I guess we'll have to disagree. To be "having sex" means to me
> > that it is a mutual thing; anything non-consensual isn't sex.
>
> >> This kind of
> >> act would certainly have a sexual component that, say, hitting me
> >> repeatedly in the head with a board wouldn't have.
>
> > What if I achieved orgasm as a consequence of hitting you in the head
> > repeatedly with a board? Is it a requisite that we physically couple?
>
> I wasn't arguing that masturbation, even mutual masturbation, was "having
> sex", but it definately has a sexual element. Your board example has a
> sexual component as well. And that's relevant to the original argument
> point; pedophelia is to some degree "about sex".
>
> So the hypothetical sodomy rape would be sex; the 2x4gasm would not be;
> but both are "about sex".
Because there's involvement (however tangentially) of the naughty bits
that are associated with the act of sexual congress? Just 'cause I spew
my load doesn't mean it has anything to do with sex. If I have to give
a sperm sample, does doing what is necessary to achieve that have a
sexual component just 'cause my johnson's involved?
Andrew Gore
wrote:
>
>The Soc. of Child Abuse class I took said (and I don't agree with this, but
>apparently the guy who wrote the book knows more than I do) that anyone
>could become a child molester, given the right opportunity, but it takes a
>special kind of mental illness to make one a pedophile. Hence the comments
>upstream of this about pedophiles being untreatable, etc.
I don't understand pedos any more than you do. But your
description reminds me of a case study I read of a serial molester. He
made a remark I've never forgotten. He was raping some little girl who
was so young she didn't understand what was going on. "Who are you?
Why are you doing this to me?" she cried. "You don't understand", he
said simply, "This is what I do."
Fred Simons
"The AFCA Kid" <mutigho...@aol.comseven> wrote in message
news:20020407210324...@mb-fb.aol.com...
> "Amy Austin" glea...@purdue.edu writes:
>
> ><rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> >news:ub1js7i...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >Interesting... Pedophilia involves kids under age 5. Paraphilia is kids
> >between 5 and 13 (click on "paraphilia" on the above page for further
info).
>
> What's 16-24?
Ephebophilia.
= attraction to adolescents.
(Most of the current scandals in the Catholic Church, by the way, involves
homosexual ephebophilia - specifically adolescent boys, rather than children
in general. It's not quite the same thing as pedophilia.)
Fred Simons
Opus the Penguin
> If I draw two stick figures with a pencil, fer
> gawd's sake, and title it "8-yr-old giving daddy a blow job", THAT is
> considered KP.
Er, cite?
--
Opus the Penguin