I tend to be very critical of organized religion and those who take religion to extremes. I make no apologies for that, but I do make an effort to be fair. That’s why I go out of my way to highlight that most religious people, regardless of the religion they follow, are generally good, decent people whose faith genuinely enriches their lives.
That’s worth acknowledging because people can do genuinely good things in the name of their faith. It’s a beautiful thing. Just look at someone like Fred Rogers. That’s religious devotion at its finest.
I know I don’t highlight those stories enough. In my defense, the stories of people who actually practice what they preach and do genuine good for the world rarely makes the news. Then again, the news relies almost entirely on doom and gloom these days, so that shouldn’t be surprising.
That makes the effort to highlight the good a lot harder, but it’s still worth doing. To that end, I want to highlight a good story about religious people that stemmed from a bad story about a religious institution with a history of unholy behavior.
Recently, I bemoaned the Vatican’s decision to essentially cling to their traditions of marginalizing LGBTQ people. They still call homosexuality a sin and refuse to bless same-sex unions. Never mind the fact that Catholics still get divorced and eat shellfish, the Vatican still refuses to embrace change.
At a time when religion, as a whole is in decline and support for LGBTQ rights is growing, this just feels backwards, even by the standards of the Catholic Church. However, not all those who identify as Catholic feel the same way.
Even though the Vatican is set up as the central power of the Catholic world, there are those who go against that power. A few priests are daring to defy the Vatican and I want to take a minute to acknowledge their boldness. This is what Reuters has reported.
A dissident band of Roman Catholic priests leading a disobedience campaign against the Vatican said on Tuesday they would carry on blessing same-sex couples in defiance of Church orders.
The Vatican said on Monday that priests cannot bless same-sex unions and that such blessings are not valid, in a ruling that disappointed gay Catholics who had hoped their Church was becoming more welcoming under Pope Francis.
In some countries, parishes and ministers have begun blessing same-sex unions in lieu of marriage, and there have been calls for bishops to institutionalise de facto such blessings. Conservatives in the 1.3 billion-member Roman Catholic Church have expressed alarm over such practices.
“We members of the Parish Priests Initiative are deeply appalled by the new Roman decree that seeks to prohibit the blessing of same-sex loving couples. This is a relapse into times that we had hoped to have overcome with Pope Francis,” the Austrian-based group said in a statement.
“We will — in solidarity with so many — not reject any loving couple in the future who ask to celebrate God’s blessing, which they experience every day, also in a worship service.”
Whether you’re religious or not, let’s take a moment to applaud these priests. They’re doing something that Jesus himself once did. They see a powerful institution doing something wrong and they’re protesting that by doing what’s right.
In the process, they’re providing love, tolerance, and acceptance to a marginalized group that has suffered plenty, often in the name of religion. You can call that ironic, but I prefer to call it heroic. They have to know on some levels that they’re going to get in trouble for this.
They are likely going to get criticized. They’ll likely face protests from hardline conservative Catholics who cannot tolerate any deviation of any kind from certain traditions, no matter how outdated or intolerant they are. The fact these priests still went through with it says a lot about their character, as well as their faith.
It’s also worth emphasizing that what they’re doing is commendable in ways beyond the religious angle. They are just a small group of individual priests. The Vatican is a vast, powerful organization with immense wealth and influence. They have the benefit of being able to say with a straight face that their authority comes directly from a deity.
That power matters because it means they can change if they wanted. It would be a lot easier than what these rebellious priests are doing. The Pope could just come out and say that homosexuality isn’t a sin anymore for the same reason eating shellfish isn’t a sin anymore. He did it with purgatory. Why not do it with homosexuality?
That’s the problem with powerful organizations, though. When they’re powerful, they have the luxury of taking the path of least resistance. The easiest thing for powerful organizations to do is not change. It’s much less strenuous on the people and the systems around them to just keep doing what they’ve always been doing.
It keeps them in power.
It means less work for them and those who support them.
It means less thinking, contemplating, and second-guessing that maybe they’re doing something wrong.
At best, it’s lazy. At worst, it’s callous and negligent. Contrast that with the Catholic Priests who dare to go against such power. They know what they’re doing will bring consequences. They know they’re going to upset some powerful people, but they do it anyway.
That’s a level of spirit that religious and non-religious people alike can respect.
Regardless of your affiliation or your opinions of Christianity or Catholicism, take a moment to acknowledge that these men of faith are doing something great. They’re offering love and acceptance to their fellow human beings, even though they’re marginalized and demonized. It’s probably the most Christian thing they could possibly do and I, for one, salute them. I suspect Jesus would, as well.
When the Vatican makes the news for all the wrong reasons, few are surprised anymore. For the past few decades, major scandals and stories of horrific abuse have become common knowledge. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not fake news. This stuff happened and the Vatican doesn’t bother denying it anymore.
Despite this, they still wield a great deal of power, authority, and reverence for millions of people. People still see the Vatican as the central authority for their faith. Even when more terrible scandals come out, it barely shocks anyone anymore. It’s tragic and infuriating, especially to the victims.
That’s why when the Catholic Church makes a sweeping moral judgement that affects millions of people, including those who aren’t Catholic, it evokes a special kind of frustration. This is an organization whose corruption and hypocrisy has directly led to widespread suffering and death. They do not any moral authority, especially on matters pertaining to sex and family.
Remember, this is an organization run by a bunch of old men who have taken a vow of celibacy. Getting advice from them on matters of sex is like getting advice from a vegan on how to cook a steak.
So, with that in mind, when the Vatican comes out and says same-sex unions are sinful and unworthy of their blessing, it should not carry any weight. It should not be taken seriously, either. They have as much credibility as Jenny McCarthy’s position on Quantum Field Theory.
Unfortunately, because they still wield the zeal of centuries-old religious authority, a lot of people do take them seriously. That’s why we shouldn’t be too surprised when they announce that their attitudes towards things like same-sex relationships is the same as it was several centuries ago.
The Vatican declared Monday that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since God “cannot bless sin.”
The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”
The note distinguished between the church’s welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions. It argued that such unions are not part of God’s plan and that any sacramental recognition of them could be confused with marriage.
Again, this organization’s deplorable history with covering up egregious sex crimes should bar them from making such judgements. If they didn’t have religious tradition to hide behind, their statement would be a joke worthy of its own Onion article.
For countless Catholics, as well as same-sex couples and millions who identify as LGBTQ, it’s no laughing matter. What the Vatican is doing shouldn’t surprise anyone, no matter how frustrating it is in the grand scheme of things.
It’s easy to just cling to tradition. It means they don’t have to change. They don’t have to come out and say they were wrong about something for hundreds of years. They also don’t have to apologize and face possible legal issues for all the abuse they enabled over many years.
To the powers that be in the Vatican, it’s the path of least resistance.
To everyone else, it’s pure cowardice.
Now, please don’t misconstrue that as a sweeping judgment on all Catholics or those who respect the Vatican. As I often say whenever I criticize religion, most religious people, including most Catholics, are decent people. Many are actually in favor of LGBTQ rights, including same-sex marriage. They don’t hold the Vatican in that high regard and for understandable reasons.
However, the Vatican’s refusal to break free of old dogma is a testament to how stubborn and flawed this institution has become. Between all the scandals that have come out in recent years and the overall decline in religiosity, the powers within the Catholic Church are doing themselves no favor by clinging to their dogma.
At the same time, they’re continuing the stigma and harm that LGBTQ people continue to face all over the world. Many of the hate and oppression they face is religiously motivated. The Vatican is in a position to condemn it, but they choose not to. That is a moral failing on their part and one that further undermines their credibility, as a moral organization. Then again, how much moral authority can an organization have after covering up rampant child sexual abuse?
Younger generations clash with older generations. The older people are appalled at how the youth are conducting themselves. They see them doing things and behaving in ways that they never would’ve imagined in their youth. It’s not new. In fact, it’s been happening since ancient times in some form or another.
It’s especially pronounced when sex enters the equation. Older people don’t like thinking about their kids having sex and young people don’t like thinking about their grandparents having sex. We know it happens. There are over 7 billion humans on this planet. It happens a lot. It just makes us both very uncomfortable.
From discomfort comes assumptions and from assumptions come irrational fears. It’s not always overt, but it’s present in popular perceptions. Personally, I’ve never heard someone over the age of 60 claim that young people today are far more responsible in managing their sexual behavior. I doubt anyone in that age group could say that with a straight face.
However, that’s not what actual, verifiable data says. According to recent research in Psychological Science, young people today are more responsible than ever when it comes to making decisions about their sex lives.
We examined risky sexual choice under the lens of rational decision-making. Participants (N = 257) completed a novel sexual-choice task in which they selected from among hypothetical sexual partners varying in physical attractiveness and in the probability that one would contract a sexually transmitted infection (STI) from a one-time sexual encounter with them. We found that nearly all participants evaluated the sexual-choice alternatives in a coherent fashion consistent with utility-based theories of rational choice. In subsequent analyses, we classified participants’ responses according to whether their sexual preferences were based on maximizing attractiveness or minimizing the risk of STIs. Finally, we established an association between sexual choice in our task and reported real-world sexual risk-taking.
It doesn’t just stop with responsible choices, either. There has been a relatively consistent trend over the past 40 years. Sexual activity, as a whole, has been going down, so much so that it’s a demographic concern. That has corresponded with a decline in teen pregnancy, abortion, and unwanted pregnancy.
That’s not to say there aren’t irresponsible young people in this world. There certainly are. I’ve known quite a few. Most people have. It’s just not this big, decadent trend. Cable news and popular media love to paint young people as these strange, tradition-hating deviants who seek to destroy our most precious institutions. They are simply wrong.
They’re also trying to sell you a bullshit narrative to get ratings, but that’s another story.
Even in matters not exclusive to sex, older generations still try to find ways to criticize these crazy young people. It’s become more popular in recent years to call anyone under 30 a cohort of over-confident narcissists. Some go so far as to say there’s a narcissism epidemic.
‘Somebody high in self-esteem values individual achievement, but they also value their relationships and caring for others,’ she says. ‘Narcissists are missing that piece about valuing, caring and their relationships, so they tend to lack empathy, they have poor relationship skills. That’s one of the biggest differences, those communal and caring traits tend to be high in most people with self-esteem but not among those who are high in narcissism.’
Again, this is a flawed and incomplete narrative. It’s also incompatible with with the notion that young people are somehow more decadent sexually. Among the key traits of narcissism is promiscuity and it’s not just related to the sexual kind.
It’s hard to be narcissistic and responsible for the same reason it’s hard to be relaxed and enraged. The human psyche just doesn’t work like that. Society, as a whole, doesn’t work like that either. It can’t. If young people really were as decadent and narcissistic as old people thought, then our civilization never would’ve made it this far.
The reason I bring it up now is because this is one of those years when we should all re-assess our perspectives. The grim events of this past year have affected everybody, young and old. It’s affected our society, our emotions, and our sex lives. A lot will change as a result of this year. Generations afterwards will feel it.
As someone who will one day become old and cranky, I hope to maintain a healthy perspective regardless of what happens. I don’t doubt that when I get to a certain age, I’ll see young people behaving in ways that I find shocking. Some of those shocking ways might involve their sex lives. If I ever have kids, that’s going to concern me.
At the same time, I imagine that part of me will envy those young people for having the time, energy, and passions to behave in such ways. On some levels, I think many older people share those feelings. Their youth is a memory. The days of breaking traditions and upsetting their elders is long gone because they’re not elder. It’s just part of life.
We can’t avoid it, at least not yet. I don’t know what kind of state the world will be in by the time I turn 60. I just know I’ll have plenty to complain about. The fact that young people are bucking those complaints gives me hope that it’ll be better than any false perception.
Every now and then, a story comes along that is just so absurd, so outrageous, and so appropriately hilarious that you can’t help but feel glad to be alive. The only thing that makes it better is when the story involves powerful people being exposed as hypocrites in the most embarrassing way possible.
Even in a year as bad as 2020, those stories are still uniquely enjoyable. I would argue we need them now more than ever.
That’s exactly why I have to thank Jozsef Szajer, a Hungarian politician you’ve never heard of, but will never forget after this story. Recently, he just raised the bar for hilarity, hypocrisy, and sheer absurdity.
You don’t need to know much about Mr. Szajer’s politics. You just need to know he’s vehemently anti-LGBTQ and has campaigned against it for years. Usually, when someone is that vocal about LGBTQ issues, that raises some red flags. Just ask Ted Haggard.
Well, after this, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Szajer has risen the bar. Rather than simply paraphrase the sordid details, I’ll let the headline from the Irish Post do the talking.
At the same time, I don’t deny that not every adult is capable and not every child is ignorant. I’ve known people over 40 who have the maturity level of a 15-year-old. I’ve also known kids who are more mature than people twice their age. Everybody is different in terms of how and to what extent they mature. Some can handle adult situations better than others.
That brings me to strippers. I’m sure I have your attention now.
I bring it up because, this past year, a few strip club owners have been making waves in the news. Specifically, they’ve been protesting a law in Jacksonville from February 2020 that changes the minimum permissible age for a stripper from 18 to 21. That contrasts from many other jurisdictions, in which the minimum age is 18.
However, as what happened with the legal drinking age, this has become somewhat of a legal trend. Other jurisdictions have been seeking to raise the age limit, as well. They’re often met with protests, but so far the limits have been upheld. That may change with this case, as reported by AP News.
A lawyer representing 13 clubs and four dancers in Jacksonville argued before a federal judge that dancing is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment.
“This is just a ban on speech,” attorney Gary Edinger said.
The city law currently bans dancers under the age of 21 and was passed in an effort to reduce sex trafficking. The measure also requires dancer to have ID city-issued cards.
City attorneys said younger people are more susceptible to the coercion that’s often part of trafficking and argued that 21 is a safer age.
Now, set aside your feelings towards strip clubs for a moment. As someone who has been to more than a few and had a genuinely good time, I’ll make that effort too. I understand that, being a man, my perspective is going to be skewed. I still think it’s a relevant issue. Beyond the titillating undertones, there’s a bigger picture here worth considering.
It goes back to the questions I raised earlier about when someone becomes a legal adult. For much of the United States, reaching age 18 is often seen as a major milestone. It’s the age when you can become legally emancipated, which permits you to do all sorts of things like buy a car, buy a place of your own, and sign a contract.
What is it about that age that is so special? Legally speaking, it’s fairly arbitrary. We, as a society, just agreed that most people when they reach this age are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. Sure, some take longer than others. Some reach that point before that age. It’s an imperfect judgement for an imperfect society.
However, we do make some exceptions, as we did with alcohol. Now, I don’t know if that exception is warranted. When I was in high school, I knew plenty of people under the age of 21 who drank regularly. Most were fairly responsible. A few couldn’t handle it. They’re just lucky Instagram wasn’t around back then.
If that exception is so flimsy, then what makes 21 better than 18 when it comes to strippers? We’re not talking about ingesting a substance that can kill you if taken in large quantities. We’re talking about people being allowed to show off their sexy bodies for willing customers. What’s the justification for raising the age requirements just three years?
The lawyers say that it’s a means of combating human trafficking. That’s a perfectly respectable effort, but one that is often misused and abused to attack the sex industry, as a whole. It can also be very counterproductive, as I’ve noted before. I can’t find any evidence at how raising the minimum affects human trafficking, but I doubt the lawyers involved in this case need it to win the argument.
You’ll never lose political points for saying you’re against human trafficking. The problem is when your efforts are largely symbolic or arbitrary, the results will lack substance.
Beyond this shallow justification, it’s also inconsistent. How can we explain to a legal adult that 18 is not old enough to allow them to strip for money? At 18, you can legally skydive, give blood, and join the military. All three of those activities come with dangers, but we let 18-year-olds consent to doing them. So, why do we make an exception for stripping?
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I have a hard time justifying that exception. I’ve heard coherent arguments about the drinking age being 21. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument about making the minimum stripper age 21.
Just saying it’ll help combat human trafficking isn’t enough. I’d like to see some evidence of that. I’d also like to understand why it’s still legal for an 18-year-old to have consensual sex, but they need to wait another three years before they can get naked for money. That just too arbitrary and inconsistent.
I understand age limits will always be arbitrary to some extent. I also understand that people get very uncomfortable when it comes to sex, nudity, and the people who do it for a living. We can never stop people from being horny or doing sexy things for money. We should have some reasonable regulations in place to govern that sort of thing. My question here is simple. Is raising the age requirements for strippers to 21 reasonable? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.
The following is a vide for my YouTube channel, Jack’s World. It once again explores “Megamind,” a movie I’ve highlighted in the past for it’s colorful subversion of the superhero genre. It felt like the time was right to discuss it on my channel. This time, I explore how “Megamind” gave us the first true Incel villain before the concept of an “incel” was a thing.
Like anything involving incels, it’s a distressing topic and bound to generate some less-than-comfortable feelings. I still welcome comments and discussion. Enjoy!
I love the internet. In general, I think it does more good than harm. Our lives are objectively better because of it. I know it has its share of baggage and drawbacks. Like anything, you take the good with the bad.
However, there are times when taking the bad is just annoying as hell. I’m fine with challenges and struggle. Those help us become stronger, in the long run. The same can’t be said of annoyance. That helps no one. It just makes you want to bang your head against the wall.
This brings me to what I feel is one of the weakest, emptiest, most pathetic displays of internet outrage I’ve seen in recent years. It unfolded last year, but has become relevant again this year. Even in the midst of a global pandemic, certain people still find the time and energy to be so insanely petty about something so banal.
It stems largely from that scene in “Avengers: Endgame.” You probably know the scene I’m referring to. I doubt I have to be too specific. For general reference, here it is.
Just playing it again, I can easily imagine a certain group of people whining like babies, as though someone just stole a piece of their birthday cake. It’s a shot of some of Marvel’s most notable female characters, all in the same scene, getting ready to kick more ass in the final battle against Thanos.
Yes, people actually got upset over this.
Yes, it’s as dumb, pathetic, and petty as it sounds, and then some.
They’re not just men who complain about a female superhero’s bra size. They’re not just women who complain how these costumes are woefully impractical. They call this scene cringy. That’s usually code for, “This doesn’t pander exclusively to me and it hurts my precious feelings!”
Many probably whine about other people who whine about things they don’t agree with, be it politics, video games, or which celebrity had an opinion that hurt their precious feelings. This scene just caught more attention than most, being part of the highest grossing movie of all time.
The outrage unfolded as soon as the movie came out. Here’s just one of the responses on Twitter.
Trust me, this is tame compared to some of the other rage tweeting that went on. Most of it boiled down to people saying the scene was so forced and tried too hard to make a political statement. Naturally, you can’t make political statements these days without attracting trolls, assholes, idiots, and narcissists.
I say that as someone who has made his share of political statements, some of which I know won’t age well. I know I make certain people cringe with what I say and how I say it. Most of the time, it’s understandable. I have enough empathy to realize that hearing something you don’t agree with can be distressing.
This scene, however, is not one of those instances. To see this scene and assume Marvel Studios is making this bold political statement about feminism, female characters, and how men should be ashamed for not letting women shine isn’t just contrived. It’s just plain goddamn stupid.
I’m sorry. I wish there was a more articulate way to say that. Sometimes, you just have to be as blunt and straightforward as possible. There are things worth cringing over. There are things worth getting outraged over. This isn’t one of them.
It’s just a very brief, very colorful moment within a two-and-a-half hour movie that took all but seven second. Somehow, that was enough to evoke whining, outrage, and trolls? Seriously, how does that make sense?
The reason I’m bringing this up now is because this scene has become relevant again, thanks to Amazon Prime’s “The Boys.” Now, I love that show and the comic that inspired it. I hope I’ve made that clear. I love the scene that re-opened this old wound, too. It was a great scene. Watching Starlite, Maeve, and Kimiko beat up Stormfront was very satisfying.
There was nothing political about it, but now it’s getting political because of how it supposedly contrasts with the “Avengers: Endgame” scene. I say supposedly because they’re both very different scenes with very different stories told in a very different context. Linking one to the other to make a larger political statement is just asinine.
When I see the “Avengers: Endgame” scene, I don’t see anything political. I just see an epic shot of Marvel’s female heroes. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. It’s just a fun scene that nicely depicts how many great female characters have developed over the years in the MCU. Can’t it just be that?
The same goes for the scene in “The Boys.” Can’t that scene just be a fun display of three of the show’s best characters beating up some Nazi-loving bitch? There’s no politics in, either. It’s entertainment. It’s fun.
If you’re going ascribe politics to either scene, then you’re missing the point. You’re also whining like an immature child, incapable of accepting a world that doesn’t always pander to every one of your sensibilities at every hour of every day. I don’t care where you lean politically. That sort of misguided outrage isn’t the least bit justified. It’s just flat out pathetic.
When you write a lot about sex robots and sex dolls, like I do, you tend to attract attention. It’s not always the fun kind of attention, but it’s still attention and I welcome it. I’ve been discussing this topic, and writing sexy short stories about it, long enough to make clear that my interest is serious. It really pays off when you connect with others who are equally serious.
That happened recently when some people from an actual sex doll brothel in Europe saw some of my articles. One of their representatives actually reached out to me and we organized a Skype call. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect, but I was genuinely curious. It’s one thing to write about sex dolls and sex robots. It’s quite another to get actual insight from someone working in that field.
I’m grateful for the opportunity because the discussion we had was incredibly revealing. For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, the sex doll company in question is called Naughty Harbor. Before you look them up, please note that their website has plenty of NSFW content. They work with sex dolls. That should be a given.
They currently operate out of the Czech Republic. They have facilities for both the manufacturing of sex dolls and for operating a small sex doll brothel. They haven’t been in business for very long, but they have been on the front line of this emerging industry.
The individual I spoke to, whose name I won’t disclose out of respect for his privacy, works closely with the founder and the owner of Naughty Harbor. He shared a great deal of information on the basics of the industry, the people who use it, the challenges of operating in 2020, and the emerging trends. Among the many issues that came up, here are some key highlights.
Issue #1: The Taboos And Stigma Of Sex Dolls Still Very Strong
This was probably the largest and most pressing challenge for Naughty Harbor and companies like it. Like most things related to sex, there are a host of taboos about sex dolls. From the people to use them to the people who buy them to the people who develop genuine connections with them, the stigma surrounding them is still incredibly strong.
At the same time, the demand for companionship and sexual experience is also strong. That’s never going away, no matter how much taboo or stigma is heaped upon it. Just ask the Catholic Church. That’s what drives the sex doll industry. With sex doll brothels now starting to emerge, the taboo is starting to wane to some degree.
The individual from Naughty Harbor explained how big a deal privacy was for customers. Some wanted absolutely no face-time with anyone. They wanted what amounted to a no-contact experience. They just call ahead of time, have someone set up a room with a sex doll, and have all the transactions occur behind a computer screen with complete anonymity.
It’s not unlike the type of no-contact deliveries that have become so common during the ongoing pandemic. It’s not like walking into a legal brothel, standing in front of a bunch of sex workers, and doing business out in the open. Even in places with liberal sex work laws, like Europe, the desire for privacy is still critical.
That’s likely to remain the same as more sex doll brothels open up. However, this is also where our discussion brought up other key insights.
Issue #2: The Pandemic’s Effect On The Industry
Like any industry, the ongoing that same pandemic I mentioned earlier is affecting the sex doll industry. The representative said outright that there has been a noticeable uptick in interest and sales. That makes sense too. People who have been stuck at home for weeks on end are bound to get lonely. Even if you live in a place with legal sex work, a pandemic is kind of a mood killer.
These sex dolls are suddenly seen as both a viable option and one that’s safer. You can clean a sex doll. In fact, Naughty Harbor reported that they’ve developed a very diligent process for sanitizing their sex dolls. It’s at a point where these sex dolls, including the ones being used at the brothel, are cleaner than your hands are this very instant.
For those who’ve become very conscious of germs and disease, as most of us have been under the pandemic, this is key. It’s an element of control and assurance you can’t get with a flesh and blood sex worker. It’s not even something you can get with a typical partner. There’s value in that and it outweighs any stigma or taboo.
While I wasn’t privy to exact numbers, Naughty Harbor did indicate that business has been strong for sex doll brothels during the pandemic. They’re expected to remain strong, even after the pandemic passes. If anything, it has shown people that this industry can provide a legitimate sexual outlet and that can be very beneficial for people.
Issue #3: Research And Benefits
Another interesting issue that came up was the ongoing research surrounding the use of sex dolls. Naughty Harbor is playing an active role in that effort. According to the representative, both manufacturers and sex doll brothel owners are coordinating with researchers who are interested in this field.
Make no mistake. The interest is growing and not just because of the pandemic.
Naughty Harbor believes that it can. Researchers are interested in just how much or how little help that a sex doll can provide. Even though they’re not alive, the mere facsimilia of human companionship is certain to have a tangible impact on someone’s psyche. The nature and extent of that impact remains unknown, but will be a key point of interest.
Between social isolation due to pandemics and the emerging concerns regarding the incel phenomenon, sex dolls could provide key points of interest. We’ll need that perspective, especially as sex dolls become more lifelike and eventually become sex robots.
Issue #4: They’re Getting More Lifelike
In addition to the social impact, we also talked quite a bit about the technology. The sex dolls of Naughty Harbor are quite lifelike, but you’d never mistake them for an actual person from afar. They’re still getting incredibly close, though. They’re just on the edge of that uncanny valley in which most sex dolls and sex robots operate at the moment.
The fact they still look artificial may be part of what fuels the taboo, but the technology is changing rapidly. The individual I spoke to says it’s getting both better and faster. Companies like Naughty Harbor are already using technology like 3D printing to both build and repair sex dolls. They’re also using better silicone blends that better mimic the feel of real human flesh.
They’re getting to a point where they can look like real people. They’re also at a point where they can be made to look exceedingly unreal for those with specific fantasies. That was something Naughty Harbor said is a growing trend. Those who seek the use of sex dolls don’t just want sex. They want an experience and they’re willing to pay for it.
Accommodating those fantasies is currently a niche market, but one that’s getting easier as the manufacturing processes are improving. It’s getting to a point where the only issue is scale, which is more a logistics challenge than a technical challenge.
Issue #5: They’re Getting Cheaper
Five years ago, if you wanted to buy a well-made sex doll, chance are you’d have to spend upwards of $5,000 to $7,000. There are used cars that cost less than that. That kind of cost is also a major barrier for those seeking an experience with a sex doll. It’s also helped keep the industry shrouded in taboo.
Today, that cost is not nearly as big a barrier as it once was. While many high-end sex dolls still cost thousands, many quality models now can be bought for less than $3,000. It’s less the cost of a used car and more the cost of a large appliance, like a refrigerator or washing machine. The models offered by Naughty Harbor range between $3,000 and $1,800.
That’s still not cheap, but it’s trending in a cheaper direction. In our conversation, we both agreed that once the price drops below $1,000, then the market will start to expand. I think there’s a psychological component to seeing something that costs less than four figures that makes it seem less daunting as a purchase. If you’re lonely, that may be a price you’re more willing to pay.
Like I said, the main issue now is scale. It’s hard to make a quality sex doll and charge a low price for it. Manufacturing is still quite labor intensive, especially for those who want to customize their dolls. That process will need refinement, but once that happens, it could become as easy and routine as ordering a pizza.
Issue #6: They’re Being Customized In Unexpected Ways
Another issue that came up, which I actually brought up, was the kind of customization that people are asking for. Naughty Harbor does offer customization options for their sex dolls, as most other companies doo. However, the customization requests haven’t been too extreme.
One common request is for dolls that look like ex-lovers. That is apparently more popular than those who want sex dolls resembling their favorite anime characters, which is a niche field in and of itself. That surprised me, but it probably shouldn’t. I can understand someone missing the physical intimacy once provided by an ex-lover, even if the relationship didn’t work.
It helps affirm that there’s a real emotional component to those who use sex dolls. Again, it’s not just about the sex or the sweet release that comes with it. There’s a deeper connection at play and it’s different than the release someone gets with a typical sex toy.
This led us to discuss whether anyone has requested a sex doll resembling a celebrity. At the moment, Naughty Harbor says that has not been a very common request, but they expect that to change. It’s only a matter of time before someone requests a sex doll that looks exactly like a popular Marvel, Disney, or DC Comics character.
If there’s money to be made, the industry will find a way. However, that will send it into some legally contested territory. While American sex doll manufacturers cannot make dolls out of real people, other countries don’t have those same restrictions. According to Naughty Harbor, the Czech Republic has no such laws on the books. I doubt that’ll remain true for long.
That brought us to the last issue that is sure to become prominent at some point.
Issue #7: The Legal Issues Are Just Beginning
At the moment, the laws in both Europe and the Americas designate sex dolls as sex toys. They’re basically classified as a far more elaborate version of a vibrator. For now, given their current place in the uncanny valley, that makes sense. The question is what happens when sex dolls become both more lifelike and more accessible to the general public.
Can you classify a sex doll brothel the same way you would a traditional brothel?
Can you make the act of essentially renting a sex toy illegal?
How do you even classify and regulate a service like producing sex dolls?
Those questions cannot go unanswered because there have already been some issues. One of the biggest involves the sale of sex dolls that resemble children. That’s an issue that Naughty Harbor acknowledged is a growing concern. At the moment, those kinds of sex dolls are illegal to make in many parts of the world, but there is an emerging black market for them, mostly out of Asia.
Like with any black market, there will be nefarious customers seeking nefarious providers for an illicit service. Naughty Harbor did say they work with the authorities on addressing this issue. At the same time, they too are trying to figure out the best way to deal with it. Like with many issues involving the sex industry, there’s always a chance that one particular effort could do more harm than good.
It’s a serious issue, but one that is making clear that sex dolls are here to stay. There is a demand for them and that’s not going away anytime soon. The law is very behind the curve right now. Naughty Harbor and I both agreed on that. At the same time, it may also be what’s driving the industry.
As concerns about sex work and human trafficking remain highly contentious, sex dolls might emerge as both a recourse and a complication. If the demand for human prostitution goes down while the demand for sex doll brothels goes up, then is that something the public and the politicians they vote for will accept?
Only time will tell. Naughty Harbor is just one of many companies in this emerging field. They’ll certainly have a part to play, especially as the industry matures and more research is conducted. Once it gets to a certain point, lawyers will get involved. That’s sure to complicate the industry, but after talking to Naughty Harbor, I’m fairly certain it cannot be stopped.
Once again, I’d like to thank Naughty Harbor for taking the time to speak with me about this issue. I hope to have more like them in the future. The sex doll industry is growing and evolving alongside other emerging technologies. It’s going to happen faster than most of us expect. Are we ready for it? That remains to be seen. I have my doubts, but I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on this issue. A pandemic may have tempered our collective libidos, but our desires will eventually return. Like it or not, sex dolls may be a larger part of the sexual landscape from here on out.
Think of a person you knew in high school that you just didn’t like. The reason why you didn’t like them isn’t important. They’re just someone you don’t care for and would prefer not to think about them in any capacity.
Now, imagine that same person won the lottery.
Suddenly, this person you seriously resent has been gifted a glut of random, unfeeling luck. They now have access to wealth, resources, and opportunities that you can only dream of.
From afar, they look happy and thrilled. Their life seems destined to be one of excitement, leisure, and fulfillment. They did nothing to deserve it. They didn’t work for it or earn it. They just got lucky.
Would that make you resent them even more? Before you answer that question, ask yourself another.
Is it even right to resent a person who just got lucky?
Most reasonable people might have a problem despising someone, just because they got lucky. It’s petty, resenting someone for their good fortune. It implies that you don’t think they deserve it.
It also implies that you think you deserve it more. There’s something inherently wrong with a system that allows someone like that to get lucky while you are stuck in your current circumstances.
I bring this up because it helps illustrate the hot-button debates surrounding privilege. It has become somewhat of a dirty word in recent years. In many discussions surrounding race, politics, religion, and gender, the topic of which group has which privileges tends to come up. These discussions can get downright ugly, especially when they’re racially charged.
Now, I’m going to be very careful with my words here. I want to make a valid point, but I don’t want it to inspire even more ugly discussions. I also don’t want to give the impression that every side of the issue is equally substantive. Some arguments are more absurd than others. That’s an unavoidable pitfall when discussing sensitive issues. That’s where you’ll get argumentative equivalent of flat-earthers.
With that context in mind, I want to try and deconstruct the rhetoric surrounding which group has privilege, what it implies, and why it matters. The concept of social privilege is pretty simple. In a diverse, multi-cultural society, like the one we’ve established over the past few centuries, certain groups have inherent advantages over others. However, not all of those advantages are the same.
If you’re a straight, cis-gendered man, you have certain advantages.
If you’re a straight, cis-gendered woman, you have certain advantages.
If you’re white in a society that’s predominantly white, you have certain advantages.
The same concept applies to disadvantages. Being a minority in most societies, regardless of development, will incur some disadvantages. If you’re black, gay, Muslim, Jewish, transgender, bisexual, or disabled in a society where the majority is none of those things, you will face challenges that others won’t. For anyone who values fairness, justice, and equality, that’s an issue.
It can be even subtler than that. If you’re born with natural beauty, you’ll have advantages as well. Like it or not, people tend to help someone who’s physically attractive. The same applies if they happen to have a special talent, such as throwing a football or playing an instrument. People without those skills are at a disadvantage, if only with respect to attention.
As a social species, humans already have an innate sense of fairness. These disparities don’t go unnoticed by both the majority and minority. Like playing a game where someone is using cheat codes, people are going to strive for greater fairness.
Some will be more aggressive than others in that pursuit. At the same time, those who have those advantages will try to maintain them. They may not even see them as advantages.
While that seems simple in the context of a game, it gets exceedingly complex when you apply it to society at large. It also gets contentious, as both historic and contemporary protests have shown.
It has even become popular to tell people to “check their privilege” at the door when entering a conversation. Even if it’s done in the spirit of fairness, it can still come off as downright resentful.
That may be understandable, to some extent. It may even be acceptable for some because achieving perfect fairness and perfect equality just isn’t realistic. There’s always going to be someone who gets lucky or is just naturally more talented or beautiful. It’s the nature of reality. It still doesn’t answer the same question I posed earlier.
Is it right to resent a person who just got lucky?
For anyone attempting to answer it, there’s probably a short and long version of that answer. It may depend on the nature of the luck involved. Someone who wins the lottery is easy to envy, but difficult to resent. If you don’t know the person, then chances are you’re not going to resent them. You’ll just be jealous of their luck.
However, the random luck of a lottery winner isn’t that different from the random luck that makes someone straight, white, Christian, and male at a certain point in history within a certain society in which they have advantages. When we’re born, we don’t have a choice in the circumstances. We simply grow, develop, and react within them along the way.
Most reasonable, decent people are in favor of righting such injustices. However, the right way to go about it is where a lot of resentment starts to emerge. Some of that is unavoidable, given how easy it is to derail an argument, but there’s another component to discussions about privilege that goes beyond lottery winners.
Whenever someone protests the privileges of any group, be they white men, affluent middle-class women, or people born with natural beauty, there’s often an angry backlash and not just from those seeking to protect their privilege. In fact, most of that backlash comes from people who fit the generalization, but are not privileged.
There are straight white men who, despite their demographics and circumstance, have no advantages whatsoever. They’re poor, destitute, and miserable. They work every bit as hard as those in minority groups, but still struggle.
Then, despite their dire circumstances, they hear rhetoric that claims they’re somehow the most privileged people in the world. Chances are, they’re going to feel resentful too.
That’s because, statistically speaking, only a handful of people who fit the stereotype of “privileged” individuals really enjoy those advantages. These are individuals in positions of power and authority, both politically and economically. Some are identifiable by name. Others are just indirectly influential, due to their wealth, status, and resources.
The vast majority of men don’t have a say in how patriarchal or egalitarian society is.
The vast majority of white people don’t have a say in how racially segregated society is.
The vast majority of women don’t have a say in how men are disadvantaged men are in divorce court, child custody, or alimony.
The vast majority of straight people don’t have a way in how the law handles issues LGBTQ discrimination.
The vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus have no say in how their religion conducts itself as an organization.
However, since there’s rarely a single, mustache-twirling villain who exists solely to oppress on certain issues, our only choice is to generalize. We’re already a tribal species, by nature. It’s depressingly easy to channel that into what we perceive as the source of an injustice.
It’s also easy to resent people who are clearly privileged and go out of their way to abuse it. Those individuals deserve that kind of resentment. Like a lottery winner who becomes an insufferable asshole because of his luck, the resentment is both understandable and justified.
The problem with resenting the privilege of entire groups is that it’s difficult to see the forest from the trees. The existence of one asshole lottery winner doesn’t mean that every lottery winner is an asshole by default. By that same token, the existence of one group of people who enjoy egregious advantages doesn’t mean everyone like them enjoys them as well.
There are all sorts of complexities and nuances that go into what gives certain people advantages over others. Sometimes, it’s objectively unfair how certain people exploit their advantages and we should all work for a more fair and just system.
However, it’s a simple matter of removing the privileges to level the playing field. It’s also not realistic to yell at people until they purposefully disadvantage themselves for the sake of others. That’s akin to demanding that lottery winners give up their winnings in the spirit of fairness. It doesn’t just defeat the purpose. It makes us the resentful assholes.
First of, rest in peace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don’t care who you are or where you fit on the political spectrum. Justice Gisburg was an extraordinary woman who accomplished so much. Even if you didn’t agree with her, politically, at least respect how much she did for women’s rights, civil rights, and her country as a whole.
That being said, her death has caused a lot of upheaval and in an election year, no less. It’s impossible to overstate how impactful her death will be on the rhetoric moving forward. That’s especially true of the abortion issue.
It’s been one of the biggest fears of pro-choice advocates. The death of Justice Ginsburg means the Supreme Court can now be filled with a pro-life justice who will overturn the Roe v. Wade decision the first chance they get. That could very well return abortion laws to the spotty, and at times draconian system that existed before.
As scary as that is for millions of women, I want to offer a bit of perspective to those already dreading the political ramifications. To do so, I’d like to repost a piece I wrote a while back on the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade. I don’t expect it to provide much comfort to those still mourning the death of Justice Ginsburg, but I hope it offers some balance to the dread.
Again, RIP Mrs. Ginsburg. You really were an inspiration to millions, regardless of gender.
As much as I dislike talking about abortion, I don’t deny that I’ve written more about it in the past yearthan I have since I started this website. I know that sends mixed messages, but I feel there are valid reasons for that.
Now, in wake of shake-ups on the Supreme Court, it’s more likely than ever that Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, will be overturned. While I don’t think it’s guaranteed, I do think it’s possible. If I had to put betting odds on it, I would say that there’s a 50/50 chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned by 2024.
Those impacts are likely to intensify if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I don’t want to get into that part of the issue. I also don’t want to focus on the legal issues, since I’m not a lawyer. Instead, I want to focus on unintended consequences.
I know that the anti-abortion crowd has this Utopian vision of a world after Roe v. Wade. They have this dream that the Supreme Court will overrule the 1973 decision and shortly after, every state will outlaw the procedure. They’ll throw a parade. They’ll proclaim to the world that they won.
Suddenly, women can no longer end an unwanted pregnancy. As a result, they have to start carrying their pregnancies to term. This will force the women, the men who impregnated them, and their families to take responsibility for their actions. They can no longer be sexually promiscuous. They now have to temper their behavior and live more restrained lives.
While nobody can predict the future, I can say without reservation that this dream will not come true. Human nature is never that simple, especially when it comes to law. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. It will not make women carry more pregnancies to term. It will not lead to a society consistent with Pat Roberston’s values.
That’s because there’s one law that no court can ever overturn and that’s the law of unintended consequences. Make no mistake. There will be unintended consequences for overturning Roe v. Wade, many of which I doubt the anti-abortion movement has contemplated.
What follows are several unintended consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade that will make the anti-abortion crowd cringe. Whether they oppose abortion for religious reasons or for ethical reasons, these are consequences that will do more than taint that abortion-free fever dream of theirs. At the very least, I hope it gives those who oppose abortion a moment of pause.
Consequence #1: Abortion Will Become More Common (And Harder To Protest)
Remember when the United States banned marijuana and shortly after that, it disappeared completely? Neither do I because not only did that fail to occur, the exact opposite transpired. Marijuana has been illegal for nearly a century in the United States and it’s more popular now than it was in the days before “Refer Madness.”
Abortion is not like illicit drugs, but it’s subject to similar influences. In the same way making drugs illegal didn’t make them go away, making abortion illegal won’t make it disappear. It’ll only send it into the depths of the underground economy where the red tape that helps regulate the procedure doesn’t exist.
The history of “back alley abortions” is already well-documented. On top of that, these locations are not clinics where people can gather and protest. That’s what happens when you send something into the shadows. It’s harder to see, study, and scrutinize. In that environment, abortion won’t just become more dangerous. It may become more common because the traditional barriers for entry aren’t there.
If you think that seems like a stretch, just consider the choices involving marijuana. Would you rather try to sneak into a liquor store with security cameras or buy it in a dark alley from someone who has just as much incentive to avoid cops?
Consequence #2: Organized Religion’s Decline Will Accelerate
Even though the influence of religion remains strong, the steady decline of religion is well-documented. This is especially true among the younger generations who are more educated and informed than any generation before them. As a result, they will notice when religious groups take credit for banning abortion.
While those same groups often present themselves as saving babies, that’s not how everyone else will see it. We already live in a world where every racist, misogynistic, theocracy-loving sermon is captured on the internet. The same people who are becoming less religious will have even more reason to resent organized religion.
They won’t see the religiously-motivated, anti-abortion crusaders as holy people who saved innocent babies. They’ll see those people the same way we see those who used religion to justify slavery and racial segregation. Unlike previous years, being non-religious isn’t nearly as taboo and for organizations that rely heavily on adherents giving them money, that’s a big problem.
Consequence #3: An Entire Political Party Will Become The Anti-Woman Party
In the same way banning abortion could accelerate organized religion’s decline, a sizable chunk of the political spectrum could take a similar hit. In the United States, it’s primarily conservatives who oppose abortion and frequently side with religious institutions. They too probably see banning abortion as protecting innocent babies.
Again, that’s not how others will see it. Instead, an emerging generation will see conservatives as the party that put a gun to the head of every pregnant woman and demanded that she endure nine months of bodily rigor to have a child she may not be able to afford. Since women vote and make up half the population, it doesn’t bode well for their ability to win support in the future.
Consequence #4: More Advanced Contraceptives Will Emerge Faster (For Women And Men)
One of the most confounding aspects of the anti-abortion movement is how much certain segments of the movement also oppose contraception. It’s downright hypocritical since education and contraceptive use has definitively shown time and again that it’s the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Those lines might become a lot clearer if abortion were banned nationwide because that suddenly makes the contraception market a lot more valuable. At the moment, there isn’t much incentive to improve on the current contraceptives we have. Granted, they’re much more effective than they were before 1973, but there’s still room for improvement.
Without Roe v. Wade, the need for those improvements will be far greater and it won’t just be focused on women. Contraception for men will also get a boost because unlike 1973, there are more laws in place affecting men with issues like child support. For once, men will have to be just as vigilant about avoiding unwanted pregnancy.
This means emerging technology like the male birth control pill and Vasalgel will get a sizable boost in investment. It also means long-term, more-effective birth control like IUDs for women will get a boost as well. When the same anti-abortion crowd starts protesting that, they’ll reveal just how little they cared for babies in the first place.
Consequence #5: Promiscuous Sex Will Increase (For Entirely New Reasons)
This could also be a direct result of the boost contraception research will get from banning abortion. It’s not just because people will have access to more effective contraception, though. This is one of those backlashes that has more to do with social forces than logistical forces.
For those who are sexually active and value their sexual freedom, overturning Roe v. Wade will come off as a direct personal attack. If you’ve been on the internet for more than five minutes, you know people rarely take personal attacks lying down. They’re more likely to fight back and do the exact opposite of what you hope.
In the same way people in a debate double down on their beliefs in a heated argument, those who supported Roe v. Wade will have another reason to engage in the kind of reckless behavior that the anti-abortion crowd hates. To them, it won’t just be a form of protest. It’ll be a form of trolling.
People already have plenty of reasons to have sex just for the fun of it. No government or religious institution has ever been able to stop that and banning abortion certainly won’t do the trick. While it’s true that banning abortion will make promiscuity more dangerous, it’s also true that people are attracted to danger. If it pisses off someone you already despise, then that’s just a bonus.
Consequence #6: Providing Abortion Services Will Become More Lucrative (And Harder To Regulate)
For every unintended consequence, there’s usually a basis in money. Even for issues that are fueled with high emotions and deeply-held beliefs, it often comes back to money. That’s why the drug war can never be won. That’s why Disney will never stop making movies with singing animals. It’s all about the money.
Abortion, in its current form, is not a huge money-making venture. It’s treated like a medical service. However, put it in the same black market as illicit drugs and suddenly, the profit margins go way up. Remove it from the current medical infrastructure and all the regulations that keep it from being profitable go with it.
Instead of skilled, licensed doctors doing this procedure, people with questionable qualifications can get into the mix. On top of that, they can charge as much or as little as they want without the AMA or the FDA condemning them. That’ll make it more dangerous, but if there’s money to be made, it’ll happen.
Remember, making abortion illegal doesn’t make the women seeking abortion disappear. If they’re desperate enough, they’ll brave that danger and they’ll pay that price. Those willing to navigate that danger and exploit those situations will gain the tax-free profit. For the anti-abortion crowd and the government, it’s lose-lose.
Consequence #7: An Entire Generation Will Despise Its Elders (And Their Traditions)
Throughout history, younger generations have rebelled against older generations. You don’t need to single out the hippie generation of the 1960s to see that. Young people and old people have always whined about each other. These days, you can’t go more than five minutes without seeing a story about how Millennials are ruining something we used to love.
This same generation is already more accepting of things that older people resent. They’re more accepting of divorce, polyamory, homosexuality, and all sorts of sexual practices that make priests, monks, mullahs, and rabbis gag. It certainly doesn’t help that the people in power deciding these issues are often old men who will never need an abortion. In terms of optics, it’s a pretty ugly sight.
It won’t just stop at young people distancing themselves from organized religion. It won’t stop at distancing themselves from a political party, either. Overall, the emerging generations will see their elders as the ones who stripped them of a right that they got to enjoy all their lives. That doesn’t just paint them in a negative light. It turns their values and traditions into a target.
Young people don’t need many reasons to rebel against their elders, but this is bigger than someone who can’t work a cell phone. This is an issue that affects the ability of an entire generation to make choices about their bodies, their sexuality, and their future. When another generation takes that away from them, it’s going to evoke more than ridicule. It may get pretty damn ugly.
As always, I want to remind everyone that this is just speculation. I can’t predict the future and there’s no telling what other factors may emerge in this exceedingly controversial issue. That said, I still feel comfortable stating that overturning Roe v. Wade will have consequences, many of them unintended. Some will be minor, but some will result in a full-fledged backlash. It’s just a matter of how we’ll deal with them.