FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com
collision detection
content | discontent
send me yours
February 21, 2006
Realdolls, and the men who love them













You may have heard of the Realdoll corporation -- makers of the highest-quality, full-sized, photorealistic artificial love companions on the planet. If you haven't, do not click on that link if you're at work, comrade. Suffice to say that Realdolls are very expensive ($6,000), highly customizable, available with a stiff internal skeleton rendering them "posable", and thus, in summary, creepy as all get out. For years I'd snickered about Realdolls and assumed they were a toy for people who actually preferred the landscape at the inky bottom of the Uncanny Valley.

But photographer Ellen Dorfman took a different view of it. She called up dozens of Realdoll owners and convinced them to let her take intimate pictures of them to illustrate their relationships with the dolls. Dorfman ran the photos as an exhibit, published them in a book, and has a web site devoted to the project: "Still Lovers". (The photos on her site are mostly safe for work, but a few aren't, so be careful what you click.) As she writes:

My introduction to this world began on a suburban, tree-lined, mid-western street, but ultimately took me throughout the U.S. and the U.K. Jerry and Adriana had not one doll -- but five -- and at that time they kept them hidden from their children and visitors in a secret closet built into a wall. This closet was cushioned and climate controlled, with the girls' shoes lined up neatly beneath their dangling feet. Adriana was the collector of the dolls, not her husband. She was convinced that each girl represented a different part of herself: lover, child, friend, toy and intellectual partner.

Man, Carlo Collodi is spinning in his grave.


(Thanks to Chris Foley for this one!)

Posted by Clive Thompson at February 21, 2006 04:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1433

Comments

If collodi had written about realdolls he wouldn't have finished his life in poverty...

Do you actually get to read Pinocchio in the States? I know it's very popular around the world, and it would be interesting to know what kids thought of it around the world and in different times.

Realdolls are creepy and people loving them are scaring me. One who fantasizes of having such a complete control over a partner sounds a bit (over the) Borderline.

M

Posted by: Mario [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 4:53 AM

Mario, I don't know if kids these days actually read the original version of Pinocchio. I read it as a kid -- one of my aunts gave me a copy. It's a super, super, *super*-weird book, and I mean that in a good way. I hope the kids today *do* read it, because it's much stranger than the sanitized crap you find on children's bookshelves today.

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 11:00 AM

Reminds me of the weird scene at the end of Fellini's Casanova where he tenderly dances away with his new, clockwork love, the truest affection he's ever known (forgive me if I'm a bit fuzzy on the details - I haven't seen it since my precocious college days).

Posted by: slimbolala [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 3:49 PM

And by precocious I really mean "puttin on airs."

Posted by: slimbolala [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 3:50 PM

I see a parallel here between the creepiness of these near life-like dolls and the simulacra of humans in video games (mentioned before on this blog). My theory is that animals must have keen senses for monitoring the condition of others within their group. Much the same way that dogs, as has been recently discovered, can smell if someone has cancer, we use visual cues for similar purposes. It is important to know how others are doing. It is not difficult to tell either. Usually it takes a mere glance. When we look at these dolls, we know on one level that we are looking at, well, dolls, but because of their verisimilitude to an actual person, combined with the fact that they don't quite look like or act like a living person, our brains tell us that something is wrong...perhaps terribly wrong. I'm not sure whether it would be more appropriate to call these dolls life-like, or dead-like.

Posted by: daniel luke [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 6:35 PM

Slimbolala, heh. I've never seen Casanova -- that sounds really wild!

Yes, Daniel, that's precisely it. They're right down there in the Uncanny Valley.

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 7:08 PM

This... makes me feel like a naive, scared virgin. And THAT, my friend, is a feat. Whole fake people? Lord, humans are messed up.

Posted by: Answer Bunny [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 25, 2006 2:02 PM

Actually, the problem is not that they look too life-like, it is mostly that they don't *move*.
Anyone can tell in an instant if the person they are looking at is alive or dead, and these dolls look, well, dead.
We all make very small movements constantly. These movements are vitally necessary for climbing out of the The Uncanny Valley. It is a level of animation detail that has yet to be mastered.

Posted by: Jahuti [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2006 6:37 PM

Yes, precisely -- it's the movement that we can always detect as "off". That's why Hollywood may eventually climb out of the Valley -- because film animators can lavish months of attention on making a few seconds of a facial closeup look "just right" the video-game people are probably permanently screwed: It's much, much harder for an on-the-fly animation engine to capture these nuances.

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2006 11:47 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

NOTE: If you posted a comment and you can't see it -- try refreshing your browser.


Remember me?