Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
I love
Staring into my Realdoll's deep, plastic eyes 10%
Hugging my Realdoll 5%
Holding my Realdoll's's hand when walking on a cold winter's day 15%
Keeping my Realdoll warm on cold days 10%
Reading romantic stories to my Realdoll :) 5%
Buying presents for my Realdoll, especially cashmere scarves and gloves 10%
Treating my Realdoll to an expensive meal 21%
Just talking with my Realdoll 5%
Being outrageously, stupidly romantic with my Realdoll 15%

Votes: 19

 Real Men use Realdolls?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 07, 2001
 Comments:

I remember when I first came across Realdolls™. It was about 18 months ago, and the love of my life had just left me. In something of a depressed fugue I retreated into myself for a few months, but eventually the sexual imperative reared itself and I found myself looking at women in the streets, in the bars, on the underground, once more.

future

More stories about Future
Global Warming: A Proactive Solution (Part 2 of 2)
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
2001: A Historical Odyssey
A final solution to the problem of Evil
C++ Should Be The Only Programming Language

More stories by
bc

Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
The British Empire - Why it was so good.
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Kill Yr Idols: Tiger Woods
Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry
Don't look at me.
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
Football & Fascism -- Prima Donnas and the Superman
A Day on the Town
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns
Why I want to be an American Citizen

I couldn't abide actually getting involved with any of them, though, for by now I was well aware that they are too much mental pain, that they insist on damaging honest men with emotional cruise missiles that rip through the keyhole of the heart. A few one night stands followed, but always they tried to see me again, or slung me out of their pad at 4AM, or (shockingly) threatened to accuse me of rape. How to get a woman not interested in emotion, love or money? A woman not given to such tripe is very rare, and I almost gave up.

Discussing this one day with my friend James, he suggested I visit Realdoll.com. I think he was joking, but I am grateful to him, for he initiated a series of incredible adventures with Realdolls™.

Now, in case you aren't familiar with Realdolls™, let me make clear what they are. They are sophisticated silicone based dolls with articulated skeletons, lifelike skins, gelatine-based breasts and are in every respect very similar to the real thing. They move like women, feel like women, taste like women and smell like women. In fact, they do all of these things better than actual women could ever hope to - your Realdoll™ never has a period, or farts, or shits, or smells of BO in the morning. They are in a constant state of been-tarting-myself-up-for-three-hours getting ready for a Saturday night on the town readiness.


My dearest Stacy, radiating beauty even in a photograph

When I investigated the Realdoll™ site I have to say I was sceptical at first, but I decided to give it a shot and send off for Stacy, a Realdoll™ with looks astonishingly similar to those of Julia Roberts. And I have to say, when she arrived I was more than satisfied - Stacy was everything a man could dream of, and more. Flexible, lithe, more than lifelike, and a sensuous lover the likes of which I had never known.

I was soon obsessed with my new silicone friend. We had such wonderful times, and I always bought her treats, such as new clothes (some lovely lingerie among them), lipsticks, make-up, jewellery - nothing was too good for my darling, and she was very grateful to me when I bought her presents - we had a real honeymoon.

When she was six months old, though, I began to hunger for more. It wasn't long before I was looking through the website again, looking for a friend for my darling Stacy. After talking to her about it a while, we settled on Nika , a sultry Caribbean beauty. I think Stacy may have been jealous at first, for when Nika arrived I lavished a lot of attention on her, and poor Stacy must have been upset. Nika was much more challenging company, for she had a college degree in physiotherapy and had studied the liberal arts, she didn't just look intelligent, she could hold her own in any conversation. However, Stacy has always been the more engaging and nice of the two, and it wasn't long before we all bonded together and became a very happy ménage á trios indeed.

As you have probably guessed, this happy state did not last forever. I wanted more and more, but I couldn't afford the $6000 required for a third Realdoll™. It was around this time that Abyss Creations, makers of the Realdoll™, announced that they had decided to make the Male Realdoll™ - and a plan formed in my mind.

The Male Realdoll™ is one of the most realistic dolls created by Abyss creations to this day. It has no seams, and looks and behaves just like a real man. My plan was simple, too. I knew from my previous purchases that the Realdolls™ are shipped seated on padded chairs in crates (5' by 2' by 2') that are sealed with a combination lock. I decided to visit the factory at Abyss Creations and scout out the land.


Nika, who could break anyone's heart with looks alone, is also very intelligent

It wasn't long before I found the factory floor, and I decided to take an incredible risk - that night, I broke in. I quickly located the male Realdolls™ section and the packed crates, sitting on pallets ready to go. I spent almost 4 hours cracking the combination lock on one of the crates (9999 possible combinations to go through manually), and my joy was unrestrained when I succeeded. Working quickly, I took out the Male Realdoll™ within and threw it in a rubbish bin in the warehouse. I then put myself in the crate, sealed the door and awaited a wonderful future!

For days I suffered as the crate made it's noisy delivery to my unknown destination. I had some food and drink though, just enough to keep me going, and a small pocket light and copy of The Village Voice. I really couldn't wait for my new lifestyle, it was so exciting.

Soon the rumblings of my container stopped and I felt my crate being manhandled into somewhere. After some muffled voices, I waited in the dark for some unknown time, until eventually a blinding light shot into my crate and I heard delighted female cooing. My new mistress!

I have been blissfully happy since then, I am treated as a good doll by my Mistress and I even convinced her to purchase Stacy and Nika, so I am reunited with my loves, but now we are equal. I have to say I am very, very happy, and now no longer have to deal with the falsities of real people, I am treated as a real person and an investment.

And the future is bright too - Abyss Creations are constantly researching the field, and I look forward to the new animatronic Realdolls™ that are in development. They will be able to move and make love of their own accord, and so will be a much more immersive experience. They will utilise powerful processors, and I can only wonder how long it is before the 'Linux' operating system is ported to a Realdoll™ and then lovers of this OS can actually make physical love to their creation!

Also, I plan to have children and can only hope that Abyss Creations will make the Child Realdoll™ so that I can achieve my dream. Other advantages would be the disappearance of paedophilia and such disgusting traits, in favour of just buying a Child Realdoll™, but I think the mainstream would be the chance to have a nice family that is more realistic and loving than the real thing could ever be.

I encourage all my readers to investigate the Realdolls™ site, it is the best move I have ever made, as it has revolutionised my life. Why bother with the sore, dirty reality, when perfection can be bought?




Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 04:09:23 PM PST
Has anyone read William Shatner's tekwar series of books? This reminds me very much of the robot prostitutes he wrote about.

Anyhow, this is a very creative and interesting story and I applaud the author. You have the beginnings of a very good sci-fi book on your hands here. Pursue it!


the stepford wives (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 09:20:18 PM PST
robot prostitutes and martha stewarts in one


 
Bravo (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by First Incision on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 05:31:36 PM PST
I applaud you! With a simple, direct method, you have achieved what zizak has only dreamed of. You have found a woman to support you, and she is probably rich (if she can afford a RealDoll).
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Yes (none / 0) (#15)
by bc on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 08:37:15 PM PST
I would encourage zikzak to do the same as I have. Realdoll's™ are so realistic that nobody would be any the wiser, and a dream lifestyle would await him. It would really solve all of his problems.

My mistress most certainly is rich, and she is good looking too. This is why she bought a Realdoll™ - the men who gave her attention only wanted money, they were all a bunch of wannabee gigolos. Pathetic, really.

By cuckolding a Male Realdoll™, any man of decent intelligence can secure a future of bliss. When your mistress has paid $6000 for you, she is surely sore to part with you - this is the key to a secure, safe and constant future.


♥, bc.

 
No (none / 0) (#18)
by zikzak on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:01:03 AM PST
Can a Realdoll™ clean the kitchen? I don't think so.


who cares? (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:48:04 AM PST
With a RealDoll, a Real Man simply moves when the apartment gets too messy.


 
You seem to misunderstand. (none / 0) (#29)
by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 07:28:05 AM PST
Can a Realdoll™ clean the kitchen? I don't think so.

Dear friend, nobody is suggesting you buy a Realdoll™ - we are suggesting that you cuckold a male Realdoll™, replace it entirely like some invisible worm, throw it out as the cuckoo casts out rival eggs from the family nest, and settle down in its place.

So, can a Realdoll™ clean the kitchen? Nobody thinks they can - so you will have a life free of such idle cares as your Mistress deals with such petty tasks herself. I really think you should look into this.


♥, bc.

Ok (none / 0) (#42)
by zikzak on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 11:02:02 AM PST
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my perusal of First Incision's comment. Clearly the suggestion is as you explain, and not as I interpreted.

However, I see even greater problems with his (and your) scheme. True, not much will be expected of me in the way of domestic maintenance, but think of the other attendant horrors that will come with such a situation.

  • The woman blabs on and on and on to you about some trivial bullshit, but you're a doll so you can't tell her to shut up.
  • If the woman finds something about you to criticize, you can't smack her for it.
  • If she runs up the credit card buying shoes, you can't yank it out of her purse and lecture her about finances.
  • When she gets in a minor car accident you can't tell her she's a lousy driver and blame her for raising your insurance premium.
  • You can not stop her from redecorating the house with tacky floral motif curtains and upholstery.
  • If she wants to be on top during sex you must acquiesce (like most men, I find this painful).
  • When she steals the bed covers at night you can't rudely shove her to the floor.


  • It would seem to me that by being a doll you forfeit all the good things about being involved with a woman.


    Ok... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by noah Oneye on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 10:57:58 AM PST
    I agree with you about the trauma of redecoration, but I think some of your points need to be rethought.

    If she runs up the credit card buying shoes, you can't yank it out of her purse and lecture her about finances.

    That's true, but as a "doll", he isn't working, so what's he care? The money is really hers to spend. Plus, if she's forking over $6000 for a plastic love buddy, she's probably got a couple of bucks to spend on footwear.

    When she gets in a minor car accident you can't tell her she's a lousy driver and blame her for raising your insurance premium.

    Again, as a doll, he ain't paying for insurance.

    If she wants to be on top during sex you must acquiesce (like most men, I find this painful).

    Here's my advice: get thinner girlfriends. I, for one, very much enjoy having my girlfriend on top, as it facilitates my watching her bounce up and down. Don't get me wrong, I like me being on top as well. I just object to you saying that most men find it painful.

    If the woman finds something about you to criticize, you can't smack her for it.

    Blah. Jokes about hitting women are lame.

    And just like that, I'm out...


    "...and in your free time you can make me sandwiches..."

     
    Male RealDoll. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by tkatchev on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 10:00:41 PM PST
    Why were you so sure that you'd end up with a woman, and not a closet homosexual? Are you telling the whole story here?


    --
    Peace and much love...




    It was a risk (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:17:33 AM PST
    I am aware that homosexuals may be interested in Male Realdolls™ too - however, I acoided this terrible fate by simply looking at the intended recipient as written on the crate. I avoided all the butch names, settling on one addressed to Elizabeth.

    It was quite simple, really.


    ♥, bc.

    You could have avoided this risk. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by elenchos on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 08:23:04 PM PST
    I carefully studied the Male RealDoll documentation and learned that anal penetration capability is not a standard feature, but a costly option. Furthermore, inclusion of this functionality has a noticable effect on the weight and balance of the RealDoll. You could have checked the invoice to ensure that you did not substitute yourself for a homosexual RealDoll, and confirmed the fact by the lighter nether regions of the heterosexual Doll.

    Yeah, I know some gays don't "go there" but would such a prude ever give himself permission to go ahead and buy himself a RealDoll? Nah, those non-anal homos are the ones hanging around Baptist churches hoping to get "cured" and sucking off the ushers in the mean time. And in any case, your odds would be changed dramatically.

    Hopefully anyone else who follows in your footsteps should feel around the lower parts of the Doll he dopplegangers himself with, just to be sure. And what if while feeling around in the Doll Region he discovers he sort of, you know, likes it? Well so much the better! Search no more!

    Perhaps there needs to be an update with this valuable information.


    I do, I do, I do
    --Bikini Kill


     
    You mischaracterize the risk. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by em on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 04:00:58 AM PST
    It'd have been *him* who'd have ended up as somebody's "closet homosexual", in quite literal terms.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Code Blue! (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 02:37:48 AM PST
    Realdolls are nice, but they are so expensive. much easier is to sneak into a funeral home (the security on these places is much lighter than you would think!) and make off with a nice female (or male if you like) corpse! Plus they're all nicely embalmed. You just have to get used to that chemical smell.

    Be sure to check the obituary pages to see when someone who tickles your fancy (eg female 18-24 yrs) has passed away. I guess you could even steal a child corpse if your a sicko. It's worth the wait to get a true to life sex toy. You can even start a collection: i myself have quite the nice harem going! Imagine: a different woman for every weeknight (i only have 5, weekends i mix-n-match)!

    Anyway, thats it! Remember to check the obituary pages (oh ya, try not to hit the same place too many times) and be patient: you'll be amazed the kind of beautiful, shapely women that die right in your hometown.


    Intriguing (none / 0) (#26)
    by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:31:49 AM PST
    The only problem with this is that one would have to secure a whole series of bodies, for I imagine they go off really very quickly.

    How can you form a deep and meaningful relationship with someone who will have to be replaced after two weeks? At least my Realldolls™ stick around, meaning I can get very close to them, over time. With dead bodies the romance would be gone.


    ♥, bc.

     
    Question about real doll (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yossarian on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 04:12:13 AM PST
    I read your article with great interest - I was fascinated to see how advanced these "RealDolls" have become. I am now thinking of purchasing one of these dolls for myself.

    I am worried about one issue, however - what are the moral implications of RealDoll relationships? As a committed Christian, it seems to me that intercourse with one of these objects would be tantamount to onanism. If the doll is realistic enough, it might even be seen as committing the sin of fornication. I have consulted the Bible on this matter, but I have not been able to find any verses that refer to the practise of having relations with dolls. Nor could I find any reference to Christian morals in the RealDoll FAQ.

    I usually ask my pastor for advice on spiritual matters, but as I am a respected member of my community, I would prefer to keep this matter to myself. Perhaps Adam Rightmann could offer me some spiritual advice in this matter?


    Don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:10:50 AM PST
    It can't be tantamount to onanism - from what I have seen, onanism is defined as direct stimulation of the self with one's hands or whatever. I am no Adam Rightman (thank God!), but strictly speaking loving a Realdoll™ is not in any way a masturbatory activity.

    As for fornication, well a Realdoll™ is not born of a woman, therefore it is not a woman. Fornication is only committed with women who have led a chap astray. It is not born of a beast, so you are safe from bestiality too.

    As far as I can see, there is no spiritual objection to Realdoll's™. Rightman may have to perform idealogical cartwheels to make it appear sinful; feel free to ignore him.

    Hope this helps!


    ♥, bc.

    Cartwheels. (none / 0) (#25)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:27:25 AM PST
    Cartwheels? I do not think so.

    Here is Matthew, 5:

    27 " You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

    P.S. This is one of the most known passages of the New Testament. Anybody who has even a cursory knowledge of Christianity will definitely have seen this passage before.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Yes, but... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:37:46 AM PST
    ...that doesn't refer to Realdolls™.

    28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    A Realdoll™ is not a woman! So this passage does not apply. It is perfectly OK to lust after a Realdoll™.

    30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

    A Realdoll™ does not involve stimulation of oneself with the right hand - this does not apply either.

    Seems clear to me that your passage, whilst a sound moral principle we should all follow, does not prohibit Realdolls™ at all.


    ♥, bc.

    Uhm.. (none / 0) (#34)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:14:48 AM PST
    "Lust after a woman" means "derive sexual pleasure from watching women". Don't twist obvious meanings here. (A typical liberalist trick, BTW.)

    A RealDoll is, in the end, no different from pornography. Are you going to tell me that watching porn pictures isn't "lusting after a woman"? Not even the most callous liberalist would have the gall to claim that.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by bc on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:38:33 AM PST
    A RealDoll is, in the end, no different from pornography. Are you going to tell me that watching porn pictures isn't "lusting after a woman"? Not even the most callous liberalist would have the gall to claim that.

    You are saying that where the object/picture is a representation of a real woman, it is sinful? So, for example, pornography is sinful because the pictures are representations of real woman, if not actual women in themselves?

    If this is indeed Sinful according to the bible (and I have my doubts), I still don't think it applies to Realdolls™. Realdolls™ aren't representations of women - they are platonic ideals of what women could be, and are not based on the brute fact of women even remotely.

    More to the point, I think that watching pornography is not 'lusting after a woman'. There is no woman being lusted after, just celluloid dreams, extensively airbrushed and cut, with many special effects, make up and other tricks of the trade applied. The watcher of pornography is lusting after an idea that does not exist, a Platonic ideal.

    However, this is not to say Pornography is not sinful - real woman, forgotten beneath all the dreams, suffer and are humiliated. Every watcher of pornography is contributing to their humiliation and degradation. For this reason, it should be outlawed.

    However, if computer graphics could achieve realistic pornographic films, I would not have a problem with such a thing. Then what is being lusted after does not depend on the exploitation of real women for its production, as before, but a simulacrum with no relation to the real article, the ultimate perfect ideal that can never exist in nature.Exactly the same as before, but now real women are not being exploited and destroyed as their essence is ripped from them, distilled, purified and displayed, all the rough, reality giving edges excised.

    Realdolls™ fall into this category - they are Platonic ideals, not representations of real women. Nobody is lusting after anything with any relation to real women whatsoever.


    ♥, bc.

     
    A bit harsh O Lion! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 08:30:05 AM PST
    Wow, so all these biblical literalists have never, ever, not once looked at a woman with lust? Or is there some huge group of true christians I am unaware of who have actually cut off their penises for doing so?

    Now, I'm very, very skeptical that this large group of people (biblical literalists such as the SBC) contains not a single person who has ever lusted for woman. I am also exremely skeptical that a single one of these people have ever removed their own sexual organs. I am more than happy to receive links showing me one way or the other.

    Ye Gods, can you imagine going to one of these whacko baptist schools and getting called to the board to solve a problem when you've got a boner over little Mary Rottencrotch's budding breasts? Not only embarising, but it's peepee whacking time!

    If no links documenting the lack of lust amongst these people or the removal of schlongs is forthcoming I must assume these people are either a: Complete and total hypocrites talking complete and total shit, or b: Morons. I think it's a bit from column A and a bit from column B myself.


    I don't care for the (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Mint Waltman on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 08:45:59 AM PST
    ...blaspemous implications of your little tirade. To lust is surely to sin. No one here has claimed to never have sinned. All men sin. The difference between a Christian and the riff raff is that they pray for forgivness, and the strength to avoid sin in the future. Only one man was perfect, Jesus. I admit to have viewed full frontal nudity in a movie once, and that it roused feelings of tribulation within my body, but I got through those trying times with prayer and ministry. As much respect as I have for tkatchev, I don't believe he is (nor would calim to be) perfect either.


    literalism (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:13:14 AM PST
    Mathew 5:28-30 plainly states that if part of your body offends you through acts of lust it must be removed. Am I wrong?

    5:28
    But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    5:29
    And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    5:30
    And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    I've got no problem with those who do not follow this edict, if they do not claim biblical innerency. Hell, Mathew contains this little nugget of ineffable wisdom (5:44): But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Yet how many Christians, especialy Southern Baptist literalists, are making a big fuss out of the fact that, according to Jesus, we shouldn't be bombing Afghanistan but rather aidng the poor nation?

    As usual most believers are obviously hypocritical ones. That does make me, even as an atheist, truly admire those that do follow the actual teachings of Jesus. And no that does not mean actually lopping off your eye, hand, or penis as a literalist is not necessarily following Jesus' teachings rather than a translator's error.


    let's look at Afghanistan. (none / 0) (#38)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:47:43 AM PST
    Should Christians bomb Afghanistan?

    Well, if Christians are going to have a state, in a world of other states, yes, they should. Those who want Christianity to be a mendicant religion can go ahead and practice monasticism, but Jesus has told us that we had better have swords; and being kind to your enemies isn't the same thing as allowing them to take your life.

    Christianity teaches us not to live by the sword. Fine - we should abstain from personal violence. But that's not the same thing as abstaining from all violence, because that makes you the slave of everyone willing to use force. And while no Christian should be ashamed to be a slave, we are commanded to increase the kingdom, and in order to do that we must have power.

    The only conceivable non-Christian justification for the bombing of Afghanistan seems to be cynical, Satanic power politics. Let us have none of that here.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:54:38 PM PST
    ...Jesus has told us that we had better have swords; and being kind to your enemies isn't the same thing as allowing them to take your life.

    But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. -Mathew 5:39

    Amazing that Jesus can mention swords TWICE, once in an obviously allegorical sense and once with no reference to violence whatsoever, and Christians use those two passages to counter hundreds of passages where he specifically condemns any violence whatsoever from his followers.

    Christianity teaches us not to live by the sword. Fine - we should abstain from personal violence. But that's not the same thing as abstaining from all violence, because that makes you the slave of everyone willing to use force.

    So? Is your reward not in heaven? You would risk your immortal soul for comfort on earth?

    And while no Christian should be ashamed to be a slave, we are commanded to increase the kingdom, and in order to do that we must have power.

    Are you sure you are not a devotee of Islam? Islam commands it's followers to expand Islam by the sword, Christianity commands it's followers to increase the kingdom by the word of the gospel. Is your God so petty he will except adherants brought to him by fear rather than love?

    The only conceivable non-Christian justification for the bombing of Afghanistan seems to be cynical, Satanic power politics. Let us have none of that here.

    Too late, you called for power politics at the end of the previous paragraph.

    You can't duck the responsibility of living up to your morals by unloading it on a state. If, as Christians so often claim, this is a Christian nation then it MUST live up to Christian ideals otherwise it is a state founded upon hypocricy. The US is, thank whatever, a secular nation so I can't condemn it for hypocricy like I can the Christians who make up a fair majority of it's populace.


    why are you so rude, all the time? (none / 0) (#63)
    by nathan on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:17:08 PM PST
    Good grief, man. Get over your personal animus against me. I never said that we should increase God's kingdom by the sword, I said that we need to be able to defend ourselves. Jesus never said 'roll over and play dead.' And I don't see anything allegorical about 'sell your coat and buy a sword.'

    FYI, I am not an American and I don't live there. And my "reward" may be in heaven - although that's a ridiculous way of looking at it; the reward for living a Godly life is being close to God - but that doesn't mean that I am devoid of responsibilities here on earth, to protect people, to increase the kingdom, to do work. No-one's talking about living 'for' the world, but in it.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by Right Hand Man on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 10:14:16 AM PST
    Mathew 5:28-30 plainly states that if part of your body offends you through acts of lust it must be removed. Am I wrong?

    No you are not wrong. Of course, a decent Christian who has a decent amount of self control would never have to take such drastic measures to avoid sin. If one sins and asks forgiveness then there is really no reason to jab out an eye or anything like that. If a person repeatedly commits the same sin then yes, it would be better to lose an eye than to spend enternity in hell.

    As for your quote of Matthew 5:44, there is nothing there that prevents the bombing of Afghanastan. I pray for those people every day. I pray that before the Daisy Cutter bombs wipe them from the face of the earth they will see the error of their ways and accept Jesus into their lives so they will not populate the vastness of hell with their shattered corpses.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dexter Descarte on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 02:00:42 PM PST
    If one sins and asks forgiveness then there is really no reason to jab out an eye or anything like that.

    And Jesus said this where? I agree with you (from a Pauline Christian interpretation of the bible, Peterists might also add that you need to do good works as well) but that is not a literal interpretation of the passage.

    As for your quote of Matthew 5:44, there is nothing there that prevents the bombing of Afghanastan.

    If you think doing good to those that hate you includes dropping air-fuel mixture bombs on them you have a serious problem with the whole good/evil thing.


     
    the way Christianity works (none / 0) (#36)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:22:41 AM PST
    Some people have, in fact, observed the precept about becoming 'eunuchs for the sake of Heaven.' That's a choice, not a requirement, and it doesn't guarantee salvation. Christianity presupposes sin on the part of all men; sin causes separation from God; therefore we are all lost, and only through Christ's death can our sins be redeemed.

    Some people believe that Christ's death saved all humanity for all time. This is called 'universalism' and is generally considered incorrect. (Mind you, it's kind of the 'carrot without the stick,' as far as arguments go - we should live Christian lives because it's reight, instead of because we'll be punished if we don't. This makes it politically unuseful, and this has been a strike against it.) Most Christians believe that we are even now in the grip of sin, and only through accepting Jesus as saviour can we (individually)be redeemed.

    Catholics believe that baptism is the crucial first step in accepting Christ. Then one lives a life within the Church, and is saved. Catholic thought is wrestling with the question of whether it is possible to be saved outside the church. Popular thought seems to be on the side of yes, whereas the church hierarchy appears to be quietly on the side of no.

    Fundamentalists generally believe that one is saved through personal conversion (ie, the crucial thing is asking, inside, for Jesus to save you and take command of your life.) This is in line with the universal priesthood of all believers, and the individual's personal right to an unmediated relationship with God, which are cornerstones of Protestant thought.

    The Orthodox are another question and I don't know much about them. Perhaps Tkatchev will help me out with that one. Other Christian types - Jansenists, Mormons, Monophysites, and other minor or heretical branches - get stranger and stranger as you go, so do your own reading.

    The point is that Christianity does not teach, and has never taught, that man must (or even can) lead a sinless life. You try to minimize your sins because that's what God wants, but you can't escape them, or the condition of sinfulness, except through committment to Christ, however your church interprets that.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    The Orthodox... (none / 0) (#44)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 11:52:25 AM PST
    The Orthodox view of salvation supposes that indeed, one cannot be saved outside the Church. Although, this really needs to be differentiated from the legalistic approach Catholics take; Catholics belive that baptism is some sort of magic "ticket to heaven". The Orthodox believe that baptism is a real requirement, needed to prove that you are indeed serious about Christianity. Indeed, if you are reluctant to go through the initiation rite of baptism, you aren't really a Christian. Accepting baptism is really a minor sacrifice when eternal salvation is at stake.

    Most Orthodox believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true Christian Church here on earth; this is a purely rational, pragmatic belief, though, not religious dogma. The belief is based on historical evidence and the teachings of the Church founders. (Seeing as the Orthodox Church is the only church that can be directly traced to the original Apostolic Church.)

    Also, the Orthodox belief is that salvation is always a personal matter between God and man; there is nothing that says that, for example, rural Hindu peoples will not attain salvation. Most people doubt it, but then again, we can never know. This is a personal matter concerning strictly God and man only.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    two conflicting ideas (none / 0) (#47)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 12:23:23 PM PST
    Pardon my stupidity, but, I read first:

    The Orthodox view of salvation supposes that indeed, one cannot be saved outside the Church.

    followed by:

    salvation is always a personal matter between God and man.

    So, if a rural Hindu is saved, is it within the church somehow?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    God... (none / 0) (#48)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:08:28 PM PST
    God isn't some sort of mental construct. We can guess and make dogmatic statement all we want, but in the end, it all comes down to the fact that we cannot comprehend God. As logical, rational human beings we postulate that slavation is only attainable through the Church. That makes sense, it gives us a rule to live by.

    In reality, however, whatever God chooses will happen. Since Christians believe God to be a loving God, we can assume that some Hindus will be saved, even though this makes no sense from a rational / legalistic perspective.

    This is only confusing because you are trying to anthropomorphise God, to endow Him with human reasoning powers; in reality, God is so much above the material world (remember, He created it, after all) that rationality makes no sense when applied to God.

    Ultimately, it all comes down to the choice -- do you trust your creator, or do you reject Him. The reasoning behind it all is simply a crutch to make it more digestible.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:57:01 PM PST
    for your response. But I'm a little confused about "do you trust your creator, or do you reject Him." What does each one of these entail?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    You are so ignorant, man. (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:21:43 AM PST
    How can you even dare to call yourself a Christian when you don't even know the first, most basic tents of your (?) faith. (Your post is just so preposterous that I'd normally assume you are trolling here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, for once.)

    Jesus Christ had said that is a sin to even think about doing something immoral[1]. In the words of Christ himself, you are committing adultery even if you think about having sex out of wedlock. That means that if you fantasise while masturbating -- you are definitely committing adultery. This "RealDoll" definitely falls under this category.

    If you are indeed not trolling, I heartily advise you to join the Judaic faith instead. Ignorant people like you just give Christianity a bad name, since they profess Christianity while never having read the New Testament nor ever having been to Church.

    [1] Not to fear, though: God loves his creations so much that even the most awful sinners will attain salvation. All you need is to repent (key word here!) and accept God's love.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Just a few clarifications... (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yossarian on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 06:25:18 AM PST
    ...if you fantasise while masturbating -- you are definitely committing adultery. This "RealDoll" definitely falls under this category.

    Thank you for your reply - you have definitely given me alot to think about! One or two further questions though (sorry to bother you again with my ignorance!):

    Does the RealDoll actually come under the heading of masturbation, since its users are not stimulating themselves manually, nor are they spilling their seed on the ground (as Onan did in Genesis 38:9)? (By the way, I am unmarried - as such, I can fornicate, but not commit adultery. Does this make a difference?).

    "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

    Since a RealDoll is not a real woman, is it permissible to lust after it? And if the possession of a RealDoll prevents men with weak resolves (like me, regrettably) from lusting after real women, could a RealDoll not be a means of saving thousands of souls from damnation?

    The author of the original article, although he does not appear to be of the Christian faith, tells us how his RealDolls led him away from a life of fornication and lust after women. Even though his story takes a disturbing twist towards the end, when he appears to take up a most unchristian lifestyle of submission to a woman, (Ephesians 5:23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.") there are some positive aspects to his story.


    Explanations for the pharisees in you... (none / 0) (#32)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:11:12 AM PST
    It's the intent, not the actual deed, that matters in the end.

    So, if you use a RealDoll as a substitute for sex, then you are committing a sin. (Fornication, or adultery, there isn't any difference in the long run.) If you are using a RealDoll just because you're a weird sort of dumbass who stimulates his genitalia without any particular reason, not even for pleasure, then I guess that would be OK.




    --
    Peace and much love...




    what about (none / 0) (#40)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:56:33 AM PST
    if you use a RealDoll as an adjunct to sex? (Eg, you get in bed with one of them, and your wife.)

    Pharisee
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    That would (none / 0) (#45)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 11:54:56 AM PST
    That would still be adultery, I guess.

    Basically, in Christianity, pleasure for the sake of pleasure is always a sin.

    (Again, "sin" literally means "falling short from perfection". Don't take the flawed Catholic of sin as some sort of illegal injunction against God. Sin is just a daily part of living here on earth, you cannot live on earth without sinning.)


    --
    Peace and much love...




    so... (none / 0) (#46)
    by nathan on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 12:21:06 PM PST
    If we're constantly sinning, they might as well be pleasurable ones, right? Sign me up, chief.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    No. (none / 0) (#49)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:12:13 PM PST
    Because all sin is ultimately self-hate and self-destruction. What you deem "pleasure" is, ultimately, in fact egocentrical hate of everything, including yourself. Paradoxical, but true.

    "Pleasure" is just a road to self-destruction -- on all levels, the physical, the rational, and the spiritual. This self-destruction is what is called "Death" in the New Testament; not just the death of the body, but death of the mind and soul as well.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    The meaning of sin (none / 0) (#50)
    by First Incision on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:20:12 PM PST
    I'm far from an expert, but this is how sin was repeatedly described to me in Catholic sunday school.

    God should be involved with, and a part of, everything you do. A sin is a separation from Godliness. It is something you do on your own, without God. You can make a willful choice to exclude God from your action, or you can do an action that displeases God, and he can exclude Himself.

    I realize this is very vague, but this is what I was taught, and it sounds about right to me.
    _
    _
    Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#51)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 01:28:01 PM PST
    That's pretty much correct.

    You should remember the meaning of original sin, though -- original sin is the choice of Adam to separate himself from God and "strike out on his own". Basically, since Adam chose to willfully separate from God, we are stuck in a sinful state ever since. You can't really live here on earth and not sin, because our ancestors have specifically chosen for it to be this way.

    Your second statement, the one about "displeasing God" is blatantly false, though. God is love, and God is never "displeased". Pagan gods (demiurges) can be displeased, but a omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe can't be "displeased", especially because of some sort of minor injunction.

    Any separation of man and God always stems from man turning away from God; this is called "free will", and if it were any other way than we'd be nothing more than automatons, puppets in the hands of God.

    God gave us the ultimate gift, that of freedom.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    god is l33t (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Stretch on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 05:28:33 PM PST
    <i>God gave us the ultimate gift, that of freedom.</i>

    What a nice guy that god is. Freedom. Whoop, sure sounds great, that freedom does. Too bad your god also screws us over completely and totally unless we do what your god tells us to do.

    I say your god should take back this pointless "freedom" and make us the mindless slaves (or perhaps just mercifully kill us) so we can all be perfect christians. I have better things to do then sin (which apparently you can't avoid under this "freedom" idea) and then pray for forgiveness just so I can save myself from hell. Why would your god set us up like this? Is that funny to him or he is not the joking type?


    Because... (none / 0) (#57)
    by tkatchev on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 10:33:47 PM PST
    Because having free will is better than being a drone. I guess this is obvious, but then again, many people really take issue with that. Don't know...


    --
    Peace and much love...




    But... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stretch on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:23:14 AM PST
    But in a sense your god's idea of free will is not really free will at all. Hell does not sound to appealing, especially in the long term, so why would anyone choose to go to hell when the obviously better option is be a drone for our short lives and end up in that heaven place. But for whatever reason, some people apparently do end up in hell. Seeing how apparently we can't be a drone, why would anyone choose to go to hell? Why not just be a good christian as god intended? I doubt anyone would intentionally do anything that could assure them a full position in hell. What you say? Well when some one murders someone, it isn't free will, but rather a pre-programmed (by who? god of course!) reaction to a certain situation (since this god guy is apparently omnipotent, and all those other omni* words, wouldn't he already know you would kill your wife because she was leaving you for the midget down the street on the same day you lost your job?) Perhaps it isn't free will at all that we are experiencing, but rather a destiny we (or perhaps rather, you) have been programmed to think we (you) can control.


    Sigh... (none / 0) (#60)
    by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 05:04:01 AM PST
    "Hell" is the same place as "heaven". Simply put, "hell" and "heaven" are a state of your soul -- "hell" being away from God, and "heaven" being close to God. Where you end up is completely your choice -- all you need to do to end up in "heaven" is to move closer to God.

    However, with all the latent and subconcious God-hate the atheists exhibit, that is very unlikely to happen. All in all, you could say that sin is simply the concious rejection of God.

    To accept God requires that you bridle your pride, that you accept the fact that you are not the center of the universe. Letting go of egocentrism can be surprisingly difficult for some people.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    cough (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stretch on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 10:22:00 AM PST
    That is a clear misconception of atheists. Now I perhaps I shouldn't speak for atheists, as I am not an atheist, but atheisism does not dictate you believing you are the center of the universe. Perhaps some athiests are as you describe but I would hardly say all or even a majority.

    My point, if you chose to open your mind was, your christian god is all-knowning and all-powerful. One would think he would know how people would react in ever situation, since well, apparently he is god. Don't you think he would know that by creating someone and having them born into say, *gasp* a non-religious home, taught to not trust religious fundementalists (they kill people that get in their way!), growing up watching christian wars on TV, learning about all the hate done in the name of the lord, being beat up by the local pastor's son, that perhaps he or she would reject the christian god (and jesus, of course!). Of course he would know that. He knows everything. He created this person, knowning full well they would never be able to accept him into their life.

    Are you telling me you seriously doubt god is smart enough to do this relatively minor extrapolation?

    Call it a concious rejection of god if that makes you feel better, but anything humans (or animals) do is a situational response that is reproducable and predictible when knowing enough information (which one could only hope your omnipotent god has access to).


    Original sin. (none / 0) (#62)
    by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:01:37 PM PST
    Adam, our mythological common ancestor, chose to abandon God and live in a world where God plays a minor role. That's the point, we are the ones that effectively shaped our own world.

    That is why we need Christ -- because without Christ, there is no way we can get back to God. Well, maybe you could, through some sort of exceptional revelation, or through some sort of deep philosophical introspection; but for all practical intents and purposes, without Christ there is no salvation.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    I'll try my best to cut this (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mint Waltman on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:16:44 AM PST
    Gourdian knot with my theological perspicacity. I think bc's claims that the Real Doll is not, de facto, a woman hold true. It's plastic, rubber and metal deviously molded into the form of a woman. It was certainly not born of a woman. However I'm somewhat troubled by his claim that this tantamount to a freepass to commit whatever perverse acts with this doll that the devil may put in your head. We all know that this Real Doll is supposed to take over the role that one's wife would play in the matrimonial bed, or if your a sicko, one's girlfriend. In fact, bc boasts in several different places in his piece that this Real Doll is as good as a real woman- that it is so lifelike, that you'll scarcly notice any difference. Taking this into account, it is undeniable that this doll is indeed taking the place of a woman, and is implicitly as good as or even better that a woman of God's creation. Thus, while not technically a woman, the Real Doll is attributed many of the virtues of a woman, and is to take the place of a woman. Therefore fornication with the doll is indeed sinful. And I would suggest that you reconsider your purchase. Bc's advice may follow the letter of God's Law, but it most definitly violates the spirit of His Law. Though a court of man's making may see a difference, believe me, God does not.

    Of course there are other theological concerns. A Catholic may find displeasure in the fact that seed will be spilt in the bodily cavities of this doll, and is therefore not unsimilar to masturbation or intercourse with birth control in that said seed would not be used to create life. I however, would not be concerned with that. Another thing to consider is that one's relationship with the Real Doll may constitute idol worship. If you assign the desirable virtues of womanhood to this object it then becomes the physical avatar of these virtues- an idol of sorts. An idol one worships through the act of copulation, and one praises by forsaking his soul in the commitance of such acts.

    Safe to say, you should stay away from the Real Doll.


    Sinfullness of relations with a RealDoll (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yossarian on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 09:50:44 AM PST
    Thank you for your help. As I understand your post, the sinfullness of relations with one of these dolls lies not in the acts themselves, but in committing these acts to the exclusion of normal, healthy matrimional relations. (And the arrogance of the implication that a doll created by man could be superior to a woman created by God Himself - "The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate." - Proverbs 8:13)

    While intercourse with a RealDoll is better than fornication (in fornication, the souls of both participants are condemned to hell; with a RealDoll, only one soul is eternally damned), it is still gravely wrong and is against God's plan.

    I appreciate your spiritual help more than I can say. Of course, I need hardly say that I will *not* be purchasing one of these devices, and I urge other readers of adequacy.org not to buy either.


     
    How did you lock yourself in the crate? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 08:38:37 PM PST
    Did you have a helper who locked you in the crate in place of the male realdoll(tm)?


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.