Sex doll THREESOMES: Couples using MALE replicas to 'take away jealousy' of cheating

Life-sized sex dolls that resemble real humans are being bought by couples to “take away the jealousy” of having sex with other people. Entrepreneur Jade Stanley, founder, and owner of Sex Doll Official said adventurous couples partial to “breaking boundaries” are among her customers. Her firm, based in Bromsgrove, near Birmingham, provides three services related to anthropomorphic sex dolls, including rentals, a “buy off the shelf” option, and customization. Because couples don’t want to jeopardize their relationships, they are buying anthropomorphic sex dolls for “safety threesomes” instead, Jade said.“They are used for the safe threesome as well,” the mum-of-four told Daily Star Online."The couple also purchases the male doll. It takes away any jealousy.“How can you be jealous of the silicone doll – it’s ridiculous.”

She said her service allows couples to upend sexual taboos and express themselves without compromising their happy relationships. She added: “That’s why it’s a safety threesome, it’s breaking boundaries, it’s pushing boundaries and it’s breaking the taboo as well.”The 35-year-old said she is considering selling and renting artificially intelligent sex robots when they become more commercially more viable.

Currently, sex robots made by the California-based company Realbotix cost around £12,000. Jade, who owns a chain of tanning shops in the West Midlands, said in the future they will become more advanced and affordable. She said: “They’re only going to get better and better.“They’re still in the early stages. I will be looking at AI without a doubt.”To produce the sex dolls, customers are required to make a booking with Jade, who forwards the request on to her factory in China, where they are made. Customers are required to detail their specifications, including hair colour, breast size, weight, and skin colour, when making a request via the Sex Doll Official website.

The bespoke sex dolls, which can cost up to £4,000 depending on specifications, are then air-freighted back to Jade’s office and cleaned before being shipped out to the customer. Jade said she decided to set up the business after reading about Lumidolls, thought to be the world’s first sex doll brothel in Barcelona, Spain. She explained: “Basically I read an article about Lumidolls [a sex doll brothel in Barcelona].“It struck a chord with me.“I was wondering, if I can take the seediness out of it, I could normalise this in a way and make it easier for people to have access to these dolls.”

Jade charges customers £345-a-week and a £300 refundable deposit to rent her range of eight sex dolls, whose names include Francesca, Ivanka, Sienna, and Cindy. The sex dolls, described as “expertly crafted”, durable and non-greasy, are delivered with “complete discretion” by a “white glove doorstep service”.Jade said if the business continues to be successful, she will consider expanding next year. She said: “I intend to take this globally because I’m the only person to offer this service, the way that I do it."

This sex doll rental company that recreates your dead lover

Let’s say you’ve lost your spouse and miss her dearly, but you’re also horny. Don’t worry, one woman in the U.K. knows just how to fix that problem: Replica sex dolls rentals. That’s right, you can recreate your wife and have sex with her in doll form, but you have to give her back once you’re done with her.

Sex Doll Official offers premium sex dolls to purchase, rent, or customize to your heart’s desire. While ordering a pre-made sex doll can cost as much as £1,895 pounds (or approximately $2,483 USD), the site’s stock dolls can be rented out for £345 per week (or around $452 USD), and users can even customize their own dolls and provide specific details like hair color, eye color, and scars. This includes orders for replicas of customers’ dead partners, among other things.

The business is run by 35-year-old Jade Stanley, who came up with the idea after reading an article about the sex doll industry. She realized most sex doll manufacturers were “offering the dolls in a more sexualized way” that was “quite seedy,” so she decided to open a sex doll business for people who are “seeking comfort” after a partner’s death.

“We have a lot of people approach us who have dolls made that resemble a partner they have lost,” Stanley told the Sun. “It can be very beneficial for them and helps them keep a piece of their loved one, it provides them with comfort, and people don’t always buy the dolls for a sordid reason.” Stanley also says her dolls can help couples who want to experiment with a third person, socially anxious people learning how to navigate sex, and individuals who suffer from mental health concerns that make socializing difficult.

There’s a need for tender sex dolls in the world, for sure. But Sex Doll Official has some problems with its business model.

For one, there are the racist stereotypes running rampant across the site with its dolls of color. A Black doll named “Brandy” promises to take buyers to “the depths of sexual darkness,” and a Latina doll named “Flame” is described as “red hot and full of sinful lust.” Another one, a Black woman in leopard lingerie named “Destiny,” is described as the “queen of the night.” Then there’s “Keiko”, which Sex Doll Official describes as a “seductive Asian nymphet” that is a “hard-working frisky individual.” Yikes. The dolls’ descriptions clearly fall into a much larger problem with racism in sexual preferences, which cannot be separated from the site’s customization options. (Sex Doll Buying Guide)

Not just that, but grieving partners need time to mourn, and giving widows and widowers the opportunity to recreate their late partner in plastic can leave them stuck in the five stages of grief without any way out. Twitter has since ruled the entire concept “seriously fucked up.”

The whole premise is eerily similar to the Black Mirror episode Be Right Back, which tackles losing a loved one and recreating them with artificial intelligence.

The company makes custom sex dolls with photos of real women!

Custom sex dolls, with the characteristics of real women, who are often unaware that their photos are used for this purpose, are made by a company in Britain.

Clients of Sex Doll Official, based near Birmingham, can send photos of the objects of their desire to order for 4,500 euros identical sex dolls, which are then made in China.

According to the owner of the company, Jade Stanley, some of her clients send photos of their love partners, but even celebrities who fantasize: "The requests vary a lot. "Some are asking for a copy of Kim Kardashian, others for a girl next door."

The fact that many of the women used to make their plastic copies have not given their consent is not a problem for the 35-year-old, since, as she says, the dolls "just look like them". "And who says you can't make or paint something that looks like someone?", adds.

Customers can give the exact characteristics of their order, from hair and skin color to weight and breast size, tattoos, and birthmarks.

Some, as the mother of four reveals, are widows who ask for a copy of their lost partners or "socially isolated" people. The idea, as the owner of the solarium chain reveals, came to her when she read an article about sex dolls in a newspaper. "I wanted to approach this idea from a different perspective, more to help those seeking solace," he says.

Love, Sex (Dolls) and Robots in the Age of Coronavirus?

Katherine Bright
Special Feature
April 23, 2020


Photo of the entrance door to a robot art cooperative gallery, with robot sculptures displayed through the glass. Via CC Search.

In the last few weeks, we’ve been asked to comply with social distancing measures that intend to protect our bodies from the bodies of others. For many of us, that has meant that physical companionship and intimacy have also been quarantined. We have been asked to refuse hugs, touch, daps, high-fives, and kisses. Entire industries are shut down as unemployment skyrockets. But, porn companies have seen significant growth in traffic, and coronavirus-themed content now includes performers dressed in masks and gloves.

Traditional modes of sex work exist at the intersection of all of the things that Coronavirus has taken away from us: touch, physical proximity, financial security, disposable income. For some sex workers, Coronavirus has made earning a living nearly impossible—one can’t collect unemployment for a job still categorized as a criminal. Other services have moved to webcams and tip-based digital payments. But in an age where we can’t touch other people, sex doll and sex robot companies are also prepared to fill the intimacy gaps left by social distancing.

Most scholarly discussions about the inclusion of sex dolls and sexbots (AI and robotic versions of sex dolls) fall into one of two camps. Either sex dolls are meaningless, manmade pieces of merchandise that, at best, can be repurposed and used as a social good, or they are problematic products carrying “symbolic consequences.” This distinction shapes the debate over how and whether to regulate the market. Some suggest that injecting more of these artificial bodies into society may serve as a release valve for the types of violence typically directed toward human women and children. KinkySdolls, for example, frames its products as a way to prevent human trafficking, reduce prostitution, and help those who find connection with others difficult. During this public health crisis, sex dolls could be seen as a safe way to address the mental health consequences of extreme isolation.

Yet, it’s worth thinking sociologically about who the major sex doll and sexbot stakeholders are and how they shape consumer behavior. The production and use of sexbots is largely unregulated, and there’s been little discussion of how the way we treat dolls might translate into the way we treat other humans in sexual encounters. Dolls were not designed by advocates striving to find innovative solutions to social harms. This sex-toys-for-hire originate instead, at the intersection of eroticism, technology, and consumerism.

Sex-tech industry design


Today’s sex dolls are built with lifelike material and features, and customers can build-a-doll through most company websites, customizing details. Unlike the lifeless, cartoon versions of generations past, today’s sex dolls are built with lifelike material and features like warming “skin,” “moaning” censors, “jiggle” material in the breasts and butt, smiling capability, and eyes that blink. Customers can build-a-doll through most company websites, customizing details down to the doll’s nail polish color. Some companies advertise that they can make dolls of your favorite actress, or can customize a doll to match an uploaded photo (consent not needed). At least one company launched services to create dolls that replicate the deceased. An “emotional database” is on the horizon, as are AI-powered sexbots, where the product can “learn” customer preferences through repeated data intakes.



Doll companies now also curate a social identity and personality for many products, creating digital narratives, dating profiles and social media accounts for dolls so that customers can interact with their product and create an illusion of communication. Lumidolls for instance, provides textual histories for several of their dolls, interweaving fictional dating experiences with sexual content and details about what the doll is looking for in their purchaser:


“Janna:” I am a 26-year-old lady who works in the car industry. I sell cars like no one in my job. Could it be because of my explosive body? Probably yes. The thing is that I see a man coming in, looking at the cars and then to me, and in few seconds I know what he is thinking about: Just me naked at the front of the car waiting for him to take me. Do you think I am wrong? I do not think so! If you choose for me in this ocean of ladies I can take you to a baseball game and then we can go for a beer and a hamburger. At home I can wear this sexy baseball player outfit for you.

With the addition of these interactive features, sex dolls are not just material goods nor visual fantasies; modern versions break down the fourth wall. These products can be touched and tortured just as easily as they can “listen” to your feelings and “text” you goodnight.

Constructing Digital Identities


At best, sex dolls and sexbots play out the stereotypical, gendered, and racialized constructions of sexuality that their human counterparts have endured and fought against for centuries. By both physically and digitally constructing a particular type of sexual identity, sex-tech companies have incredible power to dictate what kinds of imagery and text is privileged and bypassed. Most of the race, gender, and sexuality contours that shape human existence have been erased and replaced with privileged “ideal-types.” At best, sex dolls and sexbots play out the stereotypical, gendered, and racialized constructions of sexuality that their human counterparts have endured and fought against for centuries. “Momoka” is Japanese and “…like most Japanese women, she decided to stay at home to handle all the household chores and take good care of her husband.” The Latina sex dolls, “do not complain and retain their spicy, ethnic features and tan skin for the longest time…” Rarely are there any “Sharonda” or “LaKeisha,” sex dolls. Dark brown and black bodies are almost entirely deleted from plastic sexual fantasies. Male-presenting dolls are rarer still, with faces that look just like the female-presenting ones; the newly launched trans dolls are just female dolls with penis inserts. Unsurprisingly, scrolling through the inventory shows a plethora of models that resemble white, cis women with intangible body dimensions—signaling again, what kinds of bodies are valued and desirable.



Though companies are working hard to normalize sex doll consumerism, in the meantime escorts New York and London keep doing company to their clients and these products still come with public scripts about what our partners, sex, and “companionship” should look and act like. Sex doll bodies appeal to a gaze that largely dismisses sexual equity or equitable desire, bolstered further by how the doll is programmed. Sex doll companies overlook questions of whether a doll could ever say no, or if a doll could report that “she” did not, in fact, enjoy the user. How many times must the doll be hit before it shuts down? If strangled too tightly, will there be some tilt in “her” voice to indicate fright or anger?

In the United States, body subjugation has always laid at the feet of a categorization system that determines that only some bodies are “human” enough to count. And as history should have taught us, it is advantaged bodies who draw the legal, political, and cultural definitions in order to dehumanize the body that is not their own. These structural-sexual inequities have allowed for the bodies of “others” to serve as host for sexual experimentation for centuries—sex dolls and sexbots may re-create this classification system a hundred-fold.

Purchasing an artificial body may provide a quick fix to navigating society’s complicated ideas about sex work, companionship, body autonomy, sexual fantasy, exploitation or empowerment. But mainstream inclusion of sex dolls may also influence our collective “training” in other important ways. In the midst of a critical moment (by way of the #metoo movement), where a surge of attention, public pressure, and improved accountability has pushed conversations about sexual harassment and violence forward, the mainstream incorporation of sex dolls and sexbots seems to lean closer to a lowered bar for sexual equality. Here, we learn that consent is whatever the programmer coded it to be. Here, consent is whatever the customer paid for.

Sex Dolls, Social Distancing–and Social Science


We have a small window to think critically about how these replacement “companions” might affect the way we think about and interact with those that sex dolls are designed to replace. We have a small window to think critically about how these replacement “companions” might affect the way we think about and interact with those that sex dolls are designed to replace. While it’s easy to dismiss these products as non-threatening and an altogether silly byproduct of our more progressive sexual lives, there is danger in ignoring the ways in which these symbolic objects capture all the racialized, gendered, and heteronormative biases of those who design and profit from their “bodies.” Consider debates over whether the wide access and exposure to graphic internet porn have influenced sexual behavior and sexual violence. Sext-tech innovation doesn’t wait for society to grapple with the impacts of its newest creations, but perhaps, we can use this moment and our power as consumers to demand better products—before these companies go mainstream. And “mainstream” is probably not as far off as we think—KinkySdolls tried to open sex doll brothels in Houston and New York, and Anna Kendrick is starring in a new online series about the blossoming friendship between a girl and her boyfriend’s sex doll. (Sex Doll Buying Guide)



If it’s inevitable that sexbots are the next iteration of commercial sex, social scientists and consumers ought to think about how their inclusion might affect interactions between living bodies. While criminal and civil laws have been enacted to protect society from sexual and labor violations, these laws don’t apply to artificial bodies—consent is not required from the majority of models, not even from the “child” sex dolls, and sex dolls don’t need to rest in between shifts, they don’t ask for time off, they don’t need food or water to survive. They don’t need air. Yet, focusing on these distinctions, the ones where the legal and symbolic boundaries of public policy are drawn around the type of “body,” rather than the act itself, is an argument that has been used to justify violence and ownership of marginalized bodies time and time again.

In a process that defines right and wrong with our definitions of “human,” instead of definitions about the legality of the act, sex dolls and sexbots will potentially, just be the newest version of acceptable space-holders for behaviors that we would not perform, or be allowed to perform, on other humans—at least, the humans whose advantaged bodies have deemed legitimate and worthy of protection. As technological improvements continue to blur the once-obvious tells between genetic and manmade versions of “life,” thinking through these implications and pushing for responsible production may become more necessary.


Sex dolls don’t have to become the newest version of acceptable space-holders for behaviors that we would not perform, or be allowed to perform, on other humans. What if the next model chopped your fingers off if you tried to grope it without consent? For example, could sex dolls be designed with more attention to reality and equitable representation? Could they be programmed to teach users about affirming sexual practices? What if dolls were programmed to send the police data and recordings of any purchaser engaged in “lethal” sexual practices? What if instead of making dolls always available for sex, they were programmed to occasionally refuse? Could we decide as a community, to not have sex doll brothels be a thing? What if the next model chopped your fingers off if you tried to grope it without consent? What if… it chopped something else off?



It makes sense that as a society, we are searching for new ways to address the very basic and human need for touch, connection, and intimacy right now. During this public health crisis, it’s true that sex doll companies are well-positioned to support us by creating products that replicate the bodies that we so desperately miss. In theory, these bodies cannot hurt us the way human bodies can during a global pandemic. But before we reach for this balm, it’s important to question and – and as social scientists, empirically analyze – the potential impacts of incorporating and using bodies that can be bought, curated, controlled, and stuffed into the closet whenever a human company is allowed back in.

'I'M PROVIDING COMFORT': Sex doll maker recreates life size doll of deceased loved ones

This brings a whole new meaning to dearly departed!

Jade Stanley, a mother of four, runs Sex Doll Official, a company that offers a peculiar bereavement service — comfort sex doll in the image of your deceased loved ones.

Stanley was on stage showing off a sample of her base model sex doll named ‘Amelia’ that is available for purchase. Schofield questioned if people have asked for the service. Stanley said: “Yes I’ve actually had it. Loneliness is a massive issue in the U.K. and I think one of the most surprising aspects of this industry for me, is really it’s not all seedy and sexual,” Metro reported.


“I’ve had lots of customers who genuinely come to me and they want a doll for comfort purposes only,” said Stanley. “I think it’s fantastic. I think in that case I’m fulfilling my job providing comfort to somebody in their time of need.”

When asked about the creation of sex dolls resembling living people Stanley said: “We’re very careful about that. You have to have permission if you want to make somebody the exact lookalike of somebody. For example, if somebody requested yourself (Holly), I couldn’t make you.”

“I’ve had requests for myself and I haven’t made myself. It can all be different requests though; tattoos, different colour hair, eye colour, shapes, sizes, different variations of dolls,” she added.

The dolls don’t come cheap though, with the basic ‘Amelia’ costing $2,100 and customized dolls ranging anywhere from $5,000 to $8,500. (Sex Doll Buying Guide)

Sex Dolls - Creepy or Healthy?: Attitudes of Undergraduates

David Knox and Stacy Huff

 East Carolina University

 I. Joyce Chang

 University of Central Missouri

 Introduction

 The use of robots for sex has entered mainstream culture. Time magazine reviewed recent television programs (Humans, Westworld, Black Mirror) and asked, “Is it ethical to have sex with a robot?” (D’Addario, 2017). This question suggests that the use of a life-like robot for sex is questionable and creepy rather than an alternative masturbatory activity. This study provides data on attitudes of undergraduates toward the use of robots for sex and suggests a more positive view. 

The concept of sex dolls (also referred to as love dolls) dates back to the 17th century and can be seen in Mughal paintings in India. Sex dolls were sold commercially through catalogs in Paris as early as 1908 (Bloch, 1910/2015). Sex doll advertisements in the United States first appeared in 1968 in pornographic magazines, when selling sexual devices through the mail became legal (Beck, 2014). 

The early sex dolls of the 20th century were largely blow-up dolls made with thin plastic or rubber. In 1996, Abyss Creations developed a life-size sex doll that resembles the face, skin, and figure of a real woman. Although the doll’s initial function was to serve as a sex partner, some owners have used the RealDoll for non-sexual purposes. For example, the movie Lars and the Real Doll featured the RealDoll as a girlfriend whom the owner introduced to family/friends, took to parties, etc. Another sex doll, Flexidoll (http://www.flexidolls.com/tour/), is the latest version of sex dolls promoted as being “beautiful and boneless”, capable of contorting their body into any position desired by the consumer. 

The primary motivation for having a sex doll is to aid one’s sexual pleasure via masturbation. When another human is not available, a sex doll may be a satisfactory alternative to interpersonal sexual activity (Burr-Miller and Aoki, 2013). However, owning and using a sex doll is stigmatized and viewed as evidence that one is unable to attract a real sexual partner. Such stigmatization may lessen over time. David Levy (2007), author of Love & Sex with Robots, predicted that by 2050 robots will evolve to “make themselves romantically attractive and sexually desirable to humans.” 

Scholars have raised concerns about using sex dolls that resemble humans. One fear is that using human-like alternatives may only further demean some shy young men with inadequate interpersonal competence (Hughes-d'Aeth, 2013). In addition, the use of sex dolls who are obedient and always available for pleasure may further objectify and exploit women. Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 33 © 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality 

Review of Literature 

One of the most comprehensive studies about sex dolls was conducted by Valverde (2012) who wrote her master’s thesis on “the modern sex doll-owner.” She interviewed Abyss Creation’s founder Matt McMullen who revealed that his company ships ten dolls a week, (90% female dolls and 10% male dolls), each costing at least $5,000. “There are 11 different body types and 31 faces to choose from. In addition, there are 30 styles and shades of nipples; skin and lip-type; hair and eye color; pubic hair (trimmed, natural, full, shaved); eyebrows (fake, human hair); removable tattoos, piercings, etc.” (Gurley, 2015). The newer humanoid sex robot versions talk, respond to questions, have movement, and simulate a real woman. See http://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000003731634/the-uncannylover.html to observe an example of a female sex doll who talks. As might be expected, members of the sex doll community often wish to remain anonymous for fear of judgment, persecution, and psychiatric labeling. However, as part of Valverde’s study, some sex doll owners were willing to respond to questions about sex doll use thorough an anonymous questionnaire. 

Valverde (2012) collected her data via an online survey from 61 members of an “online doll-owner community forum.” Of those who completed the survey, 88% were male (12% female) and almost 90% (87%) were heterosexual. The average age of the sex doll owner was 43 with ages ranging from 20 to 69. Slightly less than three-fourths (71%) of the respondents were single. with 65% earning between $30,000 and $90,000 annually. The primary purpose of owning a doll, reported by 70% of the respondents, was for sex. Indeed, 41% of the doll owners said that the doll was their primary sex partner. Thirty percent of doll owners said that the primary purpose was for companionship; 17% used the doll for sex with a partner. Doll ownership/use was not without negative feelings - over a third (37%) reported that they felt shame, guilt or embarrassment.

 Purpose of the Study 

The purpose of this paper was to identify social psychological variables related to the acceptance/use of a sex doll and humanoid robot in the context of physical and emotional intimacy. How are gender, religion, and sexual values (independent variables) related to sex doll acceptance and use (dependent variable)? 

Methods and Sample 

A 34-item survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at a large southeastern university in the USA. An email including an Internet link to the survey was sent to undergraduates in the sexuality/marriage/family courses of the first author. No incentives for participation in the survey were provided. The survey included Likert type questions, which asked students about their being open to using a sex doll or humanoid robot in the context of interpersonal sex. The term “sex doll” was defined as a sex toy with features resembling a human partner and unable to interact or communicate. The term humanoid robot was defined as a machine with an appearance resembling a real human; Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 34 © 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality humanoid robots can interact and communicate with humans if they are programmed to do so. 

The survey included two questions about sex dolls: understanding (“I can understand how someone would prefer having sex with a life-like sex doll”) and openness (“I am open to the idea of having a sex doll for personal use”). Six questions were about the use of a humanoid robot: Falling in Love ( “I think it is possible to fall in love with a humanoid robot”), No Headache (“Humanoid robot would never have a ‘headache”.), Marriage (“I think people should be able to marry their humanoid robots”), Sexual Need (“I think the development of humanoid robots to meet sexual needs is a good idea”) , Stigmatization (“The use of humanoid robots for having sex is stigmatized) and Intimacy (“I could develop feelings of intimacy for a humanoid robot”). Demographic questions regarding gender, race, religious commitment etc. preceded questions about robot acceptance and use. 

A total of 345 respondents completed the survey. The majority of respondents (81%) were female, white (70% white, 15% black, 8% Latino, 3% Biracial, 3% Asian, and 1% other) and heterosexual (90%). Almost three-fourths (72%) were either first or second-year undergraduates. Almost half (48%) were emotionally involved in a committed or engaged relationship, 37% were not seeing anyone/not involved, and 14% were casually dating different people. 

The data were analyzed by SPSS (version 21) statistical software. 

Findings The respondents varied in terms of how they felt about their acceptance and use of a sex doll. The majority of the respondents were not in favor of the use of a sex doll. Over two thirds (68%) could not understand how anyone could think of having sex with a doll, less then one in five (17%) strongly agreed or agreed that they “could understand how someone would prefer having sex with a life-like sex doll over a human” and 15% were neutral about the idea. 

When the respondents were asked if they personally would be open to having sex with a doll, 8% said yes, 13% were neutral and 79% strongly disagreed or disagreed. Only one male of the 345 respondents reported having had sex with a doll. (Sex Doll Buying Guide)

Regarding perceptions of stigma for having sex with a sex doll, almost a third (32%) strongly agreed or agreed that there was a stigma, 41% were neutral about the existence of stigma and 28% strongly disagreed or disagreed that there was a stigma. Finally, concerning the development of humanoid robots to meet sexual needs being a good idea, 11% thought it was a good idea, 14% were neutral and 76% thought it was a bad idea. Analysis of the data included identifying the variables of gender, religious and sexual values (independent variables) in relation to sex robot acceptance (dependent variable). Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 35 © 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality Gender Differences When asked to rate the statement “I am open to the idea of having a sex doll for personal use”, men (M= 2.09, SD= 1.11) were significantly more open to having a sex doll (p < .01) than women (M=1.70, SD= 0.95) . When respondents were asked if they could develop feelings of intimacy for a humanoid robot, men (M= 1.67, SD=0.89) were significantly more accepting ( p < .05) than women (M=1.39, SD=0.74). Table 1 illustrates dependent variables by gender. Table 1: Dependent Variables: Means and Standard Deviation M SD p Sex Doll Preference “I can understand how someone would prefer having sex with a life-like sex doll over a human.” Men 2.31 1.30 n.s. Women 2.05 1.13 Open to Sex Doll “I am open to the idea of having a sex doll for personal use.” Men 2.09 1.11 p < .01 Women 1.70 0.95 In Love with Robot “I think it is possible to fall in love with a humanoid robot.” Men 2.02 1.19 n.s. Women 2.15 1.13 Robot: No “headache” “A humanoid robot would never have a "headache" and would always be available for sex Men 3.05 1.41 n.s. Women 2.73 1.28 Marry Robots “I think people should be able to marry their humanoid robots if they want to” Men 1.98 1.15 n.s. Women 1.75 1.03 Robots for Sex Need “I think the development of humanoid robots to meet sexual need is a good idea.” Men 2.19 1.13 n.s. Women 1.98 1.04 Robot Stigmatization “The use of “humanoid robots for having sex is stigmatized.” Men 3.02 1.34 n.s. Women 3.08 1.32 Robot Intimacy “Feeling I could develop feelings of intimacy for a humanoid robot.” Men 1.67 0.89 p < .05 Women 1.39 0.74 Note: n.s. (not significant) Religion Participants identified themselves as being in one of three religious groups: religious, spiritual but not religious, or neither. While respondents did not identify their specific religious background, most students at this southeastern university were from predominately Christian backgrounds. Those who identified as being religious were far less accepting than those who were either spiritual or not religious. These findings support the research of Jeremy Hsu (2014) found that religious fundamentalists tended to view humanoid robots as being more “creepy overall.” The explanation for a religious association with a negative Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 36 © 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality view of robots is that robots are counter to the belief that a Supreme Being made humans. The Judeo-Christian monotheistic doctrine states that only God can give life, and human substitutes are to be shunned (Kim and Kim, 2013). Sexual Value Respondents self-identified their sexual value as absolutist (sexual intercourse before marriage is wrong, 13.2%), relativist (sexual intercourse justified if the person is in love, 56.8%) or hedonist (do what feels good, 30%). Compared to relativists and hedonists, absolutists were significantly (p < .001) more likely to hold negative views regarding sex robots. Table 2 illustrates dependent variables by sexual values. Table 2: Means, Standard Deviation, ANOVA and Post Hoc Comparisons by Sexual Value Variable M SD F Post Hoc Comparison Sex Doll Preference Absolutism (A) 1.63 1.09 6.21** A < H ** Relativism (R) 2.06 1.12 Hedonism (H) 2.38 1.21 Open to Sex Doll Absolutism (A) 1.56 0.95 3.71* A < H * Relativism (R) 1.72 0.94 Hedonism (H) 2 1.08 In Love with Robot Absolutism (A) 2.07 1.06 n.s. n.s. Relativism (R) 2.04 1.13 Hedonism (H) 2.31 1.21 Robot: No "headache" Absolutism (A) 2.41 1.34 3.51* A < H * Relativism (R) 2.77 1.29 Hedonism (H) 3.04 1.27 Marry Robots Absolutism (A) 1.39 0.73 8.09*** A < H** Relativism (R) 1.73 0.97 R < H* Hedonism (H) 2.12 1.22 Robots for Sex Absolutism (A) 1.51 0.81 7.29*** A < H *** Relativism (R) 2.01 1.05 A < R* Hedonism (H) 2.26 1.12 Robot Stigmatize Absolutism (A) 2.85 1.42 4.28* R < H* Relativism (R) 2.94 1.26 Hedonism (H) 3.4 1.35 Robot Intimacy Absolutism (A) 1.41 0.77 n.s. n.s. Relativism (R) 1.41 0.74 Hedonism (H) 1.54 0.84 Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Knox, Huff, & Chang Journal of Positive Sexuality 2017 3(2) 37 © 2017 Journal of Positive Sexuality-Center for Positive Sexuality Discussion Results from this study revealed that the majority of respondents could not understand how anyone could have sex with a “life-like” sex doll rather than a human. This response is not surprising, as the use of sex dolls or robots is stigmatized by mainstream culture in the U.S. Sex dolls or robots are thought of as a non-human, silicone form devoid of love, warmth, and intimacy. In effect, the use of robots for sex is stigmatized since there is the cultural belief that humans should prefer “the real thing.” Implications There are two implications of the data. First, low acceptance (8%) for sex doll use by these undergraduates reflects the culture in which the behavior occurs. U.S. culture dictates the social scripts operative in regard to how sex dolls will be viewed - negatively, dolls are not credible objects for sex. Second, in spite of the negative cultural view of sex dolls as a masturbatory aid, they might be reconsidered as a credible alternative. In the spirit of positive sexuality, with diversity as one of its primary tenets, sex dolls (like vibrators) are used in private by the individual to enhance sexual pleasure. The researchers suggest this is not creepy but healthy sexuality. The idea of sex dolls being used for one’s sexual pleasure (a basic human need) is already recognized in Japan as some companies rent sex dolls and rooms to customers. Alternatively, a customer may rent a doll for the night or weekend and take it home. Sounds like the person is looking forward to a sex-positive evening! References Beck, Julie. (2014). A (straight, male) history of sex dolls. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive /2014/08/a-straight-male-history-ofdolls/375623/ Bloch, Iwan. (1910/2015). The sexual life of our time in its relations to modern civilization. (M. Eden Paul, Trans.).London: Dalton. (Original work published 1910) Burr-Miller, A.; Aoki, E. (2013). Becoming (Hetero) Sexual? The Hetero-Spectacle of Idolators and their Real Dolls. Sexuality & Culture. 17, 384-400 D’Addario, D. (2017). When a most human isn’t actually human. Time. February 27-March 6, 2017, p. 104 Gurley, G. (2015, May). Is this the dawn of the sexbots? (NSFW). Vanity Fair. Retrieved from http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/0 4/sexbots-real doll-sex-toys Hughes-depth, T. (2013). Psychoanalysis and the scene of love: Lars and the real girl, In the mood for love, and Mulholland Drive. Film & History, 43, 17-33 Hsu, J. (2014). How Religious See Robots. [Web log comment] Discover Magazine. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesi CK-cyborg/2014/12/01/religious-see robots/#.V5ZthvkrKUk Kim, Min-Sun & Kim, Eun-Joo. (2013) Humanoid robots as “The cultural other”: are we able to love our Creations? AI & Society 28(3):309-318 Levy, D. (2007). Love and Sex with Robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York: Harper Collins Valverde, S. (2012). The modern sex doll-owner: A descriptive analysis. (Master’s Thesis) Department of Psychology, California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/vie wcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=these s