Guys and Dolls

A methodological reckoning for the empirical study of sex doll and sex robot issues

“…(2007)). Based on the association of sex dolls and sex robots with heterosexual men, it is not uncommon for studies to focus exclusively on this demographic (for example, see Devlin and Locatelli (2020); Marečková et al (2022); Middleweek (2021)). This association has shaped the collectively imagined capabilities of sex dolls and sex robots (Ruberg (2022)).…”

“…Quantitative studies using this strategy mirror psychological work on the general population, where the impetus is evaluating the psychological characteristics of people who own stigmatized sex tech (Harper et al (2023)). Qualitative studies have used this strategy for conducting in-depth interviews (Devlin and Locatelli (2020); Hanson (2022)) and analyzing sex doll owners' online activities (Hanson (2023b); Middleweek (2021)). While this strategy aids researchers in gathering samples of current owners, it has a glaring limitation -it only includes people who are on those sites.…”

“…However, while these studies are insightful, they too suffer from overreliance on forum websites for sampling. Many qualitative studies sample almost exclusively from websites designed for sex doll owners (Devlin and Locatelli (2020); Middleweek (2021)). Others have branched out to include other websites, such as Hanson's (2023b) inclusion of social media.…”

“…Previously, scholars often cited little or no empirical evidence to substantiate their arguments, but this is now changing (Döring et al (2020); Hanson and Locatelli (2022); Harper and Lievesley (2020)). Social scientific approaches that utilize data as a means of answering philosophical and ethical questions about how sex dolls, sex robots, and their owners and users are becoming more common (for some examples, see Appel et al (2019); Desbuleux and Fuss (2023a); Devlin and Locatelli (2020); Dubé et al (2022aDubé et al ( , 2023Dubé et al ( , 2022b; Eichenberg et al (2019); Hanson (2022Hanson ( , 2023b; Harper et al (2023); Langcaster-James and Bentley (2018); Middleweek (2021); Nordmo et al (2020); Oleksy and Wnuk (2021); Szczuka and Krämer (2019); van Voorst (2022); Zara et al (2022)).…”

The ‘PERFECT’ PARTNER: UNDERSTANDING THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF MEN WHO OWN SEX DOLLS

“…However, many doll owners also report their doll to be cohabiting partners that offer a degree of companionship in addition to being used for sexual gratification (Aoki & Kimura, 2021;Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018;Valverde, 2012;Levy, 2007) even argued that love can exist between humans and robotic dolls through repeated interactions, which in turn transforms the doll from less of a physical commodity to something more important within an owner's life, akin to an intimate relationship. Although this argument is rooted in assumptions made about robotic dolls (rather than dolls that are inanimate), owners who interact with their doll frequently might be expected to develop strong attachments akin to romantic love (see Devlin & Locatelli, 2020;Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018;Su et al, 2019), with this being associated with higher levels of general wellbeing and life satisfaction (Guarnieri et al, 2014;LaGuardia et al, 2000;Wei et al, 2005). In a recent qualitative analysis of doll owners' motivations, Hanson (2022a) reported the desire-related issues associated with sex doll ownership.…”