On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:32:52 -0700, Michael Britt wrote: >My sister-in-law showed me her latest hobby - creating "reborn babies". >I don't know if you have heard about this (I hadn't), but reborn babies >are extremely realistic baby dolls (though not anatomically correct).
A while back I caught a TV program on this that focused on both on the producers of such dolls and buyers of such dolls. I found an unavoidable creepiness to the enterprise, especially when the buyers of the dolls (a) would spend ridiculous amount of money to outfit the doll (as though they were buying clothes for a child) and (b) the role of "surrogate" the doll played as a substitute child. Wikipedia has an entry on this with more background and history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reborn_doll The Wiki entry also identifies the TV shows that have focused on it (I believe I saw "My Fake Baby"): |Reborn dolls have been featured in a number of television shows. |A December 10, 2008 episode of Dr. Phil entitled "Obsessions" |discussed the topic of reborning.[32] In January 2008, a Channel 4 |series, My Fake Baby, explored the lives of women who collect |the lifelike baby dolls.[4] Featuring this documentary the British |television magazine show on Channel 4, Richard and Judy, held |an interview with the reborn artist in the documentary Janie Eaton, |a collector Mary Flint, and psychiatrist Raj Persuad.[29] On |January 2, 2009 an ABC News article described both the |manufacturing and the emotional interaction of reborn dolls.[11], |while a January 2, 20/20 episode talked about the mothering |process and attachment to reborns.[33]. On January 31, 2008 |Inside Edition aired a segment showing artist Eve Newsom and her |reborn dolls.[34] >When she handed one of these baby dolls to me I had a mix of >feelings, including the desire to be very careful to hold it "correctly" >and make sure to support its head because it felt so real. She said >that when she takes the babies places people are completely fooled >because the details are so realistic - down to skin patches, hair >and spittle on the lips. Schools should use these kinds of >dolls instead of sacks of flour or rice to give kids an idea of what >its like to have to carry a baby around. Then again, maybe they >shouldn't because the dolls really seemed to bring out the maternal >instincts in my mother and daughter. Here are a few pictures: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/psychfiles/sets/72157624367700576/ >Wondering if there is psychological connection here? There probably is but I wonder if any systematic research has been done on this. If my memory serves, makers of the dolls tend to have chlidren who treat the dolls, well, like dolls. The buyers of such dolls, don't seem to have children. If they do have children, I wonder what the children's reactions are. I have the feeling that childless women and couples are the primary consumers of this product and the issue might be "is treating an inanimate object like a person a good thing or a bad thing" (but this raises the question of how this applies to adult sex dolls) as well as is this compensation for not having children. In the later case, it seems to me that some women treat pets like their children which seems like a displacement process to me. I think it is perhaps most troubling for the children of women who buy such dolls, even grown adult children might be affected. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3331 or send a blank email to leave-3331-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
