There is no Humor in Inflatable Brides
I owned a Gingerbread doll named “Niger,”* after the country in West Africa. I loved Niger. The last I saw her was circa 1995, but her cinnamon plush fabric with rose circled cheeks, inert cross stitched smile, and curly-sue grey pigtails are as crystal to me today as they were twenty-five years ago. I loved Niger and I thought she was real. I intuitively knew she was a doll and not human, but I bestowed the same acts of kindness and care that I would upon a corporal creature. In my still-developing brain, you treated everything you loved with care and respect, which included dolls. I smile when recalling the expanding purple stain on her mouth from my “sharing” small sips of Kool-Aid, but cringe at the mold likely growing behind it. I mean, I knew she was filled with cotton and not a digestive system — but any person who wasn’t sharing their Kool-Aid in 1995 was a person bereft of propriety. I stand by that today.
My time for dolls has passed as I now understand that they do not hold the same social status as human beings. Ironically, maturing made me realize this belief isn’t universal among adults. As I grew to stop playing with dolls, many in society turn to dolls in ways that exceed both my child and adult imagination. I read that Yuri Tolochko, a bodybuilder that I’d never heard of, announced on his Instagram that he married his “bride” on November 25, 2020. Learning this from the commentator Andrew Neil with the obvious “he bit her neck and she flew out the window” joke, there’s something truly tragic about this phenomenon. The joke is obvious because, Mr. Tolochko’s bride is a doll. A life-size, human-like, anatomically correct, doll.
I have no interest in delving into the minutia of why these human-like dolls are created or whether they should be. The price of freedom spans far and wide, and that includes being in a society where people can create human-like objects that serve certain purposes. I’m more interested in addressing the threshold of how they started as objects of gratification to become life partners, displayed in wedding-like ceremonies complete with guests and justices of the peace. Note “wedding-like” ceremonies because I am unfamiliar with a country that permits marriage between a human being and a non-human being. But I’m open to evidence to the contrary. Arguably, you can assert that there was a social breakdown which led to people buying the dolls to begin with; but I counter as buying something private for one’s personal use is different then posting on social media, participating in documentaries, and interviewing with media outlets about your professed love for an inanimate object. People buy dolls for companionship; they buy them for love.
Covid-19 has taught mankind many lessons. Of them, it’s solidified the absolutism that physical, interpersonal contact is existential to the human species. Zoom meetings aren’t enough — we need to see one another and touch one another. We need to see and touch something. The images of people in convalescent homes across the world, being hugged through plastic are a heartbreaking reminder that this topical pandemic isn’t finished. But there are pandemics happening at all times, whether it’s AIDS or world hunger, and the pandemic of loneliness didn’t begin when borders began to close.
I’m projecting my own biases, because there could be other reasons, but I assume that most people who “marry” dolls are desperately lonely and lack the social skills necessary to participate in all aspects of society. I say this with genuine care, as we all are products of our environment. I discovered in adulthood that at birth you’re given a toolbox, which carries gadgets and mechanisms that cultivate traits and idiosyncrasies which determine your personal development. Not everyone was given a hammer and screwdriver, objects essential to any handyman assembling the most menial of projects.
Davecat, a self-identified iDollator has both a “wife” and “mistress” which are both dolls. Interviewed by The Atlantic in an insightful and and in-depth piece, of all the eyebrow raising responses, this spurred my interest:
“Regarding the sort of person a synthetic partner would be perfect for: when people are in failed organic relationships, they’re invariably urged to dust themselves off and try again. But what most people don’t realize is that not everyone is suited for the “try, try again” mindset, and with each defeat, they’re less inclined to make another attempt, which leads to more loneliness, which makes them even more depressed, etc. Being in a relationship with a synthetic means that the organic is taking a stand against loneliness on terms which harm no one. Instead of being miserable, they’re doing something about it, without having to waste time, money, and emotion playing silly games to win the fleeting affections of someone who might be wrong for them in the first place.”
Married to a Doll: Why One Man Advocates for Synthetic Love
Davecat, of whom I had many assumptions of when beginning the article, had very nuanced points about relationships with “organic” (read: human) individuals vs. synthetic dolls. Now, aside from my firm belief that one cannot have a genuine relationship with an object, many of the points he made indicate that he’s not a misogynist and has a firm grip of reality. It’s his approach, beliefs and experiences that led him to this point. He notes that, “[a] synthetic will never lie to you, cheat on you, criticize you, or be otherwise disagreeable.” Although I’d retort that criticism isn’t necessarily disagreeable — but that depends on its author. Not wanting to be lied or cheated on isn’t insane or unreasonable. Trusted psychologists agree that lying in relationships is harmful and can create health problems. This shouldn’t be breaking news. Think of two friends, one who has been cheated on, and one who has been in a relationship without adultery. Who is likely happier? Let’s remove cheating from the equation: look at the couple where one partner constantly lies versus the couple with transparent and constructive communication. Again, who is likely happier? I’d wager my future salary on the latter, if all people are of sound mind.
Interestingly enough, I remember a law school professor telling us that choosing a romantic partner was one of the most important professional decisions one can make. Not in a classist or menacing way, it’s pragmatism. “If you’re going through a divorce, or a bitter custody battle, you don’t think that will affect your career? Especially if you’re a woman?” Mackinzie Bezos received $38 billion from her now ex-husband Jeff, one of the richest men in the world. Community property laws are structured as they are in-part because courts understand people flourish in stable partnerships. Irrespective of career choice, people do better and lead happier lives when they’re in healthy relationships compared to unhealthy ones. But back to dolls.
I’m not saying that because people lie and cheat on their significant others, people should start investing in synthetic creations. Davecat’s point struck a chord with me because it’s rooted in reality: he’d rather be with a doll because he’s had too many traumatic experiences with real human beings. Examining the sum of its parts, that’s really tragic. His fellow human beings have left him so beleaguered and hollow that a doll is preferable to a human. The question then becomes: are interpersonal and physical violence prerequisites to finding happiness? I, and any healthcare professional would resoundingly argue no. How much is someone supposed to put up with? Especially if they don’t have the toolkit to do so.
If an individual has repeated bad experiences, or one seismic jilt that ripped them to their core, should we expect them to continue on this quest? Even with the help of therapy and self-awareness, you really don’t know people until you’re invested in the relationship. The wife of Derek Chauvin, witnessed along with the world her husband murder George Floyd to ignite global unrest, wouldn’t have married a man that she thought was capable of suffocating a human for eight minutes. That’s why she immediately filed for divorce. I don’t think Kellie Chauvin is going to invest in a Ken doll soon, but I could see her taking a break from relationships after realizing she slept next to a man for years capable of cold-blooded murder**.
I know where I personally stand on the doll issue. Biases aside — I don’t think it’s a laughing matter. There’s an entire subsect of men and women, who invest in dolls that are upwards of $10,000 USD. Their social destitution results in brushing the hair of a synthetic creation then put themselves out there for love. I once wrote about the perils of online dating, but these problems predate Tinder. I don’t know if we could’ve created a world without dolls, but there is an irony that if we treated each other more humanely, less of them would exist.
- *In writing this, I learned there is an American English and British English pronunciation of the country. I grew up pronouncing it the American way.
- **Derek Chauvin has not been convicted for murder. He currently awaits trial, along with three additional officers involved in the incident.
