POLL: What is the primary purpose of your love doll ?

Post by **clairelenore** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:45 pm

Bianca wrote:
clairelenore wrote:well, i'm a doll, not a doll-owner, so i can't really answer the poll, but i asked msg if he'd like me to click one of the buttons for him, and he said, "you're not on there, claire. they need a button that says, 'to fill my life with a sense of shared beauty.'"
WOW, that was such a nice answer I wanted to add it to the poll, however by doing so it would zero all the votes so far
However, it did remind me that we did not allow for just plain admiration and viewing which is in essence 'Filling ones life with a sense of shared beauty'.

I will add this to the next pole for sure. And you certainly are beautiful.

now i am all complimentified and blushing!

thank you, bianca!

xoxo,

claire

plushero · Post by **plushero** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:26 pm

Hi,

There seem to be a lot of polls on just now, is this for gathering data for a particular reason?

Debra · Post by **Debra** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:17 pm

Sexual,, followed by photography, and of coarse inflating my beach balls, but I see you couldn't add that category now could you ?

narcissus · Post by **narcissus** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:30 pm

I choose this one in the poll as the primary purpose of my dolls are as:

artificial companion (I see my doll as a replacement for a normal interactive human relationship)

Odd, I have never seen this poll until now. Thought someone just bumped it from one long ago, but it was started this month. Wonder why I never saw it? Anyways.

midiman · Post by **midiman** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:38 pm

narcissus wrote:I choose this one in the poll as the primary purpose of my dolls are as:

artificial companion (I see my doll as a replacement for a normal interactive human relationship)

Odd, I have never seen this poll until now. Thought someone just bumped it from one long ago, but it was started this month. Wonder why I never saw it? Anyways.

Yes, its about time we starting looking at our community and see where we stand. It helps us to understand each other collectively and individually as well as better steer TDF to suit our needs.

I would ask those people that voted their dolls as a permanent or temporary companion, would they have purchased the doll had it not been capable of sexual intercourse?

Midiman

narcissus · Post by **narcissus** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:01 pm

midiman wrote:
Yes, its about time we starting looking at our community and see where we stand. It helps us to understand each other collectively and individually as well as better steer TDF to suit our needs.

Well said, it is time.

IanEvans · Post by **IanEvans** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:27 pm

midiman wrote:I would ask those people that voted their dolls as a permanent or temporary companion, would they have purchased the doll had it not been capable of sexual intercourse?

Midiman

Good question. And the answer, in my case, is "probably not". I say "probably" because my doll is plush and I can sew, and considering all the visual alterations I've performed, adding the cavity itself to contain an insert would not have been that big a deal.

But if there were somehow absolutely no way to make her capable of sex, then no. Sex is a vital component of the type of companionship for which having a doll is a substitute. I have friends, some with whom I share a deep, intimate bond, but it's not a romantic bond, and thus not sexual. Cultural prudery inclines us to downplay the importance of sex in romantic relationships, but really that's the reason why the relationship has that element of intimacy and caring and passion that puts it on a different level than an ordinary friendship. So while my having a doll goes well beyond the sexual aspect, sex is still a necessity for the fantasy to work.

Post by **KeikoMarie** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:36 pm

If I may as a Teddy Babe my primary reason for wanting a companion certainly involved the desire and capability of said companion to be intimate with me. And what is all this talk of payment and ownership? Aileron has told me all he did was pay for my rather unconventional transportation to his home, who knew traveling in a cramped box cost 700 dollars and change, seemed excessive to me. And they just dropped me off on the front porch in a snow storm, how rude *Giggle*

The way I see it, Aileron is my Doll, *hee hee*
KM

fuji · Post by **fuji** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:00 pm

NotMyName wrote:
midiman wrote:I would ask those people that voted their dolls as a permanent or temporary companion, would they have purchased the doll had it not been capable of sexual intercourse?

Midiman
Good question. And the answer, in my case, is "probably not". I say "probably" because my doll is plush and I can sew, and considering all the visual alterations I've performed, adding the cavity itself to contain an insert would not have been that big a deal.

But if there were somehow absolutely no way to make her capable of sex, then no. Sex is a vital component of the type of companionship for which having a doll is a substitute. I have friends, some with whom I share a deep, intimate bond, but it's not a romantic bond, and thus not sexual. Cultural prudery inclines us to downplay the importance of sex in romantic relationships, but really that's the reason why the relationship has that element of intimacy and caring and passion that puts it on a different level than an ordinary friendship. So while my having a doll goes well beyond the sexual aspect, sex is still a necessity for the fantasy to work.

I couldn't agree anymore!
But it is not only true for dolls! How many people would have a (human) companion if they could not have sexual relations with?

Gramps · Post by **Gramps** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:27 am

fuji wrote:But it is not only true for dolls! How many people would have a (human) companion if they could not have sexual relations with?

Good point!

Just as I would not buy a mannequin that can't do intercourse, I would not buy a silicone vagina because it can't be a companion.

tchon · Post by **tchon** » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:39 pm

fuji wrote:But it is not only true for dolls! How many people would have a (human) companion if they could not have sexual relations with?

Normally I don't post "I agree" (well, at least I try), but I just have to do it here: Well said, fuji!

On the poll: after some hesitation I have chosen "artificial companion". Everything else is secondary. While I like the cuddling and made first amateurish attempts in doll photography and fantasy play, its the simulation of companionship that drove my decision. Heck, I cannot even have sex with them, as their inserts are not here yet, and it does not bother me.
All my attempts in intimate relationships with real woman have lead into disaster, leaving behind souls seriously hurt, and I cannot blame anyone but me for that. I tried to be a good partner with the best intentions, but its just not given to me to be one, and in the end its the result which counts.

So instead of making another attempt next time I could not hold back my desires, and hurting someone who deserves a better treatment, instead I got the dolls to project my needs on them. They don't have a soul which can get hurt, so I hope I am on the safe side now, and I can treat all the nice and lovely women out there with the all respect they should get, from a safe distance.

Sorry for the long rant, maybe I just lack sleep.

narcissus wrote:Odd, I have never seen this poll until now.

I loosely remember that there have been several polls when TDF ran on its old software. Unfortunately they went overboard when switching to the new software, as they didn't fit in (technically, I mean, not content wise). So its a good idea to bring them back.

Vickylover · Post by **Vickylover** » Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:20 pm

Hi, another poll I took a long time to think about.

In the end I voted for option 7; but it usually leads to option 1. These are the two reasons I got Vicky many years before I found TDF.

Since joining TDF I have found other ways to enjoy being a doll owner such as photography and role playing in the Dolls Alive forum. But basically Vicky is there to provide the sex I don't get from my wife.

Vickylover.

Gramps · Post by **Gramps** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:50 pm

Another example of artificial companions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... orsPicks_1

Zarnon · Post by **Zarnon** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:46 am

artificial companion (I see my doll as a replacement for a normal interactive human relationship)
surrogate partner (helping to fill the void until ms/mr right comes along)

I voted but in fairness these two choices seem negatively loaded.

replacement for normal interactive human relationship? This has a built in value judgement. take out normal interactive and it's a much more neutral statement.

surrogate partner ? I would have put "temporary sexual partner/replacement" and left it at that. The "helping to fill the void until ms/mr right comes along" is another loaded gun.

Whether it's accurate or not, it should not be positively or negatively flavored. Even if it's incorrect, people will bias towards positive choices. Not all the time, not even the majority of the time, but enough to skew a survey.

IanEvans · Post by **IanEvans** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:46 am

Loaded, perhaps. But is one inherently positive and the other inherently negative?

I see that they just mean two separate things. Some may choose the doll over a human partner because they've had one too many toxic relationships, or for whatever reason have no interest in a relationship other than sex, but still see the doll as more than a mere sex toy in the way they interact with it. Whereas I would prefer a human partner but settle for a doll because of an inability to find someone who even wants such a relationship with me, let alone with whom I'm compatible. So the former would choose artificial companion, while I chose surrogate partner. Simple as that.

However, as I said in the iDollator thread, I would remove "normal" (i.e. the other n-word

) from the artificial companion option.