New TIMESURF seamless action figure doll!!!What does it look like?any opinions?

[gattlinggun]

The rubber gloves seem pretty sensible, if ever in the market for an aging stripper crackhead custom will swoop down on this.

takes it the girl is too old???you want some yunger spring chickentype of stripper??!!!??

 

[burtial]

takes it the girl is too old???you want some yunger spring chickentype of stripper??!!!??

That's it. You HAVE to be elite level trolling. A person like you can't be so willfully stupid.

 

[gattlinggun]

That's it. You HAVE to be elite level trolling. A person like you can't be so willfully stupid.

did u read properly the title before u came in here trolling away?

 

[gattlinggun]

That's it. You HAVE to be elite level trolling. A person like you can't be so willfully stupid.

talking about stupid...met a guy who attacks people all the time but couuld not do his own job at work.u sound like that dude.

 

[gattlinggun]

TO ALL TROLLS,OGRES,GOBLINS, VAMPIRES,ELVES AND FAIRIES:


New TIMESURF seamless action figure doll!!!What does it look like?any opinions?

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

It looks like something that a basement dwelling warthog, who reeks of body odor and axe body spray, would use his grandmother's stolen credit card to purchase. Arriving to the house in a black unmarked box. It's grotesque. The end.

 

[gattlinggun]

It looks like something that a basement dwelling warthog, who reeks of body odor and axe body spray, would use his grandmother's stolen credit card to purchase. Arriving to the house in a black unmarked box. It's grotesque. The end.

<<<a person looking like this is grotesque??wow...then all the girls and dolls on this planet are equally grotesque?maybe i could redesign the doll to move on its own.there has been much improvements then the first action figure back in 2014.

 

[gattlinggun]

It looks like something that a basement dwelling warthog, who reeks of body odor and axe body spray, would use his grandmother's stolen credit card to purchase. Arriving to the house in a black unmarked box. It's grotesque. The end.

takes it you hate the face?or is it the body?maybe i could change it...i hope you arent the dude who wanted to buy the doll for 50 bucks on ebay because most of the seamless dolls without a head attached is going for $70-$80,......

 

[gattlinggun]

i wont mind having a girl looking like this on my bed everyday...gonna make the breast 3 times bigger now and the hairdo.

 

[gattlinggun]

i wonder if the girl in the video is grotesque....

 

[burtial]

Dude. NOBODY, and really try to understand that I mean NOBODY on this board thinks that your freaky sex doll/toy/creature looks good, or is interested in buying one from you so that they too can objectify women in the form of hideous toy dolls and tie them up, bend into sexual positions, or pleasure themselves with it.

To be crystal clear here- YOU are gross but your sex toy is on a whole other level.

 

[gattlinggun]

Dude. NOBODY, and really try to understand that I mean NOBODY on this board thinks that your freaky sex doll/toy/creature looks good, or is interested in buying one from you so that they too can objectify women in the form of hideous toy dolls and tie them up, bend into sexual positions, or pleasure themselves with it.

To be crystal clear here- YOU are gross but your sex toy is on a whole other level.

this from the ceral killer with the hideous av??lol..bye....

 

[gattlinggun]

will post more soon with clothings on.

 

[gattlinggun]

All products were designed using machines.no humans were ever contacted.only humans contacted were in here..

 

[gattlinggun]

perhaps i should get a removable mask over it.......

predator mask?euro mask......horror mask from jason.....

 

[DeltaForceChung]

 

[Spazz]

Dude. NOBODY, and really try to understand that I mean NOBODY on this board thinks that your freaky sex doll/toy/creature looks good, or is interested in buying one from you so that they too can objectify women in the form of hideous toy dolls and tie them up, bend into sexual positions, or pleasure themselves with it.

To be crystal clear here- YOU are gross but your sex toy is on a whole other level.

No need to bring idealism into this. Soon you'll allow yourself to be trolled into arguments about Feminism, "objectification" and SJW's. You're taking the bait. Besides, what if you're dealing with someone who is "neuro-atypical"?

Gattlinggun, if you're looking for advice, mine is that aesthetics are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like what you've created and it makes you happy, kudos. Craving validation just makes you weak, and undermines self-expression as an artist. If you're trying to make money by appealing to a demographic, I think you're marketing this to the wrong people. Sex doesn't sell here, unless it involves punishment at the hands of a masked murderer, and looks exactly like the IP from a film. Objectification is fine, so long as it coincides with sadistic, puritan authoritarianism.

In other words, if you're selling to horror fans on this kind of toy forum, this type of character needs to be part of a murder diorama, and has to look screen accurate in depicting an actual character from a film.

I can't think of any victims who look like her. Maybe the babysitter/cops daughter from the first Halloween movie? It's not a very iconic scene, so I doubt you'd find anyone interested.

 

[Spazz]

One last thing.

If your goal in creating this is to provoke a reaction from left wing idealists, I say bravo, sir. I consider your posts, (largely thanks to your creation, but in no small part thanks to your authorial voice) to have artistic merit in and of themselves. You've managed to offend people on a horror site, where members are spending hundreds of dollars on action figures that celebrate, if not glorify the brutalization of promiscuous women. There's a disconnect within our culture, where hyper-sensitive moralists on both sides of the ideological spectrum have completely lost their sense of humor... Kind of like the slashers depicted in these movies! One might call it the Voorheesification of the progressive left.

Hey, maybe instead of trolling, your work can start a conversation! Isn't that the primary objective of "high art"? I think so.

Let's talk about "objectification". What does that mean, exactly? "To treat people like an object". It's a simile, which is an abstract rhetorical device. In this case, it's the product of Kantian notions that there's a "categorical imperative". Kant claims,

"Sexual love makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry. … as soon as a person becomes an Object of appetite for another, all motives of moral relationship cease to function, because as an Object of appetite for another a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by every one” (Kant Lectures on Ethics, 163).

Read more about it, here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

This is an irrational, moralistic view of sexuality. There is no evidence to suggest that people have an obligation to refrain from loveless sex. Casual sex is fine, as is casual fantasizing. It's this sort of thinking that leads to "**** shaming" and the promotion of conservative views regarding sex as being sacred. It's backwards conservativism. Furthermore, to presume that all individuals, particularly women crave sex that involves love, is a patronizing view that denies women their agency as individuals. Sex doesn't have to involve meaning, or be "intimate". There's nothing wrong with celebrating sex, or a particular body type, or masturbation.

People on the left use the term "objectification" without even realizing what it is that they're arguing. It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalism I grew up around as a kid, where right wing Christians (and Kant, for that matter) believed that sex shouldn't take place outside of marriage. It's nonsense.

See! There is artistic merit to what you've created, in starting a dialogue. "Trolls" only exist in a world where people are so afraid of ideas, that they're unwilling to falsify them for the sake of learning anything. Hopefully, you'll respond to this with something crass and borderline unintelligible, like "I love dialogue... on my face!" Again... Bravo.

 

[burtial]

People on the left use the term "objectification" without even realizing what it is that they're arguing. It's nonsense.

My first point would be that you are way too intelligent to be holding a conversation with this guy. Second, you need to look up the definition of sexual objectification. Everything he has said including but not limited to her (it) needing 3X bigger ****, the ability of tying her (it) up, her (it) being something that he wouldn't kick outta bed, and lets not forget him bragging about the ability to crucify her (it) clearly shows that it is. Now what is "nonsense" is the fact that you do not see that as in any way as sexual objectification.

But that's not my issue. My issue with it is that he made an ugly as hell sex doll and is trying to sell it here. If you want to buy it, then go ahead. But it shouldn't be here. Nor should this thread.

 

[Spazz]

My first point would be that you are way too intelligent to be holding a conversation with this guy. Second, you need to look up the definition of sexual objectification. Everything he has said including but not limited to her (it) needing 3X bigger ****, the ability of tying her (it) up, her (it) being something that he wouldn't kick outta bed, and lets not forget him bragging about the ability to crucify her (it) clearly shows that it is. Now what is "nonsense" is the fact that you do not see that as in any way as sexual objectification.

But that's not my issue. My issue with it is that he made an ugly as hell sex doll and is trying to sell it here. If you want to buy it, then go ahead. But it shouldn't be here. Nor should this thread.

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire. I not only explained that, but accounted for it's origin by making a direct reference to Kant. I'm aware of the fact that Feminists would categorize what he's said as objectification. My explicit point is that the entire concept of "objectification" is irrational.

There's nothing wrong with liking large breasts, fantasizing about bdsm (though not my thing), crudely claiming that he's attracted to something, or talking about crucifying an inanimate object. I agree that each of these examples would be considered "sexual objectification", but argue that the entire concept is an error theory.

Likewise, there is no God. If you were to accuse him of Sin, and I said, "The idea that he's sinning in light of his sexuality is irrational, because God doesn't exist", would it be coherent for you to respond, saying, "You need to read the Bible. It CLEARLY states that what he's saying is sinful"? Yeah. I get it. But there's no invisible Sky Wizard. Likewise, there is no such thing as immoral objectification. It's all nonsense. Idealism is irrational.

Your second problem is that you fail to acknowledge that aesthetics are subjective. You don't like it... Good for you. However, your preferences aren't indicative of some objective standard that permeates existence. What you like is all in your head. It's egocentric of you to declare that something "shouldn't be here" because you think it's an "ugly as hell" sex doll. There is no "should". Your subjective tastes are your problem.

The common denominator here is your Idealism. You project subjective things onto your external environment, as if it's a standard the rest of us are obligated to obey. In doing so, you're saying derogatory things about something that someone else has created, which is fine... so long as you do so rationally. No one is obligated to make you happy.