Discussion of the story “In love with love dolls” from ethical and psychological points of view.

Listen to this article

What is it about falling in love with a love doll?

A Hong Kong man named Tse Tin Wing has a “girlfriend”, only this girlfriend is not a real person, but a love doll named MoChi.

In interviews with the press, we can see that he has devoted himself to his doll, not only naming her, but also showing his love for her, eating with her, watching movies and playing games, for those who are interested, see previous articles. Some think that this is a personal freedom, while others think that he is “sick”.

Is this acceptable from an ethical point of view? One of the requirements for judging whether an action is ethical or not is that ethical principles should be applied across the board. Is it ethical for everyone to fall in love with love dolls? Or would it be acceptable for your partner to love love dolls? I believe the answer to both of these questions for most people is no. First, if everyone loves love dolls, but the doll is just a dead object and cannot reproduce, there is clearly a problem with the perspective of human reproduction as a whole. On the other hand, love is something exclusive, even if it is just a doll. I don’t think anyone would want their partner to love a doll more than themselves, would they? It would seem that this phenomenon is not in accordance with the principle of the universal.

However, this is not the only possibility, because other teachings can lead to the opposite answer. For example, those who advocate individualism and libertarianism usually judge it according to the “principle of freedom” and the “principle of not harming others.” According to these two principles, it should be acceptable to fall in love with a love doll. This is because it is personal freedom and does not harm others. Since it does not harm others, the act should be acceptable.

sex doll store
Psychology of controlㅤ Is this a pathological condition? Many people would call this behavior “pathological,” but let’s think about why we think it is “pathological.” Everyone has their own hobbies, isn’t that love? Why is it okay to chew on a finger, but not on a physical doll?

I can think of two reasons for this. First, because they treat the doll like a human being and love it with the same love as a human being, as if the inanimate object were love incarnate. Although we all long for love, it is generally unacceptable to love in a way that is completely disconnected from reality.

Second, it is the act of “control” that is the issue. Although he cannot do anything, his characteristic is that you have full control over him. The complexity of human relationships lies in their uncontrollability, because we cannot control the thoughts and actions of others, so we should all experience being hurt by other people. Being with him without being hurt, even if the feeling is illusory and it does not really love you, satisfies the deep desire of the human heart for control.

But does throwing yourself into the illusion to avoid being hurt really solve the reality of the problem? Reality is so cruel, and the reality of being with people is that they can be hurt. A strong desire for control is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath, so it is not unreasonable to say that he or she is “pathological.”

No matter how much one disagrees with their behavior, we cannot deny how sexpuppet individual groups are.