Talk:Sex doll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nazi Sex Doll??=[edit] disproved - That link is dead, but it is still archived at:

not sure why the link to that hoax website has been left undebated that long in the article. I have inserted the link disproving it. Of course the debunking site is not highly reputable, but the source is not either. I could also add a link to the original debunker, but that is just a blog post, too. Maybe we could just scrap the complete paragraph, which is not based on any reliable sources? Camil7 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ed Gein?[edit]

I removed the reference to Ed Gein under the doll suit section. Making a suit out of female corpses isn't the same as making one out of an inflatable doll. Ace of Sevens 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image accompanying article not HQ sex doll[edit]

The image accompanying this article - Gum_girl.jpg - doesn't appear to be a "high quality sex doll" at all, but is actually of the pornographic model Renata Daninsky aka Peach (adult model). This can be established by visiting where you'll find the same image alongside other photos of Daninsky. (Needless to say, the URL features nudity.) Demos99 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and remove it then. Would be nice if we could find an alternative image to use though. --GraemeL (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought that seemed awfully high quality. We need to get a picture of a RealDoll without copyright issues, though I suppose it would probably be fair use anyway. Ace of Sevens 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RealDoll pic[edit]

I've added a pic of a RealDoll - no copyright strings attached as this is a photo taken specifically for this wikipedia article and released under the GNU license as per the owner. I can also get a closeup shot of the genital area, if there is a need for such a pic. Robotman1974 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst back in 2006 the RealDoll brand was the only brand of silicone doll available the availability and technology has moved on very greatly in the intervening years and the brand is no longer the only sort of high quality doll around. In my personal opinion I found this photo, which pervades the subject in most languages rather offputting - repulsive - and in such lack of neutrality prejudicial to the subject. I have therefore obtained and supplied the image File:Sandydayoff.jpg which found widespread recognition as a sex doll when used as a mannequin posing on an advert for a second hand car on ebay. Published in print and numerous syndicated articles on the net [1], she has demonstrated recognisability for the genre and for that reason is arguably representative. I have mentioned this on my discussion page and upon that of SQGibbon but it is appropriate arguably for record on this page directly attached to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollist (talkcontribs) 10:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]

In response to Luftballoons's comment on my talk page here, I removed the link that was added because to me it looked like a collection of commercial product plugs configured to look like a 'consumer' article on sex toys. Also, judging from a look at Luftballoons's contributions, it appears to me as if this user is only interested in adding similar links to articles on adult entertainment subjects. I could be wrong of course, so I suggest that before the link is added again, a request for comment is made. This can be done here. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for links. See also Wikipedia:External links. Robotman1974 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I removed this link from the article because to me it appears to be an advertisement. Promotional or commercial material doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Robotman1974 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply from Darwin[edit]

Dr. Darwinc 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I didn't know at first that I was spamming by adding my link repeatedly whenever it was removed. I apologize for that.
I ask for someone to review this site more thoroughly and consider its valuable contents. It has through descriptions and images of blown up sex dolls. You will be able to see at least more that 5 angle views of each doll that are blown up.
To date we have spent over $15,000.00 to construct this site- have the dolls inflated and professionally photographed for everyone's use. My site is not a place to purchase these dolls but we do accept affiliates and that is how we get revenue.
Just for you to know I have posted my question on the general forum (here at Wikipedia) and the replies were great, there was link exchange because they thought that the website offers in depth descriptions and detailed images to someone who wants to know more about a sex doll. I have received a lot of compliments and praises too.
I do think that my site has a niche that Wikipedia can be proud of. Wikipedia would be losing out on this if you guys decide otherwise.
I can provide Wikipedia with a doll's image if you allow me too.
Please let me know your decison on this one so I can stop bugging you. I will wait for your reply in this matter. Thank you for your attention and time.Dr. Darwinc 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Darwinc. My opinion hasn't changed, but if a consensus among Wikipedia editors is reached I'll abide by that decision. Can you please post a link on this page to the discussion on the general forum you mentioned? Robotman1974 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) inquiry Dr. Darwinc 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Hello Sir:

I browsed the wiki page below and it has a link that sells vibrators... I have enclosed the links for your review.
Why were these allowed to stay on a wiki page when it appears to be an advertising page?
Seeing this wiki page is unfair. My doll site should be included because as I have mentioned before it is not an ad but an educational website. Please reply to my email. Thank you for your time.

Hi again. For starters, what appears on or what is considered appropriate for other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Sorry to be so blunt. If those links you mentioned are indeed violations of Wikipedia policy, then you should mention them at Talk:Vibrator (sensual). Considering the link I removed from Sex doll, my opinion has not changed. Please see Wikipedia:External links. Robotman1974 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question? From Darwin Dr. Darwinc[edit]

Hello Sir:
No problem , no offense taken.
Is there a higher officer that I can speak to regarding my sex doll pagelink? Can you tell me how I can contact him? I can at least show them the similarity of my situation to that of the vibrator contributor.
I do apologize if I am being pushy but I think that my site should be included in Wikipdia. There is no other site like it.
I will wait for your reply.

You can go here and follow the instructions: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also read: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Robotman1974 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW what a site why it's not listed here? there in no where you can see sex dolls like this. unbelievable grate site. i will post it on my blog!!!

wikipedia...list this site, very cool, i glad i saw this discussion


Notable author?[edit]

I've just removed a reference to an author and a short story again. See the difference here. If anyone can provide real evidence that this author and story satisfy Wikipedia's policy on notability (WP:N), then I'll add it again. Robotman1974 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Wax Doll[edit]

Are we absolutely sure that the Christine Wax Doll possessed by the Phantom of the Opera had an alternate use as a sex doll? Frankly, this seems absurd to me without any information to back it up. Some people, you realize, might use such a figure for the creepy purpose of modelling a wedding dress, as was the only obvious use for the mannequin used in the movie.

I propose a removal of this consideration. -EarthRise33 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has been around for almost five days now with no comment, so I am removing the reference. -EarthRise33 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Doll Suit[edit]

In reviewing edits by an opinionated and assertive (and block-worthy) IP user, i find that their first edit removed, without edit summary or discussion on this talk page, the then 12-and-a-fraction-month-old section Doll suit, which had seen apparently constructive discussion on this talk page (and apparently at least the edit it discusses, and the addition of a {{fact}} tag). My restoration of the section via an undo and resetting of the fact-tag date is intended as reversion of what i take to be either PoV vandalism or hasty overriding of what amounts to a de facto consensus.
--Jerzyt 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is stoping information[edit]

When someone puts in information about a subjeked in ? it should be alowed. IN sex doll the subjeced is sex dolls. People should know more about the items out there not just the ones you seem to like. there are more. wikipedia lets us post things we know about . just to edit them to there liking. Keysthedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysthedog (talkcontribs) 06:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Would "Air Doll" fit in this article?[edit]

Would "Air Doll," a Japanese movie about a sex doll that comes to life and goes out into the community, fit in this article? For much of the movie she is definately an inanimate object with a vagina that can be removed for cleaning, but at time in the move she appears to be a living woman -- at the least she is portrayed in much of film by a living female actress rather than by stop-action animation or modern special effects. I'm taking no sides here, only asking the question because I didn't notice "Air Doll" mentioned in the article. Thanks. ( (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

Possibly yes, in a section "In popular culture", similar to that on the RealDoll page. Then I am no expert on the subtle parts of the wikipedia policy ... Camil7 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On other language equivalent versions of this page there is a section for Sex Dolls in the media / associated art, and IMHO Air Doll is a most notable step in the bringing of the doll and the psychology of the doll into a wider public arena. In addition from the page for Agalmatophilia and in particular Hans_Bellmer we see mention of "The 2003 film Love Object contains clear references to Bellmer's work, including the protagonist's obsessive relationship with a sex doll and the use of Bellmer's name as a leading character, Lisa Bellmer." which appears directly relevant. A heading "In popular culture" appears increasingly appropriate. Dollist (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "In popular culture" might include on account of performance publicly featuring blow up dolls.Dollist (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC) It should be noted that Air Doll was the title of a Japanese film about an inflatable doll who came to life and as such is evidence of the term having come into public use and understanding. It leads further into the psychology of dolls which can be more empathetic rather than sexual and inspirational in the course of art.Dollist (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


"CybOrgasMatrix dolls use an innovative material—a very elastic gel with a strong shape memory, which, they have shown in side-by-side tests, is superior to silicone in realism, elasticity, shape memory, and durability. Additional features include a pelvic thruster motor and audio capability (using wireless headphones)."

This sounds like spam to me. We could say something like "new materials are being used in sex dolls, such as elastic gels."-- (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it comes across as spam, and an advertisement. More so because the company developing this so called advanced technology has either stopped trading or hasn't updated the website since 2005. Anyone looking for more information, or to verify the source will only have the one place for information, an outdated website. The website also provides no proof for the claims and therefore a citation is needed which cannot be provided. Please remove the text and any reference to the website until such a time that the claims can be proved or debated in a fair manner. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Also the at least the "News" section of that company has not been updated since 2011 ... I tried to improve the section a bit, but I am not so pleased with the results (though I still think it is an improvement). Feel free to revert, or preferably improve my edits. By the way, the "material love dolls" sentence at the end of that section is asked for citation, and I only found which I cannot read (not a member) and I guess that does not qualify for wikipedia standards. What else could be used to fill that? Camil7 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

CybOrgasMatrix is no longer prominent in the field and whatever they did was a blip rather than a lasting advance. This paragraph needs attention accordingly. Dollist (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of "silicone dolls" as posable mannequins for non-sexual use[edit]

This article starts to highlight non-sexual use of silicone dolls as posable mannequins for art and photography. This is hard to demonstrate other than by links to manufacturer's websites specifying such use as a stated intention and it appears to be an increasingly Chinese phenonomen. Using Google translate: [] states: "Reality can be used as a work of art doll --- furnishings, the more valuable the higher level, there is a skeleton within each doll, do any angle transformation, can resolve objects as confidantes physiological and psychological pressures demand the best products. A married woman to her husband to purchase, to avoid third party intervention, but also as a close bodyguard.

B. buy real doll groups:

1 singles (20-65 years old)

2 doll collectors

3 portrait sketch artist and human

4. Advertisers

5 businesses" [] states: "The life-sized simulation doll is a kind of human model whose height is extremely similar to the real person's. Inside it, galvanized metal skeleton and a variety of mechanical parts are assembled and its structure conforms to the activity scope of the human body. Moreover, its pose can be fixed for photo taking. It has an extreme degree of simulation and its clothes and hairstyle, etc. can be changed according to personal preferences like the current models. It is the ultimate form of dolls and models and can be used for photography models, fashion shows and interior decorations and so on."

The advances of materials and production technology have led to what was traditionally regarded as the "sex doll" achieving a realism beyond mere sex so as to effect a transformation beyond the imagination of those seeking salacious gossip about intended purposes of dolls and speculation about what sort of person might "resort" to "using" them.

The monthly Coverdoll magazine is an example of photographic work with dolls and [] is a good example

Is this a dimension that the page might start to encompass more and if so how best might it be achieved? Dollist (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to videos[edit] is relevant but the links from there to pornography are potentially a problem. Is there a way to overcome that? Dollist (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Currently, the section on sexbots doesn't have much actual information on what a "sexbot" is, instead going into detail on how people are trying to have them banned. So, it's a little UNDUE. I've seen some blog posts recently speculating that sexbots may make women "obsolete," which is an interesting perspective. Has anything like this been discussed in the mainstream press? Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It would also make men "obsolete," unless we are to believe that the bots will only have a female appearance. Well, putting sexual reproduction aside, the "obsolete" aspects will only work if the bots can ever live up to the real-deal as far as anatomy, emotions and performance go. Anyway, the section in question clearly shows that the mainstream press has picked this story up. It doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a cite there from Vanity Fair, isn't there? That's mainstream. You're more likely to find the topic discussed in culture- and society-oriented outlets (or even some edgy technology-oriented ones) rather than the NY Times or the Washington Post. BMK (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I expect that this topic is going to blow up in the media big-time once the first sexbot hits the market. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Some possible refs[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Child sex dolls and the law[edit]

I removed the sentence claiming child sex dolls might be child porn because the citation provided did not state that the man was charge with child porn for possession of the child sex dolls. The link did state the man was found with actually child porn as well as three child sex dolls. It did not state that he was charged with child porn violations for possession of the dolls but rather just the regular child porn. If someone can find a source that supports states that a person was charge with child porn violations for possession of a child sex doll or even better, an actual conviction with no successful appeal, then please feel free to put it back. As I understand it, child sex dolls have been argued to be "child porn" under U.S. law but no one has been convicted of possessing them so far in the U.S. Given that the Supreme Court struck down the law barring virtual child porn, I would expect any such attempt to prosecute someone for possession of child sex dolls would similarly be overturned given that they do not involve real children. They might qualify as obscene under U.S. law but they would not be illegal to possess since the Supreme Court prohibited charging people for possession of obscene material back in the 60's. They makers of such child sex dolls could be prosecuted though for obscenity, if they resided in the U.S. Now you might have better luck finding cases of people charged for child sex doll possession in countries other then the U.S. which could be cited instead. --2601:644:400:8D:7CEE:9C4E:A00E:33BC (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


I propose splitting the sex robot section into a separate article. Do you support or oppose this action?Pwolit iets (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I support this action because the doll article and robot article are separate. Since there is a precedent of treating the two subjects as different, we should do the same here I think. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an RfC matter, as it doesn't put the page in Category:Articles to be split from August 2016. See WP:PROSPLIT and please use one of the templates like {{split section}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:Spinout, WP:No split and WP:Content forking. Pwolit iets brought the matter here because I reverted him, as seen here (followup note here) and here. I did so because there should be a good reason for splitting content. And there is no good reason to split the "robot" aspect of this topic into its own article. The Doll and Robot articles are split for obvious reasons; they are two completely different topics. A sex bot is simply an extension of a sex doll (like an upgrade); it is not completely separate from the sex doll topic. Furthermore, a sex bot is just a concept at this point and there is not much to cover on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: Instead of engaging in this discussion, Markshale (talk · contribs) re-created the Sex robot article by changing it/adding more to it. I am very tempted to nominate it for deletion, with a merge suggestion within the deletion debate. But for now, I will let the article stand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sex doll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)