By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
Brothels now employ inanimate sex dolls in place of women:
Clandestine sex doll brothel opens in Paris
France’s first so-called sex doll brothel is operating in secret within the 14th Arrondissement of Paris – where clients can engage in virtual reality romps with silicone mannequins.
The bohemian quarter of the city is home to cultural sights such as the Paris catacombs and the Vladimir Lenin Museum. But now a new agency, Xdolls, has opened an establishment in the area where people can get around French laws banning payment for sex services.Xdolls say clients can book time with silicone casts such as Sofia, Kim and Lily – a 26kg doll said to have “a big chest” and be the “most manageable” in the secretive brothel.
“We offer private relaxation areas, equipped with a TV screen and an audio headset (for VR), to make your appointment with the doll of your choice comfortable. In addition, if you make your payment by credit card, only a discreet and undetectable mention will appear on your bank statement,” the Xdolls website states.
Due to the niche services provided, the brothel does not give away its location and instead informs clients of the address when they make a booking. According to Xdolls, an hour with one doll can cost between €89-120.
The sex doll market has hit the headlines in recent months over debate regarding its future – sex robots. According to author’s of the Journal of Sexual and Relationship Therapy, the technology is on the way and will result in “intense” relationships between humans and robots.
However, it’s also been suggested the products could lead to social isolation and even reinforce abusive behaviour.
***
Britain’s first sex doll brothel has been forced out of its building after complaints from neighbors. Lovedoll UK says with nowhere to store the used silicone prostitutes, it is now giving them away for free.
The company was selling the custom-made dolls out of an industrial estate in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. Clients would pay £100 ($140) an hour for alone time with a doll as a test run before taking one home for £2,000.Lovedoll UK says the owner of the building it was renting received complaints from neighboring companies after they discovered the business was hiring out sex dolls by the hour.
The company, which was launched in December 2017, says it has now been left with no choice but to leave the building.
A spokesperson for Lovedoll UK told the Sun: “The time we were given to move out of the business centre did not allow us to arrange transport, storage and a new premises… We did not want to have any downtime, so decided giving away free dolls would be a good way of keeping the business running.”
So far, about £30,000 worth of used sex dolls have been given away to customers who entered into a ‘lottery-style’ draw to win one. The spokesperson said Lovedoll has had hundreds of entries but some winners have cancelled their prize because of “catholic guilt.” The draw is open until Friday.
Anyone wanting to apply for a doll can put their name in with the company and will be informed if they are successful. “You might get a really slim doll or you might get a doll that is more voluptuous,” the spokesperson said.
The company said the giveaway was a way to spread the word about sex dolls and to rid the taboo around them.
“We have had a lot of people who say that they would love a doll but simply cannot afford one, so this is a way of giving back and supporting our customers. We feel that there are a lot of people out there that will be grateful of this offer, so [it’s] just a kind gesture from the company.”
Dolls were being made available for “testing and inspection” at the Gateshead site. The dolls are adult sized and weigh around 30kg, with life-like skin on a metal skeleton and realistic sexual organs.
Customers wanting to test drive one of the dolls must provide contact details and pay in advance. They would then visit a simple set-up in an industrial unit where a key code gains them entry to a small room containing a bed where the doll, wearing negligee, awaits.
***
The replacement of women with inanimate objects also a big thing in Japan:
For most men, meeting the girl of their dreams takes time but one company is offering to drop her off outside your door in just a few days.Unfortunately she will be made of rubber.
Japanese sex dolls are now so life-like that they come with authentic-looking eyes and skin that feels real to touch.
One maker, Orient Industry, will even customise a doll to your exact requirements so you can choose her bust size, hair colour, eyes and everything about her right down to moveable fingers.
The company says its new range of dolls, made of high quality silicone, are so good they are being mistaken for real women and boasts that anyone who buys one will never want a proper girlfriend again.
The dolls are sold under the name ''Dutch Wives', which is a Japanese term for a sex doll.
Priced at a little over £1,000 each, sales suggest they are a roaring success.
They also come with a selection of clothing - naughty nurses, sexy secretaries - to save the new owner the embarrassment of having to visit a lingerie shop.
Company spokesman Osami Seto said: "The two areas we identified as really needing improvement were the skin and the eyes.
"We feel we have finally got something that is arguably not distinguishable from the real thing."
The dolls are part of a high-tech industry in Japan, which is constantly looking at ways to make sex toys as realistic as possible.
The latest models include movable joints designed to place the 'girlfriends' in whatever position the buyer prefers
***
There are now male sex dolls for women who have been taught to hate men:
I keep waiting to hear of the first marriage of a human with a sex doll. Perhaps it has already happened.
Some analysis of how we got here:
This year marks half a century since the May 1968 events in Paris (and elsewhere) which launched a youth-driven liberal movement that changed the world.
Thus, now is a good time to reflect upon the similarities and differences between the sexual liberation and feminism of the 1960’s and the protest campaigns that flourish today, from LGBT+ to #MeToo.In the aftermath of ‘68, the French “progressive” press published a whole series of petitions demanding the decriminalization of paedophilia, claiming that in this way the artificial and oppressive culturally-constricted frontier that separated children from adults could be abolished and the right to freely use one’s body be extended also to children. They claimed that only dark forces of “reaction” and “oppression” could oppose this measure and among the signatories were iconic cultural figures such as Sartre, de Beauvoir, Derrida, Barthes, Foucault, Aragon, Guattari, Deleuze and Lyotard.
Today, however, paedophilia is perceived as one of the worst crimes imaginable and, instead of fighting for it in the name of anti-Catholic progress, it is mostly associated with the dark side of the Catholic Church itself. Which means that fighting against paedophilia is today a progressive task directed at the forces of reaction.
And the funniest victim of this shift was the politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit, still living in the old spirit of the 60’s, who recently described, in an interview, how while in his younger years, when he worked in a kindergarten, he regularly played masturbatory games with young girls.
Subsequently, to his surprise, he faced a brutal backlash, with many voices demanding his removal from the European parliament and legal prosecution.
Changing Mores
The gap separating the ’68 sexual liberation from today’s struggle for sexual emancipation is clearly discernible in a recent polemical exchange between Germaine Greer and some feminists who critically reacted to her negative remarks concerning #MeToo. Their main point was how, while Greer’s main thesis – that women should sexually liberate themselves from male domination and assume active sexual lives without any recourse to victimhood – was valid in the sexual-liberation movement of the 1960s, today the situation is different.And what has happened, in between, is that the sexual emancipation of women (i.e. their ability to freely assume a social life as active sexual) was itself commodified. While it’s true to say women are no longer perceived as passive objects of male desire, it’s also the case that their active sexuality itself now equates (in male eyes) to their permanent availability and readiness to engage in sexual interaction.
In these new circumstances, forcefully saying NO isn’t considered mere self-victimization since it implies the rejection of this new form of sexual subjectivization of women, and demands women not only passively submit to male sexual domination but act as if they actively want it.
Who’s to Blame?
While there is a strong element of truth in this line of argument, one should nonetheless also admit how problematic it is to anchor one’s political demands to status of victimhood. Is the basic characteristic of today’s subjectivity not the weird combination of the free subject who believes themselves ultimately responsible for their own fate and the subject who bases their argument on their status as a victim of circumstances beyond their own control? Every contact with another human being is experienced as a potential threat – if the other smokes, if he casts a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me; this logic of victimization is today universalized, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment.For instance, think of the growing financial industry around paying damage claims. This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective: every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject's precarious balance. The paradox is that, in today's predominant form of individuality, the self-centred assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances.
Billionaire ‘Leftists’
One cannot shed the suspicion that the Politically Correct cultural Left is getting so fanatical about advocating “progress,” and fighting new battles against cultural and sexist “apartheids,” to cover up its own full immersion into global capitalism. This is the space where LGBT+ and #MeToo meet Tim Cook and Bill Gates.How did we come to this? As many conservatives have noticed (and they are right here), our time is marked by the progressive disintegration of a shared network of customs which ground what George Orwell approvingly referred to as “common decency.”
Today, these standards are dismissed as a yoke that subordinates individual freedom to some proto-Fascist, organic social forms. In such a situation, the liberal vision of minimalist laws (which should not regulate social life too much but just prevent individuals encroaching upon - or “harassing” - each other) reverts into an explosion of legal and moral rules, and into an endless process of legal argument and moralization, which is labelled as “the fight against all forms of discrimination.”
If there are no shared mores that are allowed to influence the law, only the fact of “harassing” other subjects, then a new question arises. Who – in the absence of such mores – will decide what counts as “harassment”?
After all, in France we see associations of obese people which demand that all public campaigns against obesity and for healthy eating habits be stopped, since they hurt the self-esteem of obese persons. Meanwhile, the militants of “Veggie Pride” condemn the “specieism” of meat-eaters (who discriminate against animals, privileging humans – for them, a particularly disgusting form of “fascism”) and demand that “vegetophobia” should be treated as a kind of xenophobia and proclaimed a crime. And so on and so forth, until perhaps one day the debate reaches things like incest-marriage, consensual murder and cannibalism.
Free-For-All
The problem here IS the obvious arbitrariness of the ever shifting rules. Let us take child sexuality: one can argue that its criminalization is an unwarranted discrimination, but one can also argue that children should be protected from sexual molestation by adults.And we could go on here: the same people who advocate the legalization of soft drugs usually support the prohibition of smoking in public places; and the same folk who protest against the patriarchal abuse of small children in our societies, worry when someone condemns members of foreign cultures who live among us for doing exactly this (say, the Roma people preventing children from attending public schools), claiming that this is a case of meddling with other “ways of life.”
It is thus for necessary structural reasons that this “fight against discrimination” is an endless process endlessly postponing its final point, a society freed of all moral prejudices which, as Jean-Claude Michea put it, “would be on this very account a society condemned to see crimes everywhere.”
***
‘Gender trouble’: Museum removes 19th century painting to ‘prompt conversation’
An art gallery in Manchester, England has taken down a painting that features naked women, ostensibly to spark discussion amid the #MeToo movement. Critics say it’s simply censorship.
On Friday, the Manchester Art Gallery announced it would be temporarily removing a painting from the 1890s in order to “prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artwork” during a time when several sexual harassment scandals are in the headlines.
“The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?” the gallery’s statement reads.
John William Waterhouse’s 1896 painting Hylas and the Nymphs depicts a scene from Greek Mythology where Nomia, a water nymph, lures Hylas, one of Heracles’ companions, to his watery grave. The seven mythical creatures in the painting are all shown as naked women.The painting used to hang in a room called “In Pursuit of Beauty,” which features paintings of beautiful women, some of whom are represented without any clothing.
“This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!” the museum stated in the announcement.
However, one Twitter user pointed out that the museum is missing the point, because the nymphs in the painting are depicted as the ones with all the power, luring Hylas to his death.
The painting was taken down as part of an exhibition by Sonia Boyce, the gallery team, and other collaborators, including drag artists from Family Gorgeous. Together, they want to explore “‘gender trouble’ among the gallery’s 19th century painting displays and wider culture.”
The museum also left post-it notes at the empty space where the painting once hung and encouraged visitors to write down their thoughts and paste it on the wall.In response to one critic who asked how “looking at a blank wall” would spark any kind of debate, the gallery tweeted that the decision to take the painting down was the result of “many people coming together to prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks.”
The new euphemism for censorship will be "re-contextualisation." Watch out for it.— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) January 31, 2018
“It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks,” Gannaway said, according to The Guardian. “It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
Artist Michael Browne attended the event where the painting was removed and said he was worried historical paintings may soon be completely replaced with more modern art.
“We don’t know how long the painting will be off the wall – it could be days, weeks, months. Unless there are protests it might never come back,” Browne said, according to The Guardian. “I know there are other works in the basement that are probably going to be deemed offensive for the same reasons and they are not going to see the light of day.”
No comments:
Post a Comment