Introduction

In 1996, sex toy manufacturer Abyss Creations created their first RealDoll. This was lauded as a revolutionary product that exemplified a development in the production of realistic masturbatory aids, with older and relatively inexpensive rubber dolls being replaced by realistic dolls made from flesh-like materials. Although ‘sex dolls’ are not limited to dolls which are manufactured into the female form, these are the most common doll forms that are purchased (Ferguson, 2014; Valverde, 2012), with men being the most likely owner of such models. The increasing demand for dolls over the past two decades has led to many technological advances and customizability options to meet buyer preferences (Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018). More recently, dolls with inbuilt artificial intelligence have afforded owners with a more interactive experience (Carvalho Nascimento et al., 2018; Galaitsi et al., 2019; Samhita, 2010). Despite the time that has passed since the first RealDoll, and the development of a multi-million-dollar industry in the sale of realistic sex dolls (Valverde, 2012), relatively little empirical attention has been paid to the topic of doll ownership. In this paper, we document what we believe to be the first phenomenological analysis of sex doll ownership among men in relation to their interpersonal and intrapersonal psychological processes, and the social experience of owning a sex doll within a society that stigmatizes such a practice (Harper & Lievesley, 2020; Prostasia Foundation, 2021). We close the paper by beginning to triangulate our findings with existing quantitative data to sketch a psychological profile of men who own such dolls.

Sex Doll Controversies

Sex doll ownership has been cited as having potentially dangerous consequences. For example, sociologists, legal scholars, and philosophers have argued that doll owners are likely to hold negative attitudes towards and objectify women, and be at an increased risk of sexual aggression (Cox-George & Bewley, 2018; Danaher, 2017; Eskens, 2017; Ferguson, 2014; Puig, 2017; Ray, 2016; Richardson, 2016; Sharkey et al., 2017). As such, there may be a link (at least in theoretical terms) between sex doll ownership and the upholding of patriarchal or misogynistic social norms. However, this work is typically theoretical, hypothetical, and rhetorical in nature, and takes a moralistic perspective about the potential harms of doll ownership. In perhaps the clearest example of this, the Australian Institute for Criminology released a report that highlighted, in an explicit way, a lack of any empirical work into the effects of doll ownership, but subsequently concluding that they lead to negative outcomes. Although this conclusion is perhaps plausible from a theoretical perspective, it is incumbent upon scholarly organizations to properly weigh the evidence before making policy recommendations. Despite such claims, reviews of the literature on doll ownership often report an almost total lack of empirical data in support or opposition to these claims (Döring et al., 2020; Döring & Pöschl, 2018; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Harper & Lievesley, 2020). Within the context of widespread movements to legislate on the status of sex dolls (Danaher et al., 2017; Prostasia Foundation, 2021), this lack of empirical research highlights an urgent need for peer-reviewed data to be collected and examined.

Thinking more imaginatively about the potential uses of sex dolls, Torjeson (2017) proposed a role for sex dolls in therapy for sexual dysfunction among men. That is, those with performance-related erectile dysfunction that is brought about by performance anxiety might use a doll to assure themselves about their abilities before engaging with a living partner. Along similar lines, doll therapy is used with dementia populations, where dolls offer a continuous companionship which increases positive social interactions and wellbeing (Ellingford et al., 2007; Mackenzie et al., 2007). Further, dolls have been proposed as a safe sexual outlet to assist HIV patients in achieving satisfaction while reducing disease transmission (Morgan, 2009). As such, it is plausible to conclude, at least preliminarily, that sex dolls hold the potential for both positive and negative effects, both at the individual and societal levels. Again, this serves to highlight the need for further research into the broad effects of sex dolls on owners’ behavior, but also on the unique experiences of those who own such dolls to ensure their most effective use.

Uses of, and Experiences With, Sex Dolls

Although social discussions surrounding doll ownership and the broader use of dolls evoke strong feelings, very little is known about such practices, and comprehensive analyses of doll ownership and use are almost completely absent from the peer-reviewed literature. Most of what is currently known comes from analyses completed as MSc-level theses which, although instructive, have not undergone the levels of rigorous evaluation that research usually endures on its way into the literature. Where papers have been published in peer-reviewed outlets they have largely been speculative in relation to the effects of doll ownership (e.g., Danaher, 2017; Eskens, 2017), or rely on case study evidence (Aoki & Kimuri, 2021), which limits the definitiveness of any conclusions that might be drawn. There are some reviews (e.g., Döring et al., 2020; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Harper & Lievesley, 2020), though these (by necessity) present overviews of non-empirical book chapters, case study evidence, or non-peer-reviewed literature, as identified above.

Where empirical data does exist, the focus is typically on the primacy of sexual uses of dolls (Ferguson, 2014; Valverde, 2012). 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. This work highlighted how dolls can become an idealized sexual partner, how they can become a stand-in for men who also desire relationships with human women, and how dolls can become an intermediary for sexual misalignment within existing intimate relationships. This could, in some instances, suggest that dolls exacerbate existing issues though (for data suggesting a link between the use of impersonal sexual materials [e.g., pornography] and lower relationship satisfaction, see Minarcik et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2017). These issues were not explored in Hanson’s (2022a) analysis, though, as the focus was on a limited description of the main data-related codes within the interview transcripts. As such, we are left with questions about the pathways that owners (and, where applicable, their partners) might take towards doll ownership, as well as how they construct and interpret their experiences when owning and interacting with dolls. It is this phenomenological angle that we contribute via our analysis in the current paper.

The degree to which dolls become a part of the lives of their owners was perhaps best encapsulated in a separate analysis of the same dataset from Hanson (2022b), where it was reported how doll owners construct rich social lives, both for themselves and for their dolls. These observations might reflect an isolated life being experienced by doll owners, with the community built up online allowing them to share updates about their dolls and find connection and community with others with similar experiences. However, this phenomenological possibility was not probed in Hanson’s (2022b) analysis. For example, such social networking through online forums has been observed in other socially isolated groups, such as new mothers (Valtchanov et al., 2014) and those experiencing symptoms of psychosis (Highton-Williamson et al., 2015). As such, these kinds of online activities might be conceptualized as another method of achieving mental wellbeing via the ownership of dolls (this was also mentioned by non-doll-owning participants as a potential reason for owning a sex doll; DeMaris & McGovern, 2022).

As with information about the motivations for sex doll ownership, there is a lack of available data about how doll owners feel about their experiences. In Valverde’s (2012) study of doll owners, 37% of participants reported negative emotions, such as guilt, shame, and embarrassment, perhaps showing how perceived social stigma can become internalized. Such perceptions of social stigma appear to be relatively accurate, evidenced by formal campaigns against the ownership of sex dolls and robots (see Prostasia Foundation, 2021; Richardson, 2016). The extent to which doll owners actually harbor aggressive views or experience psychological or interpersonal deficits has not been explored from a phenomenological perspective (though for psychometric evidence of a lack of psychological disturbance or sexual risk among doll owners, see Harper et al., 2023). In conducting the current work, we were cognizant of a need to explore such attitudes, with the verbal nature of interviews potentially removing the barrier of social desirability and the limitations of standardized psychometric testing. Exploring such attitudes alongside participants’ understandings of their sex doll ownership was a key aim in this research.

The Current Study

Research into human-doll interactions is increasing in terms of its extent and scope, but this work typically adopts relatively limited methods to explore the demographic characteristics of doll owners, the basic functions of doll ownership, and the physical characteristics of these individuals’ dolls. Most of this work adopts quantitative designs, and few studies have made their way into the peer-reviewed literature. Those studies that have used qualitative methods to explore doll ownership have used public domain data, such as online testimonials or forum posts (Ciambrone et al., 2017; Su et al., 2019), have included short open-ended questions embedded within online surveys (Ferguson, 2014; Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018), or have limited themselves to shallower content analyses (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022). Here, we investigate the motivations for doll ownership, experiences of having a doll, and the various effects that ownership has had on the lives of men who own sex dolls. We set out to answer the question of how sex doll owners understand their motivations for, and experiences of, doll ownership. Ultimately, we aim to consider these understandings alongside recent survey-based data (e.g., Harper et al., 2023), preliminary qualitative data (Hanson & Locatelli, 2022), and meta-analytic reviews of the area (e.g., Döring et al., 2020) to produce a working profile of sex doll owners, and to formulate potential hypotheses for future work in this area.

The phenomenological nature of the work contained within this paper makes a new and incremental contribution to the current knowledge base about the ownership of sex dolls. For instance, we know that doll owners have a range of sexual, emotional, and interpersonal motivations for desiring a doll (for reviews, see Döring et al., 2020; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Harper & Lievesley, 2020). However, we do not know about the experiences that lead to these motivations, nor how people make sense of them. There is one study that reports a qualitative analysis of such topics, but this limits itself to a code-based analysis of the sexual (or desire-related) motivations for doll ownership (Hanson, 2022a). However, this desire-based account of ownership is just one part of the story of doll ownership, and ignores interpersonal, intimate, and emotional aspects of owners’ experiences. As such, this deeper and broader exploration adds an additional layer of experiential analysis to what we already understand about the ownership of sex dolls.

We selected men as a sample in this work in response to the gendered nature of both social debates surrounding doll ownership, as well as the dominance of male owners (and female-appearing dolls) within the commercial market (see also DeMaris and McGovern (2022) for such a sex difference in intentions to own dolls among non-owner samples). In conducting this research, we do not seek to place any judgment or value onto doll ownership, but instead wish to give voice to this group of individuals and to present their stories and experiences.

Methods

Participants

The sample comprised of nine men who owned at least one sex doll (see Table 1 for further participant information). The sample ranged in age from 21 to 68 years (Mage = 49 years, SD = 12.95 years). Three participants were based in the USA, three were from the UK, with the remaining participants living in New Zealand, Canada, and the Netherlands. Given the depth of analysis when using phenomenological methods, this sample size is appropriate (for a review related to sampling in phenomenological qualitative work, see Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014).

Table 1 Participant information
Full size table

Procedure

Prior to data collection, the research was reviewed and approved by the [blinded-for-review] Ethics Committee. Participants were recruited via adverts posted on social media forums and online chat spaces for individuals who own sex dolls. To preserve the anonymity of individual participants who may be identifiable in such spaces we informed participants that we would not reveal their specific places of recruitment. Anyone interested in participating was required to contact the research team and were subsequently provided with an information sheet detailing the aims, objectives and procedures involved in the research. It also covered topics of data storage, limits of confidentiality, and highlighted the potentially sensitive nature of the research. It was made clear that participation was voluntary. Following this, any potential participants that wished to participate were required to provide written consent before an interview was scheduled. By consenting, participants agreed to their interview being recorded and direct extracts being used in the write up of the research.

Informed Consent was again obtained at the beginning of each interview, with these conducted using Skype audio (n = 8) or email (n = 1). Both interview methods are recognized as beneficial for interpretative researchers due to them allowing participants to provide rich accounts of their experiences (Curasi, 2001; Smith et al., 2009). Indeed, some methodologists suggest that email interviews should be considered as a more comfortable method for participants with anxieties about participation in research (Hawkins, 2018; Mason & Ide, 2014; Ratislavová & Ratislav, 2014). One participant was invited to take part via email after reporting discomfort when informed about our standard approach (i.e., recorded audio interviews). Each participant was interviewed once, with the same female interviewer conducting all data collection. The mean interview duration was 84 min (range = 31–155 min), with the audio interviews recorded and transcribed verbatim. The email interview followed previously published guidelines, meaning that a typeset version of the interview schedule was sent to the participant once they provided their consent, and additional questions were sent to the participant to follow up on their answers or to request clarifications upon receipt of their reply (Bowden & Galindo-Gonzalez, 2015; Meho, 2006). This process was repeated until we had no further questions. Following the interviews, participants were debriefed and given details to access support if required.

The interview schedule was developed to cover four broad areas: sex doll use, romantic relationships, social relationships, and societal views. These themes were chosen so as to allow us to tap into multiple aspects of owners’ lives that, theoretically, may be meaningfully related to both motivations to own dolls and the experiences of doll ownership, while being broad enough for participants to explore many different aspects of their lived experience. We adopted a semi-structured format which allowed us to explore specific topics of interest while simultaneously providing some additional flexibility to explore specific themes as they arose (Smith, 2015). In conducting the interviews, our aim was to have a conversation that allowed participants to provide their personal insights without the participant being directed by too many questions from the research team (Smith & Osborn, 2008).

Analytic Approach

This study used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) due to its ability to explore the personal accounts and lived experience of participants (Smith & Osborn, 2008). This is necessary due to the limited amount of research currently available that explores the experience of doll ownership from the owners’ perspective. IPA is also considered the most effective qualitative method when researching topics that are under-researched, novel and emotionally sensitive (Smith & Osborn, 2008). In IPA, the phenomenological focus allows understanding of experiences, insights and meaning, with the participant viewed as an expert that can provide the researcher with a first-hand viewpoint on the phenomenon in question (Larkin et al., 2006). IPA adopts a double-hermeneutic approach during interpretation which involves the participants’ interpretation of their world and experiences, followed by the researcher making sense of these interpretations (Smith et al., 2009).

The analysis was guided by previous precedents (see Smith, 2015; Smith et al., 2009). Firstly, all interviews were transcribed, and transcripts were read multiple times for data familiarization with initial thoughts noted. Interviews were then annotated individually with more detailed observations noted on content, language, emotions and concepts identified within the transcripts. Next, re-reading of each transcript occurred with further notes added to link concepts and identify emerging themes within and amongst transcripts. These emergent themes were developed under subordinate headings. Next, using abstraction (Smith et al., 2009) these emergent themes were grouped together to develop super-ordinate themes. This was an iterative process, moving between the themes and the transcripts to ensure the final set of themes were grounded in the data and a true representation of participant accounts. To ensure some form of inter-rater reliability and consistency, the two lead authors analyzed the transcripts independently and interpretations were then checked by the third co-author to assess the validity of the interpretations being made (Willig, 2008).

Results and Analysis

Two superordinate themes were identified through the process of analysis (Table 2). These and the associated subthemes are discussed in detail below.

Table 2 Superordinate and subordinate themes
Full size table

Superordinate Theme 1: The ‘Perfect’ Partner

Theme 1.1. Deficits in Human Partners

Participants spoke about characteristics human partners have which make them less desirable as partners. These are perceived as unavoidable and contribute to the participants retreating from intimate relationships with others:

I know my dolls will always be there for me. They will never be critical, never be snappy, they’ll never talk about me behind my back, they’ll never cheat on me. It’s the fact you’ll always have someone who is always in your corner no matter what. It is an incredibly powerful feeling that is rare to get from an organic partner.

(Participant 3)

I can just sit here and relax and walk around without having to worry about a real woman being negative with me and saying stuff, they don’t criticize you, they say nothing about you.

(Participant 5)

Here, the potentially negative behaviors that a human partner may demonstrate are evidenced. Participants describe such partners to be critical and the silence of the doll to be an advantage. The doll is thus seen as consistently supportive through its inability to comment, something unattainable in a relationship with another person. It is interesting that a lack of criticism is perceived as support, with this maybe reflecting a history of poor-quality relationships among doll owners (see Harper et al., 2023; Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018). In this regard, women may come to be perceived as simply unknowable or deceitful, and therefore the predictability of the doll brings with it a degree of security. Phenomenologically, this indicates that participants may feel observed and judged by human partners in a manner that is not the case with their dolls.

Along these lines, Participant 3 describes intimate partners as potentially distrustful, in comparison to the doll which is seen as a secure alternative through its inability to cheat on or betray him. Given the typical relationship histories of men who own sex dolls (i.e., relatively high rates of divorce or separation), it is perhaps unsurprising to observe these feelings of powerlessness and suspicion of other people in the narratives of our participants. He proceeds to state the doll ‘will always be in your corner’. Although this represents the doll being a supportive, non-judgmental partner, it is also perhaps ironic that this represents a sense of psychological security as the doll cannot leave due to its inanimate nature, and perhaps is symbolic of a fear of abandonment (i.e., the doll’s lack of agency means that it will always be around). Of course, a plausible alternative explanation for this is related to patriarchal themes of gender-based hierarchy and the control of women (or, in this case, female forms). However, the context of our participants’ stories suggests that these experiences are perhaps better explained by a form of perceived vulnerability among the sample. For Participant 3, this feeling of safety and support elicits an ‘incredibly powerful’ feeling which is ‘rare’ to experience with a human partner, capturing the euphoria of positivity experienced because of the relationship with his doll.

These narratives may be indicative of dolls serving an adaptive function in both learning and achieving a level of attachment – a stable base – that all people strive for (Crowell et al., 2002). With a human partner, there was the perception of an increased risk of abandonment within our sample, with participants experiencing negative consequences as a result of this. Their dolls provided a safe alternative relationship dynamic that can be created and controlled by the owner:

Literature knows the “ferne Geliebte” who can be loved freely because she cannot disappoint. A doll cannot either. She doesn’t even get older.

(Participant 6)

It’s the capriciousness that some people can exhibit. Obviously, everyone has capricious moments but you’ll never get those with a doll and I crave consistency and you can’t get that as a guarantee from an organic partner. And again you shouldn’t have to demand that of an organic partner, so instead of making a demand that you shouldn’t really be making in the first place you will definitely get it in spades with a doll.

(Participant 3)

Referring to a composition by Beethoven (translated to mean ‘distant beloved’), Participant 6 emphasizes the ease of being with a doll compared to a human partner. As alluded to in previous extracts, the doll cannot disappoint him due to the fact that it is not a free-thinking agent that has the ability to make ‘wrong’ decisions. This allows participants to love the doll without disagreements occurring, which in interpersonal relationships can breed dissatisfaction, resentment, and eventual dissolution of relationships. In this sense, having a doll as an intimate partner allows our participants to experience intimate bonds without the threat of abandonment or criticism, perhaps bolstering once again their sense of self and their perception of control in the relationship. These themes are echoed in Participant 3’s extract, where he talks about limiting the “capriciousness” (unpredictability) of “an organic partner” by projecting a stable sense of personality onto his dolls. This allows him to maintain a consistency in his intimate life with his dolls, which again maintains a sense of structure, order, and control within their relationships. Such narratives thus strengthen the case that doll owners may, through their past experiences, grow resentful or loathing of women, with dolls being viewed as an ideal solution to this issue while allowing them a satisfying sexual life in light of their distrust of potential human partners.

The reference to a dolls’ lack of ability to age perhaps speaks more centrally to some of the more sexual aspects of its relationship with its owner and highlights the importance of attraction and arousal in such interactions. A youthful appearance among women confers many evolutionarily based advantages on the mating market, with this being a salient sexual signal of fertility and femininity (Bailey et al., 1994; Deuisch et al., 1986). Consistent with emergent analyses of doll ownership (Harper et al., 2023; Valverde, 2017), most participants in this sample are middle-aged, and thus women of this age are likely to be more unattractive in comparison to the ostensible youthfulness of a doll (Lassek & Gaulin, 2019). Within this context, it is unsurprising to see that dolls satisfy their owners’ ultimate fantasies, and reflect what they find most attractive:

She originally had green eyes but I changed them to blue eyes because I like blonde women with blue eyes and big breasts.

(Participant 5)

She’s got long legs, long arms, she’s basically got that classic… what would you call it, classic movie star look.

(Participant 9)

As highlighted in the above extracts, the doll is able to be altered to maintain ultimate sexual attraction for the owner, which for Participant 5 involved changing the eye color. Ray (2016) describes this customizable beauty to give the owner the ability to concretize their ideal and sexualize it. In relationships, partner physical attractiveness predicts male satisfaction for long-term relationship outcomes (Meltzer et al., 2014). When applying this to participants, the ability to change the appearance of the doll to fit their ideal is likely to contribute to them remaining satisfied with the doll as an alternative partner, especially when this appearance does not change over time or decline with age. Consequently, doll owners may not feel the need or inclination to seek a human partner as the doll amounts to more than such a relationship might offer:

Maybe I can’t believe that such a woman exists, or that, if she exists, I can never meet her or marry her. I appreciate the doll being better than life.

(Participant 6)

The dolls…they are idolised. Very few could hope to look like them if you know what I mean?...they’re…so perfect.

(Participant 4)

Participant 6 indicates that he believes that the beauty the doll has is unlikely to exist in human partners. Because of this preconception, he accepts the doll as his partner with little desire to seek a human alternative. Dolls may set an ideal that people often fall short of, and it is difficult to see this trend reversing among doll owners due to the customizability of their dolls (Ray, 2016). Thus, the exposure to a sexual stimulus that projects a ‘perfect’ version of female beauty (Participant 4) may cause participants to be dissatisfied towards women’s appearance, causing them to be rejected as potential partners. Believing that people to have to meet higher standards than sex dolls to be considered a potential partner confirms the fears of Hernandez (2018), who explained that sex dolls generalize the idea of female beauty, and that this could lead to disinterest in human women. This is also consistent with what Wolf (1991) termed ‘the beauty myth’ – the idea that women are only valid as members of society if they live up to unrealistic or misogynistic expectations of physical beauty. However, studies into human attraction have found that men have an evolutionarily-explained prefererence for certain physical features, such as facial symmetry (Abend et al., 2015; Hume & Montogomerie, 2001; Perett et al., 1999) and a waist-to-hip ratio of around 0.70 (Saad, 2017), with these being achievable with a manufactured doll.

Theme 1.2. Deficits in Self

Although participants outlined qualities in potential human partners that are unappealing when compared to the doll, they also discussed their own personal characteristics that might have hindered the progression of their past intimate relationships.

Introvert would be the best way to describe me. I prefer being by myself and having friends to be with whenever I want to, as opposed to being around them all the time. Cause it’s kinda draining. I think that’s the primary reason that attracted me to dolls because I can have a partner where I know I will always be with someone, but then I can also be alone if I want to. But, I’m never lonely.

(Participant 3)

I’m introverted and don’t know how to talk to people. So, having someone that I don’t really have to talk to directly, who I can be with and talk to when I feel like, is a little more stress reducing.

(Participant 1)

These participants identify themselves as introverted. Introversion is a personality characteristic proposed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) where someone is quiet and reserved in nature (Gudjonsson et al., 2004). Introverts strive to be independent of others due to becoming over-stimulated in social contexts (Zelenski et al., 2014), reinforced through Participant 3’s description of socializing as ‘draining’. Here, the doll is perceived as an ideal partner as socialization can be controlled by the participant. There are no demands or expectations that are likely to be found within a relationship with another person and the participant is able to be alone if they wish. Solitude is a primary characteristic of introversion (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Leary et al., 2003) and while these participants exhibit a preference for being alone, the doll protects them from the harmful effects this could bring such as an increase in the depressive symptoms associated with loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2006; Hyland et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2005). Phenomenologically, the doll allows introverted owners to experience social encounters on their own terms. This is important not only for maintaining control in a relationship, but also for avoiding social burnout (Granneman, 2017).

Socialization is described by participants as being a strain due to their introverted character. Participant 1 illustrates how they lack communication skills and is likely to inhibit them developing a relationship with another person. In the absence of social connections to other humans, Epley et al. (2007) theorized how individuals create replacements from nonhumans to satisfy an internal drive for social connection, even if such a connection is one-sided. Through participants expressing concerns about their social ability, the doll may be serving a therapeutic function. This has been cited as a potential benefit of doll ownership by some within the medical community (see Cox-George & Bewley, 2018), where individuals can practice developing their social skills without judgment, thus allowing confidence to be built where it may currently be lacking (see also Ferguson, 2014; Ray, 2016).

For someone who has the perception that their social skills are under-developed, interpersonal exchanges may be intimidating, especially where meeting potential sexual or romantic partners is involved:

I was just having trouble talking to people and talking to people of the opposite sex because there was just so much of a burden there. Like, what should I say? What should I do? What should I wear? How should I look? How should I stand? Should I talk to them today, tomorrow or the next day?

(Participant 2)

The excessive questioning exhibited by Participant 2 emphasizes the stress and anxiety that is experienced when considering interaction with the opposite sex. This lack of confidence hinders the possibility of a relationship developing as literature states social dominance to be an important mate choice criterion for women, particularly in relation to short-term sexual partnerships (Ellis, 1992; Valentine et al., 2014). Although framed as a choice, the decision to form an intimate relationship with a doll may therefore be influenced by the inability (or perceived inability) to be desired by potential sexual partners.

For some participants, negative experiences, or anticipations of negative experiences, contributed to preferred relationships with a doll over human women as they are perceived to be more accepting:

The big thing with paralysis is you lose control over your bladder and bowels…It absolutely destroys your personal, social, professional and your intimate life…but I still like to engage in sexual activity but I just can’t find a human being who would be willing to be with me with all of this baggage. The doll is the solution to that.

(Participant 7)

For this participant, low levels of self-esteem – particularly in relation to sexuality – contribute to anxieties about engaging with women. Due to a physical disability that he believes would be too much ‘baggage’ for a some woman, he has withdrawn from the mating pool. These sentiments center around the importance that men place on their sexual prowess as a source of positive self-image, with favorable self-evaluations being associated with higher rates of mental health and relationship satisfaction (Antičević et al., 2017; Syme et al., 2013). In our sample this is placed in competition with the need for some form of sexual satisfaction in participants’ lives, with this being viewed as important even in the absence of a human partner.

The experience of failed relationships has caused considerable pain in participants’ lives often leaving them guarded:

A lot of guys when they go through the things I’ve gone through and suffer that kind of damage due to failed relationships, they just completely wall off their hearts. They pour concrete into them and surround them with barbed wire and you can’t help anyone that manages to get in there…She’s [the doll] safe for me emotionally.

(Participant 4)

Participant 4 states how they have experienced a significant amount of relationship breakdowns that have left them emotionally damaged. By stating ‘she’s safe’ the participant emphasizes the ability to protect himself emotionally. Through his elaborate use of imagery (‘they just completely wall off their hearts. They pour concrete into them and surround them with barbed wire and you can’t help anyone that manages to get in there’), he depicts the significant amount of effort required to protect himself from heartbreak. The generalization to ‘they’ in some way serves to further distance him from the pain and recognition of this response, before reverting to ‘me’ when discussing the personal relationship with his doll. In this sense, Participant 4 is identifying with the closed nature of heartbroken and relationship-weary men in the abstract, but then maximizing the positive effects of his doll in relation to his own sense of personal security. The choice of ‘concrete’ and ‘barbed wire’ as methods to protect his heart illustrate the difficulty a potential partner would have in getting close, and anyone that attempts this will risk becoming harmed themselves as he is no longer able to open up. The relationship with a doll is therefore a safe alternative where participants do not need to worry about themselves or others getting hurt (Ciambrone et al., 2017).

Superordinate Theme 2: Sex Doll or Love Doll?

Theme 2.1. The line Between Partner and Object

Throughout the narratives, participants discussed how their relationship with their doll extends beyond sex, with the doll described as a ‘companion’ (Participant 8), ‘partner’ (Participant 9), and ‘wife’ (Participant 3).

Really, it’s like erm companions...I think ‘ahh I can’t wait to see her’ you know what I mean. It’s more loving, like cuddling with her stuff like that. I mean sitting her beside me when I’m watching TV, that kind of thing.

(Participant 8)

She feels really nice to cuddle with. She’s got this warm personality. Silent at times, but she smiles all the time.

(Participant 1)

As can be seen in the above extracts, participants often anthropomorphized their doll when discussing how it takes on a role as an alternative romantic partner. This is the tendency to imagine behavior of non-human agents with human like characteristics and emotions (Epley et al., 2007), especially in the context of a lack of other companionship. Through this process, the doll changes from an object to a ‘she’ which is key to the relationship becoming more meaningful for participants. Stating how the doll is a ‘companion’, has a ‘warm personality’, and ‘smiles all the time’ speaks to the non-threatening and inviting character the owners create for their dolls. In this sense, the doll is treated with respect, likened to a human partner, and is viewed as deserving of reciprocal care and compassion. Despite this, when participants refer to sexual situations, this anthropomorphism is often no longer exhibited:

I can get what I want immediately versus having someone be nudgey budgey. Because with someone else you have to respect them. Where if it’s a doll, it doesn’t have feelings. It can’t do anything, it’s just me. I can do whatever I want to it.

(Participant 1)

…there’s no objection to doing anything. I enjoy doing anal sex but I’ve never had experience with any women who have wanted to do that where obviously with this, it’s not a problem.

(Participant 7)

You can do what you want, with people you have to have consent if you want to do something naughty…I have done that to my dolls…I pissed all over it.

(Participant 2)

Referring to the doll as ‘it’ implies the doll is viewed equal to an object and a transition has occurred. The personality previously created is now absent and the doll is no longer humanized. Akin to Burr-Miller & Aoki (2013)’s findings, the power in the relationship between the owner and his doll is truly one sided due to owners being in control. Participant 1 recognizes that he can get sex ‘immediately’ with a doll which is contrasted against interactions with human partners, with the latter involving a negotiated consent process. For participants here, viewing the doll as having no feelings and not requiring respect is important as this has the potential to mitigate any feelings of guilt towards their treatment. This differentiation between the doll as an object and people as having agency is important, and one that strikes at the heart of many social conversations about the potential dangers of doll ownership. What is clear in many of the participants’ narratives is that they anthropomorphized their dolls in intimate contexts (e.g., when cuddling), but objectified them in explicitly and overtly sexual contexts.

This approach to describing their sexual interactions with dolls resembles the neutralization theory proposed by Sykes and Matza (1957), and more recently corresponds to the means-goal conceptualization of objectification advanced by Orehek and Weaverling (2017). From a neutralization perspective, individuals relieve themselves of moral constraint when taking part in something unconventional or delinquent using techniques such as a denial of responsibility or a denial of a victim being associated with particular actions. This allows doll owners to ‘pretty much be whoever I want to be’ (Participant 1) and to act in ways that they cannot, or perhaps would not, with human partners. We see the potential for such processes in Participant 1’s additional statements of ‘it can’t do anything, it’s just me’ and ‘it doesn’t have feelings’. In stating ‘I can do whatever I want to it’, the doll is further seen as a means to an end, or a way of achieving a personal goal, consistent with objectification theory.

From a forensic perspective, these processes of doll objectification may appear worrying, with viewing women as sex objects and possessing sexual entitlement being two of five implicit theories that are supportive of sexual aggressions (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Szumski et al., 2018). In previous themes (Deficits in human partners) we also see evidence of two further implicit theories – viewing women as unknowable, and the world as dangerous or hostile (for quantitative evidence of this, see Harper et al., 2023). However, in this quantitative work there was also, perhaps counter-intuitively from a theoretical perspective, a significantly lower proclivity of sexual aggression among doll owners. The narratives presented here may shed some light on the context of this ostensibly paradoxical finding. Although doll owners do appear to have higher levels of implicit theories related to viewing women as unknowable (possibly due to repeated failed relationships and their perceived personal deficits in the dating and mating markets), exaggerated levels of sexual entitlement, and viewing women as sex objects (possibly due to the on-demand nature of sexual gratification with their dolls), there is a very clear distinction being drawn between acceptable conduct with dolls versus human women.

Phenomenologically, there appears to be a qualitatively different experience – and indeed mindset – when doll owners are interacting with their doll(s) compared to with living partners. In the former case, sexual fantasies can be indulged and rehearsed without fear of causing harm, but when they are interacting with a living partner there is an appreciation for the need for consent. This is perhaps best captured in the extracts from Participants 2 and 7, who express interests in urophilia and anal sex, respectively. These narratives highlight the necessity of consent from living partners to engage in such sexual activities, and that without this consent they have not been able to live out their fantasies. However, dolls offer the possibility to indulge potentially paraphilic fantasies, and to achieve full sexual satisfaction without harming others through coercion.

Theme 2.2. Living with Stigma

Participants all shared similar perceptions of the social stigmatization of sex dolls. Due to the doll being created for sexual purposes, there is an assumed belief by others that the function is purely related to this, which fuels negative stereotypes towards the owners.

The people I know, like my friends at church if they knew they would think I’m a dirty sinner…they would see it as a sin issue. Because of its purpose, they would hold it to the same tier as pornography and marriage before sex ... I don’t see the doll as the same thing because I bought it for the intention of having someone there.

(Participant 1)

Here Participant 1 shares his belief that his social group would view him as ‘a dirty sinner’ for his doll ownership. The use of ‘dirty’ in reference to the participants religious background is likely to hold connotations of impurity and deceit. The participant here is part of a Christian culture where virginity is viewed as sacred before marriage (Cornelius, 2015). Thus, if anyone was to find out about him owning a sex doll, they would likely view him as contravening a fundamental part of his faith. Through the interaction being akin to a ‘sin’ suggests the doll is perceived as harmful and an offence against God. This illustrates the risk the participant faces if his peers find out about his doll ownership. Consequently, he is likely to be ostracized as punishment for going against God’s intentions. Participants exhibit anticipated stigma, which is presumed to consist of the negative treatment they believe they will receive if others find out about their lifestyle, as they are aware of the negative stereotypes people hold already. Research has found that anticipated stigma is a strong predictor of psychological distress (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009) and decreased self-esteem (Berger et al., 2001), indicating that the effects of stigma are felt even if the individual is not personally targeted in a direct manner. It could also highlight how the participant feels lonely in their life, the church may be their only social group. Thus, the possibility of losing this group holds great risk for Participant 1. For other participants the effects of stigma were less specific, and more related to a perception that others might view their ownership of dolls as a perversion:

My dad said he found it disgusting. I don’t know if it’s the context he can only think of them as sex dolls and doesn’t think of where people can have them as companions and lovers, or if he’s just thinking “my son’s just fucking this rubber woman” but he will not discuss it, and that in itself is really painful.

(Participant 3)

Participant 3 describes his father as rejecting of his doll usage through the perception of repulsion and disgust. The inference that his father thinks that he is ‘just fucking this rubber woman’ implies the belief that people might view his ownership of a doll as a form of sexual deviance. Such a perception may not be unique to lay social attitudes, with a range of academic literature viewing doll ownership through this lens (e.g., Danaher, 2019; Eskens, 2017; Richardson, 2016). The perception of repulsion causes emotional despair for Participant 3. Describing his father’s lack of engagement with him about his doll ownership as ‘painful’ suggests that the participant feels misunderstood due to the view that his usage is purely sexual. This is particularly salient for Participant 3, who describes his relationship to the doll as akin to marriage. As such, his father’s rejection and preconception of the doll is just a ‘rubber woman’ for sexual gratification downplays the significance that Participant 3 places on the relationship between himself and his doll. Family acceptance is critical in the process of accepting one’s own sexual identity (Shilo & Savaya, 2011) and has been found to be protective against depression (Ryan et al., 2010). This demonstrates how participants are more at risk of a diminished well-being by being stigmatized by others.

One guy at work actually thinks I’m a pervert. He goes “you’re a pervert for buying a sex doll!” and I’m like “why?” he goes “because you can’t go out and meet a real girl so you have to go out and buy a sex doll”. I was like “screw you buddy.”

(Participant 5)

The participant’s co-worker exhibits a stereotype found in the literature where doll owners are perceived as socially inept and unable to form meaningful relationships with human women (Ferguson, 2014; Ray, 2016), as well as being sexually deviant (Danaher, 2019; Eskens, 2017; Richardson, 2016). Through calling the doll owner a ‘pervert’ illustrates the stigmatization occurring as a direct consequence of the doll’s sexual function. That is, it is seen as abnormal, and so the doll owner is perceived in this way as a consequence. A range of emotions are stirred within an individual when experiencing such stigma, including anger, hurt, and feelings of being degraded (Corrigan & Watson, 2002). This can often lead to aggressive responses, as evidenced by Participant 5’s response of ‘screw you’.

For the participants in our sample, hiding their lifestyle was seen as one way to protect themselves from the mistreatment of others:

I don’t tell…all those sly comments you’d probably get because that’s why straight away I was like…right that’s it I’m not telling anybody. If someone comes I’ll hide her.

(Participant 8)

The doll to me, tends to be very clandestine because a lot of guys have been dodged or suffered abuses because of the words of other people.

(Participant 4)

The desire to keep doll ownership a secret occurs through observation of the treatment of others. Although these participants may not have directly experienced stigma, they choose to keep their dolls a secret from those that they know. This is perceived as an easier option due to the negative implications experienced by others where, as Participant 4 suggests, they have ‘suffered abuses’. This is likely to represent physical, verbal, and online abuse indicating the extent to which doll owners are outcasted by society. By hiding their identities, these participants can be in a position where they can directly witness the disparagement of their stigmatized group (Wahl, 1999). It is therefore unsurprising many choose to remain silent about their lifestyle as they are aware of the potential consequences.

Discussion

In conducting this phenomenological analysis of men’s experiences of sex doll ownership we have been able to add to existing review-based work (Döring et al., 2020; Hanson & Locatelli, 2022; Harper & Lievesley, 2020), survey data (Harper et al., 2023), and coded interviews (Hanson, 2022a; 2022b) to begin to formulate an initial profile of sex doll ownership. Among our sample, doll ownership appears to be a functional response to perceived deficits in both owners and their human partners. This leads to dolls being perceived as the ‘perfect’ partner, which is non-threatening, accepting of self-perceived inadequacies among owners, and reflective of the ideals of sexual attractiveness. Consistent with prior work, the doll owners in our sample had a tendency to have a history of poor quality or broken relationships (Harper et al., 2023; Langcaster-James & Bentley, 2018), which led them to see women as being difficult to understand and hostile. In turn, these men sought emotional safety in dolls. Coupled with their habitual use of dolls for sexual gratification, participants also reported anticipated discomfort with the notion that human women could be sexually attractive to them, especially in light of the customizability of dolls with regard to their physical appearance (Hernandez, 2018; Ray, 2016). These narratives are symptomatic of the kinds of conclusions drawn about how pornography use (especially when used in solitary ways) can reduce satisfaction within relationships (see Wright et al., 2017). However, whether such a link is empirically supported within doll-owning samples requires larger-scale and targeted analyses.

Importantly, though, participants did not simply blame women for their past difficulties. In their narratives, the men in our sample highlighted perceived deficits within themselves (e.g., interaction difficulties, and low sexual self-esteem) that led to them struggling to maintain intimate relationships. Dolls therefore became a surrogate for intimacy, and a partner with whom to practice building such skills (Epley et al., 2007). We were also able to elicit how the doll owners might draw a distinction between their dolls and human women. This is at-odds with legal and sociological arguments that cite doll ownership as enhancing men’s risks for sexual objectification and aggression (Carvalho Nascimento et al., 2018; Danaher et al., 2017, 2019; Eskens, 2017; Puig, 2017). Although there was some degree of objectification of dolls in participants’ narratives, the men in this sample were explicit in their statements about this not extending to human women, and cited the need for consent in such sexual interactions with living partners. Emphasizing this point, doll ownership was often a direct response to a lack of available consenting partners to engage in specific (and sometimes paraphilic) sexual behaviors. This may point to a functional profile of sex doll ownership, with dolls not encouraging paraphilic interests, but acting as a safe outlet for such interests among some men who already have them.

None of our analysis here suggests that doll ownership is exclusively or definitively positive. Indeed, it is possible that the engagement with dolls may worsen participants’ actual or perceived social inadequacies and exacerbate their difficulties when interacting with human women through a process of social withdrawal and avoidance (Facchin et al., 2017). Although not positive on its face, this behavior does appear to be functional for our participants. As such, these narratives support the use of dolls in therapeutic contexts to build up social competence and sexual self-esteem (Eichenberg et al., 2019). We also found that some doll owners experienced stigma, but the phenomenology of managing that stigma is still unexplored. Hanson (2022b) identified building online social networks as one way that doll owners form communities, but future work might look to explore how people navigate these, and how sexual and romantic interactions with sex dolls may change over time as a result of forum engagement.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this work relates to the reliance on self-reported experiences. It is possible that participant narratives may be influenced by presentational biases, particularly as the ownership of sex dolls is so socially-maligned. However, such concern may be alleviated by the honesty of participants in relation to their interactions with both their dolls and human women. We were also unable to see participants through our use of anonymous interviews (i.e., audio-online Skype calls, and email). This poses difficulties in some of the more interpretative elements of the method we use as we were unable to pick up on non-verbal cues in participants’ behavior. Nonetheless, this was a necessary trade-off in relation to accessing such a sample for this work, and methodologists working on IPA have suggested that visible cues are often not necessary for maintaining data quality (Curasi, 2001; Ratislavová & Ratislav, 2014; Smith et al., 2009).

Conclusion

This analysis sheds new light on the experience of sex doll ownership that is either missing from legal and sociological rhetorical arguments, or not possible to elicit from the use of standardized psychometric testing via surveys. Our data adds to previous work, leading to a functional account of doll ownership where dolls help their owners to achieve a sense of emotional and sexual satisfaction that they perceive as being otherwise unattainable. Future research should explore these concepts more comprehensively, and through controlled longitudinal designs. That is, although dolls may be serving a useful emotional and sexual function for owners, we can only conclude this with longitudinal data showing positive changes in psychological outcomes after the purchase of a doll. We ultimately hope this work will contribute to more evidence-based discussions about doll ownership, and a move away from impulsive moralistic arguments about this topic.