So much better than someone "real", someone who eats, sleeps, has needs, wants, and expects to be treated - and seen -- as a human being.

Heck, 2-D doesn't even have to be dusted.

Perhaps this rash of boorish, self-involved, narcissistic, male assholes is natures way to curb our population problem.

Misogyny is so entrenched in American society that we do not even recognize it much of the time.

I wonder if he calls this image "sweetie"?

Well, I think it's good that he at least acknowledges that actual physical contact would be better than the fake image of a woman lying next to you.

But his comment at the end about guys who work to much to be able to have a girlfriend... uh, well. Sorry, dude. Sucks, don't it. Sucks how life is about, ya know, *choices*. Either your work is your top priority or your personal life is. And I say this as one of those people who's found it just about impossible to have a relationship due to a demanding job, and is therefore considering other options for the future.

I seriously don't see what's the problem here. If we let go of all possible comforting fantasies you would have to let go of romance novels, books in general, TV, and a lot more.

Usually I'm on the same page with Feministing's "Not Okay" judgments, but this one seems a little borderline to me. Maybe someone can explain what's so bad here.

I mean, it's just snuggling. It's not a sex doll or something. So it doesn't seem to be that sexually exploitative.

What makes you think Burrows has created this as "an adequate substitution for a woman"? That seems like a ludicrous interpretation. It's a projected image. At best, the image looks like a woman, and moves sort of like a woman on a bed might. The image is always fully clothed, and it sounds like it's not designed for sex. So what's the big "not ok" here? The fact that she's 2D?

If a person interacts with an image of a person, sexually or otherwise, it does not necessarily cheapen the person represents. If I kiss a picture of my girlfriend (yes, a 2D picture), this doesn't mean I think the picture is real, or that I think she my gf is just a picture. Simulated affection for an imaginary person may be a sign of loneliness, yes. But is it wrong?

It seems this art project is far better than any kind of simulated sex, from looking at internet porn to using one of those sex robots. Have you ever watched that show "real sex" on HBO? Once they had someone who made full size male sex dolls. Are these also not OK?

Generally, virtual affection and virtual sex seem a little strange, and are certainly culturally telling in terms of simulacra, virtual reality, bla bla bla. But what's morally wrong about them? Moreover, how is this art project, which is not even about sexual intercourse, particularly damning?

I see some practical issues here; does it project from below, wouldn't the light from the projection irritate your eyes, even if they are closed?

He should have a man model too for gay guys or straight women.

I have to agree with the people who don't really have a problem with this. As someone who is just going through a break up, I have to find other ways to comfort myself without companionship. I snuggle with pillows, I bought a disembodied male body part (also referred to as a vibrator), I fantasize, I watch movies, all in an effort to provide some semblance of comfort and companionship when I can't be with someone.

I know I should be alone right now, and I'm not going to take advantage of a real guy just to provide me with some companionship. My toys will substitute just fine. Frankly, I think it's much more responsible to rely on those non-human comforts when you can't responsibly be with another person, and more power to someone who actually recognizes that.

I actually think there should be more research into creating full-on cyborgs which are indistinguishable from humans. With the way life is busy and the lack of time to actually screen potential partners it would be nice to have virtual companionship that's more fulfilling.

I'm not really seeing anything wrong with this one, and I usually agree with you on these judgements.

I wouldn't say that it's a substitution for a woman as much as a specific device for a fantasy act. It appears to be non-sexual (unless you find watching sleeping people arousing, I suppose), fully clothed, and not touchable. I'd see it as closer to the idea of snuggling up to a big pillow. Maybe the same effect as a stuffed animal has on a little kid?

I'm just not getting so much of a creepy vibe. maybe it's just that I don't see anything wrong with virtual affection, maybe it's the non-explicitly sexual nature.

I don't see a problem with this either, especially because of the non-sexual nature. Like many others have said, we use a lot of things as comforts when we can't have a real person with us or don't want to hurt a real person. Heck, it could even be used by people in relationships if he can modify who the picture is. You could take your girlfriend or boyfriend with you on business trips to "snuggle" with while you are gone. Its not the real thing, and everyone knows it.

I think the technology is pretty cool.

The idea? A little weird to me. Does he also make a virtual sleeping cat model? Because my bed is incomplete without one :P

I'm going to have to agree with what others said...I don't see what's necessarily problematic about this. I think his pitch as it being a substitute girlfriend for busy businessmen is a bit sexist and heterosexist in that it assumes only straight men would use his product, however I don't see a problem with the product itself. I see it as a beefed up version of the security blanket, which probably started out as something he made for himself. If he does plan to start a product line, however, he should strongly consider the implications of having only a female projection and only catering to straight male clients.

Yeah, I second leah that it's his pitch that bothers me more than anything.

Oh, also -- I'm not sure if I see really the point of this. Someone looking down onto the bed can see what appears to be two people, sure, but I don't see how this will be comforting to lie down next to. Like, you can't really see it when you're lying down right next to it, and the illusion is completely ruined as soon as it becomes obvious just how 2D the thing is.

I dunno. I'm not particularly troubled by it, I just don't see what's so great about it.

Ok, so in a nutshell here's why it's not OK.

It really blatantly objectifies women and in an extremely intimate context no less.

There, that simple. I nearly want to say "DUH".

exelizabeth:

You are highly evolved as a person. Whoever left you will be worse off for it.

I think I've basically been used as the real woman equivalent of this toy before, and of course, that's really uncool too (although I started out by using him that way before I realized I really liked him, so I felt I couldn't really complain too much). Anyway, yeah, I can see multiple sides here.

Women are reduced to 2-D images all over the place in the media. Moving that image TO A BED just reinforces the idea that the ideal women is as non-existent as possible while still existing. This suggests that women's chief comfort and purpose is their undemanding presence in a man's bed. Because when she starts really existing, with all her feelings, demands, own pleasures and power etc... then she just takes up too much damn time.

He's acknowledging that men want affection. That's pretty damn cool.

He misses having a human who responds to him in a warm, human, caring manner. Ya know, if all men realised that they, too, need affection, I think a lot of women would be better off.

Okay, that's my rant.

oenophile,

When you consider he says that it:
"could provide late-night comfort for traders, lawyers, or any other single guy in Manhattan who simply works too hard to keep a girlfriend."

I think any benefit to (real) women (you know, w/ needs and stuff) falls exponentially.

marlisa, not everyone has an advanced degree in art. You may have a point, but how about some constructive criticism instead of an insulting rant that doesn't really add much of anything productive to the conversation?

I'm not entirely understanding the problem here. If some guy feels that he is better 'served" by a light projection, why does that bother anyone? Seriously. Is it anyone elses business? So he and who knows how many other men, don't have the:

1) looks
2) personality
3) health
4) time
5) personal hygine

or any of, or any combination of the above, and therefore may "substitute" an object for a portion of what a real person provides and it warrants scrutiny and condemnation from people it effects all of 0%?

I'm not entirely understanding the problem here. If some guy feels that he is better 'served" by a light projection, why does that bother anyone? Seriously. Is it anyone elses business? So he and who knows how many other men, don't have the:

1) looks
2) personality
3) health
4) time
5) personal hygene

or any of, or any combination of the above, and therefore may "substitute" an object for a portion of what a real person provides and it warrants scrutiny and condemnation from people it effects all of 0%?

You are absolutely right. I apologize for posting in a huff, I was quite pissed.
To be more constructive:

This art exists in a context of feminist art/body art and image fetishism that has been extensively explored and criticized since the 1950s. Taking from marxist criticisms of the machine fetishism of the industrial era (witness art movements 1890-1940) and blending in feminist critiques of portraiture and the male gaze (commodifying/corrupting, freezing and rendering stagnant all it touches). Many many many artists have devoted their lives to exploring and exploding the male gaze. Lisa Yuskavage, Carolee Schneeman, Yoko Ono, Marina Abromovic, the list goes on and on.

one link

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0734-6018(198924)25%3C30%3ATTMGSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&cookieSet=1

He's acknowledging that he can no longer expect dinner on the table when he gets home, cleaning magically completed, a warm and willing wife. This is much better than men who still expect these things even knowing they need two incomes in their household. What's wrong with commenting on changing societal values? He's expected to work very hard in order to maintain his standard of living, and because of this he knows he doesn't have time for a girlfriend, but he still misses intimacy. He's acknowledging these *huge* changes AND his need for closeness. I am sorry that art often happens to be 2-D, but he's not an actor or dancer--this is his medium and his artist's prerogative. I think it's really interesting that a man is looking at this issue in this way.

Would it have been different if the artist was a woman?

sondjata, well, I don't think that's quite right. A guy can work on personality, time, and *especially* personal hygiene. If anything, giving him an excuse not to does affect others, because it provides a disincentive for men to better themselves such that they could be in a happy, healthy relationship. In the end, this harms all of society as it creates a vacuum of emotionally mature men.

Count me among those who just can't see this as being that problematic. It just made me think of the boyfriend's arm pillow.

Sure, he's acknowledging that men want affection but is implying by his pitch that it's virtually able to be satisfied by this technology. Sure it's not the real thing, but "it'll do". For me, this image would make me more lonely...if this image is good enough for intimacy, then I'm disappointed in humanity.

The thing is, this could have been a cool piece of art--as others have said, commenting on loneliness, etc. But this is more of a design than art project, and it's meant to be a solution to, not a comment on, loneliness. It's not the thing in itself that is the problem, it's the presentation and the way he markets the item. And I know the guy is a guy and likely hetero, but it seems all too convenient that it's a woman. And I think that it's not sexual is precisely what it so problematic. Sex aides and mastubatory items are one thing (not that I'm at all thrilled with sex dolls), people replacements or substitutes are another. As the creepy RealDoll videos of user interviews tell us (the dolls are "easier" than dealing with real women, etc.)

Listen to what the guy says, and it's obvious this is not art at all, but a tech-design product he's created. The second quote is telling: he's already marketing it's "use"!

(and I do have a degree in art)

These are all really good points. I’m not criticizing the use of pillows, vibrators, etc. as a means to substitute a companion; I think the bigger problem I have is the way that the majority of human-like products as companions are almost always women, and almost always marketed to straight men.

Secondly, I was trying to convey - as some of you have said - that the artist’s pitch of the piece, not the piece alone, was what makes it the most offensive to me.

Marlisa, I’ve deleted your comment; read our comments policy. Abusive language is not cool here, even towards the editors : )

"This suggests that women's chief comfort and purpose is their undemanding presence in a man's bed. Because when she starts really existing, with all her feelings, demands, own pleasures and power etc... then she just takes up too much damn time."

This assumes that the image is supposed to be equivalent to a real woman, or to inspire everything a man feels for a woman. And I don't see any evidence that that's the case, or that's what the artist intended. Yes, he said guys with busy jobs could use it for a little simulated affection when they get home, but that suggestion does not imply that the image is intended to be the same as a woman; or that a figure on a bed is as good as a girlfriend. If you read the piece Vanessa links to, it's clear the artist knows this: he came up with the idea because he's been single forever and he's lonely, not because his girlfriend is too high maintenace so he wanted to have a projected image instead.

"It really blatantly objectifies women and in an extremely intimate context no less."

The word "objectifies" gets tossed around a lot. Yes, this image does objectify women, because all images objectify what they portray. That's the nature of an image. But what makes this "objectification" worse than a painting of a woman, or a picture of a woman? Are we not allowed to represent the famle form anymore because this somehow cheapens real women?

Marlisa, that sounds interesting, but are you sure that's where this piece falls? Like others, I'm a bit concerned by the language the artist uses to describe his work. I could see how it could make an interesting and constructive statement, done right, I'm just not sure if that's the intent of the artist.

Also, FYI, your link doesn't work (at least not for me).

Some time ago I might have had a different opinion on this, but now I dont know what I hate more; that some men would be so weak as to be unable to survive without even an illusion of a woman - Or of course, that some women think avoiding human contact (or female contact to be precise) is so "wrong". Like I said, if I didnt think it so weak and pathetic, I would ask what is wrong with a man avoiding real women in such a manner? Is it a law that you must like and interact (romantically or otherwise) with other real people?

Shit, Im just wondering if a female taking such an approach would be considered "empowering"? She dont need no man, right?

I say if they are too weak to step up and avoid women and sex altogether (or in an opposite case, men), then let them have their stupid illusion.

If some guys would rather sleep next to a doll (2D or not, I think this counts) than have a real girlfriend, wouldn't it be better that they have their doll than waste a real woman's time and emotional resources?

All-Life-Decays, it's not just women; it's most people. And we think there's something wrong with avoiding human contact because humans are by definition social animals. If you avoid human contact, I mean, what's the point of it all? Yes, being comfortable alone and having alone time for yourself is extremely important. And no, being in a romantic relationship is not necessary to human flourishing, for men or women. But to intentionally seek to aviod human contact when you nonetheless pretty clearly desire some form of it is, at best, masochistic, and at worst, indicative of some severe mental anguish that one does oneself a disservice to ignore.

Isolating yourself because you think you are unable to form relationships with other people is not healthy. The reason these men don't "step up" and avoid women altogether is because that part of their psyche is still intact, but they're nonetheless dealing with some sort of psychological damage that makes it difficult for them to connect. We shouldn't be making or marketing products that encourage people to stay in their unhealthy, self-destructive habits.

If someone genuinely and seriously does not want to be around people, I am pretty sure that's not considered healthy. I dunno, I'm not a psychologist, but I would be surprised to find that misanthropy is wholly unproblematic.

I don't think this is all that bad. I just dropped my boyfriend off at the airport today- he'll be gone for a month and starting tonight I'll have to get used to sleeping alone. Personally I plan to cuddle a stuffed animal (our real pup is too hyperactive for bedtime), but whatever!

Does anyone remember Giga-Pets? That's what this reminds me of.

gee.

I was totally with the "there's nothing wrong with this" group until someone compared it to Gigapets, which is really creepy.

Except I dont' think this is like gigapets. you're not responding to a computer's needs; this isn't like keeping a dog or a kitten. I think it's worth acknolwedging that there are guys out there without the social skills to find a partner. There are also women out there without the social skills necessary to find a partner. Since it's so often pointed out (particularly in comments on this blog) that a lot of misogyny comes from sexual frustration. If people feel that void being satisfied in their lives, they're less likely to act out.

It would be great if everyone in this country could be taught to view each other as people and not as instrumentalities. Unfortunately, nobody does that completely or effectively. (Everyone's a little bit racist?) Until we can teach everyone to self-reflect on why they aren't, uh, getting any action, this might, you know, prevent these guys from going out and killing hookers?

I also think it's worth having a little bit of sympathy for people who can't get it together to find companionship in their lives. So many of those teenage girls from the earlier post today claimed harassment came in the form of unwanted romantic attention; think of all the geeks out there in the world with crushes on girls who won't give them any attention. granted, those crushes come from a place of objectification, much of the time, but isn't there a solution that doesn't involve isolating guys who live in a culture that teaches them that their value is based on their number and quality of sexual conquests?

Given how often people are taken out of context, I think it's unfair to make a judgment on this piece based on the quote provided.

I'm not offended at all by this. Creeped out a little, but that's because I can't imagine looking over and seeing someone I can't touch.

I find this slightly creepy, but--it's not being marketed as, say, a RealDoll would be. It's art. So I can see it as a comment on loneliness or what have you.

A lot of people use "human-substitute" devices to stave off loneliness, get off, sleep better, etc. If this is designed specifically for that purpose (and not, as it appears to be, as art), then I don't see how effective it would be, but I'm not insulted.

Anyone with a problem with the objectification aspect of this should really make sure they don't use/own any phallic devices.

I don't think the artist ever said this was "an adequate substitution for a woman" - he said it was a substitution for a pillow or a sex doll. I guess I'm someone else who doesn't see a big problem with this. I think it's kinda neat, actually.

Count me among the not insulted people. I don't even find it problematic that there are some people who actually don't want to be bothered with other human beings as I have a slight misanthropic streak in me. If there are men who would rather be with dolls/2-d images than actual women I'm one of those who says, "Go for it". They're not bothering anyone, especially women, with their bullshit and, like the guys who love their "real dolls" they keep to themselves. As long as you're not hurting anyone else I'm not going to chastise you for a personal choice you make.

I don't see this as any worse than people who prefer animal companonship or those who love inatimate object like their cars.

I am sure that there are lots of wonderful therapists who would utilize technology like this in amazing ways.

That said, I do have a problem with this particular creation. It basically continues the theme that women exist to cater to the needs of men - that men should have all their needs fulfilled by women without any expectation of reciprication in return. It's a theme you see in porn, sexual relations, chore wars, etc.

I also judge the product by the intent of the artist, which is to create something that responds to his every move, whim, and desire.

I think the creation and his motivation says interesting things about the male role as well. Some men feel so pressured and so expected to be breadwinners that they work so hard they have no one to bring bread home to. Their work consumes their life to the point where they can't maintain a relationship. A number of posts have ridiculed those men as being emotionally stunted, but I think it's also important to think about the forces leading some men to make that "choice".

Law Fairy, I know they say humans are social creatures by definition, but Id like to think a feminist would forgive those of us who consider humans to really be "violent creatures" by definition. (And I hope nobody tries to correct by saying men are the violent creatures...)

I don’t need to remind anyone here that you have certain guys out there who think they are naturally entitled to women. Maybe Im crazy, but I just dont figure why some people would reject others (in this case guys) who have found a way to do without relationships. What gives someone the right to tell others they cant find a substitute for a romantic partner (not matter how weak I consider their method of doing it), when the very reason they might be doing it is because they havent been able to find someone in the first place?

I don’t think, no matter how offensive some women might find this, any woman has the right to suggest some guy go out and find a real partner to show them affection. Im sure nobody here likes the suggestion that a (heterosexual) women cant be without a man. Sometimes there is nothing wrong in ascribing to the “cant win, don’t try� philosophy. I might not like the fact that someone could not go without something like this, but if that’s why they need to ignore relationships, avoid loneliness and concentrate on others things, then that’s that. Though why someone couldn’t just find something else to capture their attention I do not know.

ULTRAMAGNUS "If there are men who would rather be with dolls/2-d images than actual women I'm one of those who says, "Go for it". They're not bothering anyone, especially women, with their bullshit and, like the guys who love their "real dolls" they keep to themselves. As long as you're not hurting anyone else I'm not going to chastise you for a personal choice you make."

I think the issue is whether or not there is transfer from inanimate object to real people.

Does having a blow-up doll, killing prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto, etc., shape the way that men then interact with real women? In their later relationships?

For many, probably not. For some, probably. So I think that is part of the concern. Whether or not it is a valid concern is empirically testable.

It is pretty creepy, and while it would be OK as art I'm not sure it floats my boat as a product. I wouldn't stop anyone buying it but it's still pretty... unhealthy?

And as for comparing it to enjoying animal's company that is ridiculous. Animals are individuals with personalities, varying wants and needs, need huge amounts of your time and resources. You have a relationship with an animal, there is give and take and compromise (sometimes) involved. You OWN an animal and they are forever dependent on you, and plenty of people treat them like animated soft toys, but that doesn't mean they are or should be.

*cough* /rant

"Until we can teach everyone to self-reflect on why they aren't, uh, getting any action, this might, you know, prevent these guys from going out and killing hookers?"

Okay, I disagree with a lot of what you're saying. Sexual frustration might sometimes /magnify/ misogyny, in certain individuals. By no way does sexual frustration "cause misogyny". Women get sexually frustrated plenty too, you know? Men who rape women (or kill hookers) are the majority of the time /not/ doing it b/c of sexual frustration, but b/c of other psychological issues...

UCLAbodyimage:

Considering that violent crime, including rape, has gone down while the proliferation of violent and sexual images in games and other forms of media has steadily risen, as has population I think your speculation is unsubstantiated.

Women don't want to date/sleep with me. I've only ever had one girlfriend.

I'm not a virgin but might as well be.

It's unlikely I'll ever get married or have children. There must be thousands millions of men like me out here - we are nice, average looking, not alpha males, average jobs: I look pretty geeky with a slight facial deformity - some women describe me as "cute". Like many men, I've experienced women ridiculing me because of how I look.

No big deal - I don't have issues :)

I'm a normal,loving, romatic, heterosexual man trapped in the body of someone the opposite sex just don't "dig".

I'd sometimes sell my soul for a cuddle/snuggle/kiss and hug session with a warm woman.

Now, I'm not interested in this 2d art thing but I'd love one of those "real doll" sex doll things.

Except they are too taboo for me to have - my family would freak out. I'd be too ashamed. Masturbate? No one single masturbates, right?

Meanwhile, all my female friends (in their 20s) have their sex toys.

I don't see why Feministing is so offended. I also don't think there's any misogyny to be seen in a 2D rendering of a sleeping girl that "cuddles" with whoever's laying there.

Even the pitch isn't that weird to me. Would you rather these workaholic businessmen be ignoring real women? And also, is anyone *really* going to find comfort in this?

The thing is, it IS mostly an art project. It lacks the comfort and realness of a body pillow, and it's unlikely that anybody's going to want to hang a projector above their bed.

What I'm getting at is that I think this is kinda over-reactionary.

LogrusZed, what proof do you have that rape is going down or that violent crime is going down? This isn't meant to be rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. You are aware that laboratory studies have been done under controlled conditions which show that both men and women fed a diet of violent porn are more likely to think violence, including rape, is okay?

This piece, of course, is extremely wrong because the kid is trying to pitch the idea of an intimacy substitute for straight dudes in which the woman makes no demands and isn't even 3d so much as she just exists to respond to you physically.

I have no problem with vibrators, just as I have no problem if a man wants to go out and buy a sex toy. I do have a problem with a man or a woman designing or going out to purchase a substitute for intimacy. These are not remotely the same thing. My use of a vibrator does indeed involve a disembodied cock, but at least I'm not trying to take somebody's human/emotional attributes and turn them into a product. That, to me, is way more insulting than anything else.

Vanessa, screw the naysayers, you're completely right. Cause you know what? The "what if it was a woman making a dude?" comments totally ignore the fact that it wasn't and never would be. In any case, the context would be different. A massive industry and a few centuries of dominant culture are dedicated to men seeking out better versions of the women in their lives so that they don't have to deal with our being human beings. This kid is trying to make his own contribution to that tradition.

The what-if people might as well be talking about the ill effects of "reverse racism."

Nina:
"Women are reduced to 2-D images all over the place in the media. Moving that image TO A BED just reinforces the idea that the ideal women is as non-existent as possible while still existing. This suggests that women's chief comfort and purpose is their undemanding presence in a man's bed. Because when she starts really existing, with all her feelings, demands, own pleasures and power etc... then she just takes up too much damn time."

I can assure you that most heterosexual men do not think/feel about women in this way. Anymore than most lesbians don't just want a woman who is "as non-existent as possible while still existing."

I don't see this as any worse than people who prefer animal companonship or those who love inatimate object like their cars.

Hmmmmmmmm. As a dog mommy, I have to object to grouping these two together. A car is a tool. It can be a favorite tool, it can be a fun tool that you decorate and really make your own, etc., but it's just a tool. A car can't cuddle up to you at just the right moment when you're blue, or lie down at the foot of your bed while you sleep, or provide, of its own volition, hours of entertainment by playing with its toys or its food. It's reasonably to love a pet, because pets can love you back. Frankly, my dog's better at loving me than the bulk of men I've dated. I don't consider him a substitute, but I do consider him a companion. But while I love my car, and my TV, and my computer, etc., I hardly "care" about them the way I care for living things. If my TV breaks, I'll be bummed, but I'll just get a new one. If my dog dies, well, no one better expect me to be very useful for several weeks.

All-Life-Decays, I was thinking more in reference to the notion that someone would affirmatively choose a projected image of a woman over a real one. I have no problem with substitutes for something you want but can't find, but I don't think it's healthy to actually prefer a projected image of a person. If you're not a people person or just don't want a relationship, fine. But if you're, e.g., a busy lawyer and just don't want to have to bother with the messy and time-consuming nature of relationships, I don't think making it easier to prevent yourself from growing and maturing emotionally is a good thing.

Dean, I can assure you, as someone who has known many different types of heterosexual men, that most of them do think of women in this way. They also simultaneously know that it is bad to think of women in this way and lie to themselves and their partners about it. Then they get huffy when women point out to them that their actions indicate something entirely different from their words. Then they ask for a cookie for not raping anybody.

"Dean, I can assure you, as someone who has known many different types of heterosexual men, that most of them do think of women in this way. They also simultaneously know that it is bad to think of women in this way and lie to themselves and their partners about it. Then they get huffy when women point out to them that their actions indicate something entirely different from their words. Then they ask for a cookie for not raping anybody."

Lol!

I'm unaware of your life experiences, obviously. Here in my world, men want love, friendship, compainonship, family, romance, sex...blow jobs would be nice although not all men like oral sex.

And they are dating/married to women (such as my mum) who make never ending demands on them and are often quite unreasonable (as all humans can be unreasonable, reagrdless of gender) and yet the men don't walk away for a life of singledom and sleeping with prostitutes and freedom to watch sports 24/7 :)

The heterosexual women I know would never have married (or date) a man without a fully functioning penis but I'm pretty sure that's not all they are interested in.

Although one of my female friends did once kick a young fellow out of bed after lauhghing at this "weird warty thing" on his penis.

And another female friend would tell me tales of her "sad" boyfrined who "wants to make love to me" while she just wanted to shag him for a bit until later in the week when she could get some action from the more sexually agressive guy she really dug.

Such is life :)

sera:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Violent crime reached it's peak in 1994/95 (rape/murder respectively). It's been on a steady decline since then.

More data can be had here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm at the Bureau of Justice web site.

I would have to see and read the lab construct to comment intelligently on it, but it was almost certainly not testing for real world correlation. Like asking people "If you could get away with it would you ......", clearly people don't feel they can "get away with "....." or they are lying on the tests.

"My use of a vibrator does indeed involve a disembodied cock, but at least I'm not trying to take somebody's human/emotional attributes and turn them into a product. That, to me, is way more insulting than anything else."

But your intent, if we're drawing a parallel here, isn't salient. It's how I (as a male) perceive your use of a disembodied prick.

"....comments totally ignore the fact that it wasn't and never would be."

Come on, really? Like: "women never commit rape or act as sexual predators." this sentiment is absolute hyperbole. Women are just as capable of the acts or impulses associated with men, both good or ill or simply odd and artistic. Isn't this at the core of your personal feminist philosophy? We are naturally equal, warts and all, and it is only the societal construct that shapes our non-biological acts.

As to the "context", how would it be different? Do you mean the nature of the interaction? Isn't that gender-boxing? Women interact with companions in as many different ways as there are women times the number of people they interact with, same with us fellas.

Let us not lose sight that this device is something that should be relateable to nearly everyone and not subject to gender politics. Loneliness is a universal human concept.

If it was a buxom nudie lady right out of a porno, who did virtual sex on command then I would concede merit to the huhu over this, but it isn't. It's a sleeping, clothed, woman who is just present.

Sera,

This is sort of off-topic, but your question about rape statistics is an important one. Rates of rape in the US (including attempted rape, a figure that also includes threats of rape) have been going down steadily for the past two decades and more. They have leveled off more recently.

You can find these figures from the US Department of Justice, covering the years 1973-2005 on this page. Further, according to the FBI, those rates fell again during 2007 in all regions of the nation. See this page to analyze that press release.

Is this the whole picture? Definitely not. Is rape under-reported, relative to other violent crimes? Bet on it. But I am equally certain that cases are far more likely to be reported now than in the past. And that makes the overall drop in crimes of this type even more noteworthy -- and, I hope, a cause for qualified optimism.

Best, Peter

Sera,

This is sort of off-topic, but your question about rape statistics is an important one. Rates of rape in the US (including attempted rape, a figure that also includes threats of rape) have been going down steadily for the past two decades and more. They have leveled off more recently.

You can find these figures from the US Department of Justice, covering the years 1973-2005 on this page. Further, according to the FBI, those rates fell again during 2007 in all regions of the nation. See this page to analyze that press release.

Is this the whole picture? Definitely not. Is rape under-reported, relative to other violent crimes? Bet on it. But I am equally certain that cases are far more likely to be reported now than in the past. And that makes the overall drop in crimes of this type even more noteworthy -- and, I hope, a cause for qualified optimism.

Best, Peter

dean, I'm sorry that you feel that no women are interested in you. FWIW, it sounds like the people you are surrounded by are very different from the people I know. In my life growing up, the women I knew were very strong and very intelligent, and were completely dominated and disrespected by men. I now encounter this virtually daily in my career, as well. I have definitely known men who are interested in companionship, etc. -- the vast majority of them are already IN relationships. Many (maybe even most?) of the single men I know do want *some* form of companionship, but they have very narrow ideas about what sort of woman would be dateable. Which, hey, fine, everyone's gotta have standards, right? But when you're a strong, intelligent woman like me, and you're surrounded by men who want meek, sweet, quiet, not demanding ("demanding" here, btw, means asserting herself, um, pretty much ever) women, you can see why a device that further ingraines into society a stereotype about women as existing mostly for men's gratification (of whatever sort) could be troubling.

Also, I, like you, have serious difficulty meeting/dating people and also find myself frustrated and longing for physical contact. Part of the reason for this is what I noted above, that many of the men I meet aren't interested in someone with my personality, for whatever reason. Part of the reason is that I won't date anyone I'm not attracted to. Which sounds ridiculously obvious, but think about it: it may very well be the case that there are plenty of women who are interested in you -- but you're not interested in them. I'm sure you would not date just anyone. I'm sure you would not want to sleep with a woman you found positively ugly. And, hey, why should you? But none of any of this is anyone's "fault." If we could control who we're attracted to, sheesh, how easy would life be? I can't tell you how many times I've wished I could make myself attracted to various men who've been interested in me. But I just plain can't. And it's not fair to me *or* to them to try and force it. In the same way that you won't date someone you find unattractive, sometimes it's just an unfortunate accident of life that the people you *are* attracted to, simply aren't attracted to you. This isn't a reason to indict womanhood as a whole. We're all just people trying to find happiness.

I'm not saying you need to lower your standards or something silly like that (I don't believe in lowering standards). I'm just saying that it might be worth looking at this from a different perspective before declaring that thousands of men are being unfairly rejected (and maybe that wasn't how you meant your comment, and it simply rubbed me the wrong way).

Also, men are not the only ones whose looks are subjected to ridicule. Maybe this is my experience because I live in Los Angeles, but men are absolutely at least as judgmental about looks as women are.

And I didn't get what you meant about masturbation. I think pretty much everybody masturbates, and, historically, it's actually much more socially acceptable for men to do it than for women.

Sorry for the double posting. I see LogrusZed got there first.

I would revise my statement that the rates of rape have been steadily declining since the mid-1970s. Yet the DOJ figures do indicate that the peak was in 1978/79 -- with a spike (not a high-point) in the early 1990s. Nonetheless, the decline over the past 15 years at least is real and important.

Hmmm. I am not offended by this in any way, and also I wonder in what context his comments about this being used for the busy person who cannot maintain a relationship were made, as he points out himself that you cannot feel the girl (and from what I can tell, he means that in the sense that it is not a true snuggle, rather than you cannot grab her tits or something) so are not getting the comfort factor that a good snuggle offers. I do see this as a piece of interactive art, not a solution to the cuddle deprived out there. I think this might be about lot of things, but I just don't see what Vanessa sees here. I think the only reason the person in the bed is a girl is that he is a hetero male, so of course his INBED person would be a woman...I don't see it as any different that if he had painted a picture of an imaginary woman to prop up across the dinner table of an evening to talk to...

"to clarify, the idea of this piece is not to create a "virtual girlfriend" at all. it is an installation that aims to play around with the feelings of coming home to an empty bed versus coming home to a bed with someone in it sleeping and happy that you are joining them. those two feelings are profoundly different and the piece invites a person to experience and consider both."
This is what the chap himself has to say about it.

Wasn't there a thread just a couple weeks ago about some or other hollywierd starlet BOLDLY STATING "If I have sex with a woman, boy, or dog it's none of anybody's damn business?"

But, now non-sex laying-beside a projected image of a woman is (not only EVERYBODY'S) business but WRONG?

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy. It is the mother's milk of radical gender ("victim") feminism. I remember a thread a while back with an excerpt from a men's movement web page quoting some or other prominent feminist stating :"we must eliminate the institute of marriage precisely because too many women will choose this if we do not."

The author of the thread queried, how do these MRA's keep finding these bizarre quotes from feminists?

Um, because feminists keep talking?

We can talk about "healthy" until the cows come home, but as far I can see, living in a world of heavy smokers, drinkers, drug abusers, self-harming individuals and global warming - human health has always been something easily dismissed. If a man is more intimate with a feather duster than a woman doesnt bother me in the least. Speaking as another relationship reject here, I dont see why women (or men) should be bothered if the opposite sex is no longer concerned with involving themselves with others intimately. Is it offensive to others that someone would decide to be closer to mannequin head, or a miniature giant space hamster than another person, in this case of the opposite (or not perhaps) sex?

Speaking as a guy who knows most of his friends and co-workers would laugh their assess of that hes reached 20 and is still a virgin, Ive learnt to concentrate on myself and what I enjoy. Once I discovered I dont have the looks, confidence or “cool� enough interests or possessions to be attractive to any women, I decided to concentrate on the person I know most how to please in the whole world: Me.

I do feel a little bit sorry for those supposed “overworked guys� who might actually think this is something worthwhile. It doesn’t even look like its easy to see when you lie down on the bed.

And thanks Sera, I was only mildly insulted by your “thoughts� on how “most heterosexual guys think�. I should probably keep that in mind next time I see some offensive “thoughts� on how “most heterosexual women think�, and consequently ignore them, hmm?

I think this is brilliant. I think that what objectification tends to be about is reducing a woman to nothing but her physicality. Whereas this is reducing a woman to... everything but her physicality. Is it a perfect and sufficiently complex portrayal of a woman? No, but neither is the piece about the woman per se: it's about the interaction between whoever lies on the bed and this projected woman. I think that the word 'loneliness' is a key one here.

His description of the project was pretty weird. But just like there's a line between representing women and objectifying women, there's a line between the art and the artist.

All-Life-Decays, I think it's awesome that you've learned so young that taking care of yourself is important (though, I guess that is a harder lesson for women to learn than men, generally speaking). But I never said I was offended at the notion that someone would buy one of these projections. I think a comparison to dolls and such is fair, and I don't have a problem with dolls per se -- what I have a problem with is the absolute substitution of human contact. Because it *isn't* healthy to give up human contact because it's "too hard" and turn to some inanimate object for fake affection.

Pointing out that we do lots of unhealthy things in society is kind of a nonsequitur. I don't think smoking or abusing drugs is healthy either, and I would advise anyone against it. Of course, here it's not physical health we're talking about, it's emotional health, which frankly is more important.

I think any benefit to (real) women (you know, w/ needs and stuff) falls exponentially.
I presume, Nina, that you feel the same way about vibrators - fine in theory, but, in reality, allow women to replace men with a disembodied body part meant solely for sexual stimulation. What about real men and their needs? Why should women feel okay about having vibrators?

Wait... something tells me that you - and a lot of other people - will get very, very upset "woman" is inserted in the place of "man."

The Law Fairy,
Plenty of computer geeks where I am who would be very happy with a powerful, self-assured, confident woman who wasn't after their $. You may have to prod them a couple times but they will share housework 50/50 or better when you are stressed, and some are attractive and single.

On topic, I don't find the concept/art/whatever offensive. If you close your eyes and relax you just have a bright projector shining on you. It's a bit creepy but doesn't hurt anyone and isn't violent (unlike GTA et al).
It's been said or implied already I think, but if these guys are too busy to pay human attention to human significant others, why waste women's time?

Jabes---It isn't hypocritical at all to respect a person's privacy and state that her sexual choices are her own, and then to say that some public depictions of heterosexuality/heterosexual desire are a little messed up. And if you actually read the thread, you'd see that while Vanessa has a solid point, there is a lot of interesting discussion going on here about comfort-seeking, the difficulty of mate finding (for males!, mostly, also for females) whether sex toys are objectifying or not, and (the reason most people object to this--the silent, responsive/passive non-active intangible image) that our physical form and responsiveness are what render us attractive. And frankly, this feminist hasn't made up her mind yet and is really enjoying the convo.

To dean, cheer up a bit. As you get older, and meet more people, you may be more likely to find people who value you. And don't feel bad about calling women friends on it if you feel like they are being unfair/disrespectful to men. I cannot imagine laughing at someone in bed, but I'm pretty sure that it happened to an ex-boyfriend of mine, because I was very giggly after sex, and he seemed kind of uncomfortable, so we got onto the subject of why I was laughing, and he posited it was "because I saw something funny" which I took to mean something about his body, and I explained, no, it was because I was giddy about how much fun we had just had. And I had the sickening realization that another woman had almost certainly mocked him about something physical before/after/during sex and I was pretty upset that someone could be so cruel to this guy who I liked. I 'dumped' two female friends (neither of whom were feminists) for being cruel to men (I've dumped more male friends for that reason---but not many more.) And if someone is ever disrespectful to you, run, don't walk. (And this is advice that applies equally well to women and men.)

But yeah, TLF, I know what you mean about having a hard time finding guys who like noncompliant women. I finally found one, but he still causes me much wonderment. He doesn't get mad when I argue with him! Amazing! He likes arguing, and doesn't expect to be taken more seriously than me (unless, of course, he has demonstrated more knowledge on the subject).

And All-Life-Decays, I really doubt that you aren't attractive to "any women." It is really, really difficult, believe me I know, I have more rejections than acceptances when it comes to people I asked out, and I've only asked out a handful, but damn getting shot down hurts. But it is great to have the self-confidence to focus on what you want. If that includes companionship, I would encourage you not to give up! I almost foreswore relationships at one point, but I am glad I didn't. All the bad stuff was worth it, considering what I learned, and who I eventually found.

oenophile,

I think you raise an interesting point. I don't think vibrators are the same as dolls/projections, becuase they are not whole bodies. In fact, many of them do not resemble penises at all. But, they are still on the spectrum, and I can understand why some guys might find member-shaped sex toys as a little offensive/threatening. (I don't think I'd be thrilled to be with a guy who owned a fleshlight. maybe I'm a prude.) And honestly, I don't know if dolls/projections mean that lonely people find comfort, or that certain people reduce human beings to their usefulness/desireability after using such aids.

But what I find troubling about this art installation is that it does emphasize passivity and responsiveness. I am trying to think of an equally offensive way to stereotype male sexuality--or even just a very offensive way to stereotype male sexaulity. Any thoughts? What would be the male equivalent of this female in the art installation?

Law Fairy, sorry I didnt mean to include you in my rant about finding this stuff "offensive", its just I was doing exactly that really: ranting. As for this idea of don’t stop looking for intimacy, personally I think it would be preferable for some guys to do exactly that, instead of thinking women "owe" them attention, or "owe" them sex. And that not having women give what is "owed" is a travesty. I think it’s a shame more people like that arent more comfortable being single.

I got the feeling describing my own situation that some feminists would think "oh great, another 'nice guy'", but I dont consider myself one. I just look at it as my simply not being up to snuff, so I wont bother anyway. I appreciate the vote of confidence as well Ismone, but I personally think I have reached a point where to change now would be betraying myself. Im happy enough as I am, and I don’t hold it against anyone other than myself. Since its not that important to me anyway, I don’t let it get to me.

ALD,

Just wanted to clarify that I don't think you should have to change. (I mean, if you do unkind things, or put up with mean people, or have self-defeating habits, by all means change. But I wouldn't assume that being single reflects some kind of flaw. Maybe that's me being arrogant, b/c I've been single for long stretches, but take it for what it is worth.)

Innernet hugs!

Oh, and I agree with you/disagree with TLF that being socially reticent reflects ill health. Most people need human contact, but some people need a lot less. (And for autistic people, like my cousin, it is mostly annoying.) Every place I've moved, it has been really important to make friends, but my guy doesn't feel that way. He is fine by himself, if he meets someone he wants to be friends with, fine, but he doesn't seem to need human contact the way I do. And he is pretty healthy. :)

I guess I really am just a "live and let live" person. While I can understand people's arguments agasint it, I do not understand why we are trying to force people, some of whom don't want to be bothered with other people into relationships with other people. If the guy can't handle a girlfriend right now, or if he's an asshole towards women, why exactly should he be forced to have a relationship with them?

I do have a problem with a man or a woman designing or going out to purchase a substitute for intimacy.

Why? Who put you in charge of what another human being can or cannot do with their life? Where in the human hand book does it say that if one is to be intimate it HAS to be with another human being? That's where I was going with the animal comment, some people here seem to be upset that this guy is getting intimacy, or a fascimile of intimacy, from something that's not a HUMAN WOMAN. Whereas a lot of people use animals as substitutes for human intimacy and 40 years ago, those people would have been considered weirdos but now it's accepted to have a pet if you don't have any friends/relationships. We know of this as a good thing now. And if Feministing were to post an article about how a guy/group of guys were using their pets as girlfriend substitues (albeit without the sex) how many of us would still be upset by that, saying it was comparing women to obiediant animals? Would we deny them that kind of intimacy or would we form some kind of thought police where they wouldn't be allowed to think that the intimacy they share with their pet is the same as that between humans?

And even though my car can't "cuddle" with me, if I think/believe my car loves me back, and I spend my life not dating men because I prefer the "intimacy" I've assigned my car how is that different? My car might not look human but if I've given it a name and human atributes and it makes me feel better what the fuck is the problem?

Does having a blow-up doll, killing prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto, etc., shape the way that men then interact with real women? In their later relationships?

The men featured in the Real Doll documentary went to dolls AFTER they'd been rejected by women and for the most part once they had the doll they stopped dating actual women. They wanted intimacy but knew they couldn't get it from real women so they bought an alternative. I'm not going to hold it against them. And I don't understand why GTA has to do with this discussion as no one is going to/sleeping with GTA for intimacy.

The "what if it was a woman making a dude?" comments totally ignore the fact that it wasn't and never would be. In any case, the context would be different.

Don't give me that "women wouldn't do this" line. If women were actually allowed to do things in advanced science who knows what they'd come up with, sex robots included. And we've seen something similar, where women who had maternal desires were buying fake baby "dolls" that looked and acted like real babies (don't remember the post, it was a while ago). So it's there for women, and perhaps we will see women turning to sex robots in the future. But I wonder if this could this be the heart of the problem. That some are afraid men are eventually going to replace us? That there will come a world where women will be expected to conform conform to acting like robots or spend their lives without human male companionship? What if women did get their male robot equivilent? Would that help?

There will be men who won't ever want to be bothered with real flesh and blood women because they are assholes, that's true. If a troll were to pop in on a thread and say, "I'm never dating any bitches again!" we'd yawn and tell him don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. But find out that troll, and assholes just like him, are getting Real Dolls then we get up in arms, as if to say, "How dare you find a way to circumvent the loneliness I see to be your punishment for being a dick!" It's like we're mad they're finding a loophole or something. But if they can't treat real women like human beings then I will say they shouldn't be dating real women.

A massive industry and a few centuries of dominant culture are dedicated to men seeking out better versions of the women in their lives so that they don't have to deal with our being human beings. This kid is trying to make his own contribution to that tradition.

As far as I'm concerned, this is where the facsimiles come in handy, as with them then these assholes don't have to bother real women. We can say that if they date real women then they should/damn well better treat those women as human beings but if they can't handle that leave real women alone and go play with your dolls/bed time buddies. If they come back from those "fake" relationshps and they treat real women like crap I'd hope that those women would drop their asses (and feminism goes a long way to teaching women they don't have to put up with such bullshit) so that they'd know they CAN'T treat real women like that and they'd either wisen up or leave women alone altogether.

There's a great book out by David Levy called Sex and Love With Robots where he details a future in which people love artificial companions. This goes for men and women. We're getting into a techonological age where if you don't want to be bothered with another human being you don't have to and who's to say that everyone should have to? I will admit right here that I have issues in dealing with the bullshit bagage that comes with dating men, most of the time I just don't put up with it and I spend a good portion of my time alone (or with friends) and if ever we were to have AI (but not the killer robot kind) for sex companionship I'd be the first in line to try one, as I'm sure, so would a lot of different people.

I cannot, for the life of me, judge this guy, or guys like him, for finding alternate means to intimacy, nor intimacy that doesn't bode with my feminist beliefs, just like I expect people to mind their own business when it comes to my seemingly "alternative" lifestyle choices and means of seeking out intimacy. And I'm not going to create some hard and fast rule that in order to have intimacy it has to be with something human/living.

'But what I find troubling about this art installation is that it does emphasize passivity and responsiveness. I am trying to think of an equally offensive way to stereotype male sexuality--or even just a very offensive way to stereotype male sexaulity. Any thoughts? What would be the male equivalent of this female in the art installation?' [Ismone]

Hi Ismone! If passivity and responsiveness is defined as female sexuality, as others have mentioned here, seeing as how the 2D image’s responses are based on the male’s movements/actions, then I guess you could frame male sexuality as the opposite end of the spectrum – being the one that does things (active vs passive) and the one that evokes a response from the other (a doer, to elicit a response in the other person).

While at first glance this might not seem “offensive� (because afterall, we all want to take charge of our own sexuality), but at times, it can be pretty stressful and might be offensive if you consider the following.

In Western culture (a caveat: I am not American, so please correct me if I am wrong! It probably applies to Eastern culture as well), isn’t it the man’s responsibility, his duty to bring an erection to the table, ie “to bring the stiffy� ? Media, from romance books, to pornography, to subtle messages in popular culture (movies, books, comics) also point to this “responsibility�. How many romance books have colourful metaphors to describe that essential erection ? ‘throbbing’ , ‘rock-hard’, ‘turgid’, ‘engorged’ etc…these are just some of the words available out there.

The opposite of this would be a flacid member, a state that some people may regard as ‘the useless state’. This condition is oftentimes used as a humorous piece in media as well. Afterall, isn’t it always the case that if a man doesn’t get an erection, the woman will be dissappointed or even worse, think that there’s something wrong with her, that she’s not attractive enough to elicit his “attention� ? When all that could be happening is the man, might, gasp, not feel like having sex, either because he’s stressed or tired. But no, popular culture says that men must be ready at all times, and how men just need a time and place, not a reason, for having sex.

Furthermore, men are disproportionately the ones who are called ‘bad lovers’. Due to aforementioned need to be the ones ‘doing things’ (active, rather than passive), and how many people view the act, men are the ones who need to have the skills, otherwise, they’re terrible in bed. Young men are said to be terrible lovers, cause they don’t have the experience and ‘move’ of older, more experienced men. How many times have you heard women in movies/books saying that the men they slept with were terrible in bed, lousy lovers (with really small penises to boot!) , weren’t able to satisfy them in bed, etc? From what I see, women are rarely called bad lovers, no doubt due to their expected ‘’passivity� in the whole matter, as it is the man’s duty, his responsibility to ensure that the woman he sleeps with is satisfied (ie. Orgasm)….otherwise, he’s a bad lover.

In this case, it’s no wonder that as you say, some men might feel threatened by vibrators. Afterall, vibrators are always big and unlike men, are always erect, ready for action (assuming the batteries are not dead!) and they never never need to ‘stop’ after ejaculation!

So maybe a form of art that would be deemed offensive to male sexuality would be one that is like a vibrator…always ready for action, always ‘ up ‘ to the task, and never needing to stop, able to go on for hours and hours. And it would always have a 100% satisfaction rate. I’m not sure what form of art this would take, but just adding my 2 cents into the matter.

Apologies if this post is too long or my English is not up to scratch!

Why? Who put you in charge of what another human being can or cannot do with their life?

UM, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I haven't advocated banning the thing. I'm just saying I don't think that avoiding human relationships is healthy. It is certainly possible to question people's emotional well-being without being a Nazi or something.

And even though my car can't "cuddle" with me, if I think/believe my car loves me back, and I spend my life not dating men because I prefer the "intimacy" I've assigned my car how is that different?

Well... because if you think your car loves you back, I mean if you actually, literally think that -- and I'm not trying to be mean -- then, well, you're delusional. Cars aren't living beings. They are incapable of having feelings. Seriously, I wouldn't have thought it would be a point of contention that inanimate objects are obviously and importantly different from living, breathing, feeling animals.

Also, I disagree with you about the social acceptabiility of substituting pets for people. I don't think it is considered socially acceptable to have a pet in lieu of *any* relationships. And even people who have pets and friends but not significant others STILL deal with a lot of stigma (TRUST ME on this one), even when those pets aren't *meant* to be a "substitute." Of course some people are more social than others. I myself am something of a homebody. But there's a difference between being an introvert and having actual problems connecting with other human beings.

Hey timothy, your point about men being the "bad lovers" struck a chord with me. As an early teenager I think I developed a dislike for sex, and I think its kind of the line of thinking that "women just dont like sex". Probably because I had seen enough of those "bad lover" situations to get the impression women just didnt like sex. Or even if I was wrong, there was no way in hell I would ever be able to cut it and please a woman who did. I didnt like the idea of sex without pleasing your partner, hated the idea of sex and seeing your partners displeasure. I was wrong of course at the time, but if you take that, my being shy and generally not receptive to the "guys pursue women, not the other way round" rule, add it all up, it probably says a lot about me now. This is probably going to sound incredibly strange, but even now I get a sense of relief when I see women openly displaying their enjoyment of sex with men. Its confusing to say the least, since I no longer concern myself with it, but I guess its just something I havent been able to shake off since I was a teenager.

Sorry, LF, that first comment you addressed wasn't addressed at you, it was addressed at the person who said I do have a problem with a man or a woman designing or going out to purchase a substitute for intimacy. who I forgot to name, and now I can't seem to find the post for the credit.

Well... because if you think your car loves you back, I mean if you actually, literally think that -- and I'm not trying to be mean -- then, well, you're delusional. Cars aren't living beings. They are incapable of having feelings.

I know that, LF but if I'm in my own world, not hurting anyone, what's the problem if I have human intimacy issues? I'm not wasting someone else's time and I'm doing my own thing? People delude themselves into thinking lots of things, some of them being that their intimate partners love them/will eventually treat them right, any kind of thing. My basic point is, is that if these people aren't hurting anyone, and they aren't wasting people's time/effort in real relationships why can't they have a human subsitute?

And even people who have pets and friends but not significant others STILL deal with a lot of stigma (TRUST ME on this one)

So you know what it's like to have people judge you and stigmatize you, does that help any matters in your life? Has it forced you to be more social? Do you find yourself trying to cut back on your pet affection? I believe the same goes for this, and we don't have the right to define for the individual what can or cannot consitute "intimacy" and the "correct" way they can achieve that intimacy.

But there's a difference between being an introvert and having actual problems connecting with other human beings.

And for those people who have actual problems connecting with other human beings why are we trying to force them into it, or judge them for not being able to and seeking out other means of comfort? Some of them may seek therapy, good for them. Others will say "fuck it" and bail, that's their decision as well. If the guy goes to sleep with the image of the woman, wakes up the next morning feeling great, feeling satisfied, what's the problem? As long as when he's with a real woman he treats her with respect there shouldn't be any concern. And if he doesn't treat her with respect then she should kick his ass to the curb pronto and he'll either learn or will spend the rest of his life with his bed buddy (if he chooses NOT to spend the rest of his life living with it then I'd hope he'd have enough common sense to change his behavior).

"From what I see, women are rarely called bad lovers, no doubt due to their expected ‘’passivity� in the whole matter, as it is the man’s duty, his responsibility to ensure that the woman he sleeps with is satisfied (ie. Orgasm)….otherwise, he’s a bad lover."

Minor tangent here: but I do feel like there's also pressure on women to "perform" if you will... Like I know that guys I'm friends with talk appreciatively of women with experience, and I have performance anxiety, fear I don't have enough experience and know-how, what have you. I think part of this could be generational, since in older generations in western culture women weren't really supposed to have experience...

forgive me,

but i dont understand how this is a feminist issue; or worthy of outrage in the form of 75+ comments.

I think this is just the shortsightedness of of an amateur artist responding poorly to the media. I can see this "art" turn into a neutral medium. I can also see it being forgotten tomorrow, as no one wants to "cuddle" with a two dimensional stranger.

"or worthy of outrage in the form of 75+ comments."

If you had read half those comments, qwerty, you would realize many of them aren't outrage, and rather there is considerable debate going on on a somewhat sophisticated level.

ULTRAMAGNUS: "The men featured in the Real Doll documentary went to dolls AFTER they'd been rejected by women and for the most part once they had the doll they stopped dating actual women. They wanted intimacy but knew they couldn't get it from real women so they bought an alternative. I'm not going to hold it against them. And I don't understand why GTA has to do with this discussion as no one is going to/sleeping with GTA for intimacy."

The reason I brought in GTA was to illustrate that there is a broader pattern in our culture - where men are able to systematically control the lives and sexuality of "fictional" women, or are shown as controlling them, in a variety of ways (video games, movies, real dolls, etc.). This product feeds into that larger pattern.

If the product doesn't impact men's relationships with women in a negative way, then I am totally with you. Live and let live.

If it does, then that's a problem worth noting.

As you (and I) pointed out, it could serve an important function for many people. To reiterate what I said before, I think it is an empirically testable question. My bias is to always to do a study to see if there is any kind of measurable effect rather than assuming something is benign or harmful.

From research on related products (e.g., porn), I think we know that for many men it doesn't have a strong negative impact on their views of women. But it can shift attitudes somewhat, particularly some forms of porn, particularly for a subgroup of men. I think this product shares some of the relevant features of some forms of porn (i.e., woman existing solely for men's needs and subject to his whims and desires) which brings up concerns about the potential effects of this product.

OK, a lot of people are defending this guy and saying he can do what he wants (which is true), but I honestly don't understand what he's getting out of this. There is nothing there but an image, which he can't even see when lying down. He can't cuddle a 2-D image. It's not a sex toy; he can't touch it! What's the point of it?

Dean, I am always amazed that some men who consider themselves unappealing to the opposite sex never seem to consider the fact that there are just as many "unappealing" women as there are men.
I am sure there are plenty of women who'd like to be with you. Maybe you don't realize that because you don't recognize them as "women?" (because they're not young, slim and conventionally pretty)
Just a thought.

He never says "Just as good as the real thing!" Your argument is parallel to labeling a dildo (haha, my spell checker marked dildo as incorrect) as sexists because it tries to replace a man with an inanimate object.

I think it also makes an interesting point. People are slowly replacing real human interaction with technology, but now it's getting more complex that the grandmother with the tv on for company.

For everybody who's asking, "But what about vibrators?" I'll paraphrase a comment from another thread: sex toys are tools to do a job. The reason many of them resemble particular body parts, such as a penis or a vagina, is that evolutionarily, those are the shapes which best do the job. Sex toys are tools to assist us in getting off, not substitutes for human intimacy. If a couple is in bed and one of them brings out a sex toy, a rational partner will consider the gesture to be along the same lines as pulling out a bottle of lube, not calling up a friend and inviting them to join.

On to the art installation: one of the reasons I find this different is that this is a non-sexual kind of intimacy substitute -- that's why I immediately thought of the "Boyfriend's Arm Pillow". Like UltraMagnus, I don't see that much of a problem with people trying to find intimacy with non-living things. Perhaps this is because growing up, I sought a lot of "companionship" through books, teddy bears, etc.

I will admit that RealDolls creep me right the fuck out, but I think that's mostly the "uncanny valley" effect.

SARAHMC: "There is nothing there but an image, which he can't even see when lying down. He can't cuddle a 2-D image. It's not a sex toy; he can't touch it! What's the point of it?"

Part of me had that same reaction too.

The main thing that comes to my mind is how engrossing and engaging video games are. They are two dimensional but interacting with fake worlds and fake people can be intensly gratifying. The same is true of porn - you can't touch it or feel it, but it excites people even though it's only a 2-D substitute for 3-D people.

All in all though, a stuffed animal seems more cuddly to me than a 2-D image.

"I was totally with the there's *nothing wrong with this* group until someone compared it to Gigapets, which is really creepy.

Except I dont' think this is like gigapets. you're not responding to a computer's needs; this isn't like keeping a dog or a kitten."

They're both 2-D images that you can interact with, to a certain degree. I don't see why that's so hard to understand, and I also don't see what's so creepy about the comparison.
???

As a person who tends to be bad at relationships, I think there is merit to this product. At least with this I wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings or screw up.

Now all they need is a male version.

This is more like turning on a porn than inviting someone over if we're using the lube analogy. You know your partner isn't going to run off with the porn to a tropical island and leave you with the kids.

The 'vibrators do a job and aren't a replacement for intimacy' as ok and 'something that replicates human nonsexual intimacy' as not ok bothers me but I'm not sure exactly why.

Maybe it's the typically sex object nature of sexist depictions that's degrading. I don't find this demeaning.

Timothy and ALD,

Thanks for answering. I've said to my guy friends a few times that I feel that many men project all the body image issues that women have onto one part of their body. And I can bet that performance anxiety must be difficult.

The image I came up with (really trying not to be crass here) was some kind of penis-jackhammer.

I think communication and observation really help with the awkward sex thing. Doing everything but and learning eachother's pleasure reactions can also help.

"Seriously, I wouldn't have thought it would be a point of contention that inanimate objects are obviously and importantly different from living, breathing, feeling animals."

Stolen, I'm absolutely contriving a future conversation with someone in order to repeat that verbatim.

"I don't think it is considered socially acceptable to have a pet in lieu of *any* relationships."

I think the highlighted phrasing is extreme. I believe there is enough information available detailing the therapeutic value of companion animals for physical, psychological, both giving and receiving. At least in the U.S. you would be hard pressed to pick any random group of five people who did not express some sort of not only loyalty to but empathy with some "favorite animal". People put clothes on cats, and if you do it you're not even the "eccentric guy over on the Mac support team. He's looking at pictures of 'cats with hats'. He's been doing it for three hours. No you go talk to him." any more. Now every mid-sized office has three cat or dog fanatics, and nobody thinks it's weird at all.

I'll tell you what's weird. I have seen about as many Ann Geddes baby costume books as I have the guy with the Weimaraner calendars.

Of course I am a cat person, so I'm obviously biased.

ShifterCat:

"those are the shapes which best do the job."

And, apparently, the shape that helps get the job of alleviating loneliness for someone who finds sleeping next to a woman comforting. Perhaps a dog person could have a labrdoodle projected there or a cat person a Maine Coon.

This is not an argument which refutes the piece, it actually substantiates it and lends insight. What is doing "the job" isn't a sex slave spreading for him, it is a companion who "responds to his posture" by nurturing or being nurtured. (spooning/being spooned). We're talking loneliness here, not lascivious intent.

Read Harlowe's "Monkey Love Experiment". The need for affection, even in someone lacking the ability, for whatever reason, to get it naturally is a pretty essential drive. I just feel bad for anyone who is thinking "This is the best I can do." but I don't judge anyone in that kind of pain, or socially censure them for seeking to alleviate it.

Maybe the creator is touching on some very real and very primal feelings.

UltraMagnus, well, I guess my point was less that it necessarily "bothers" me on any kind of feminist or political level. I guess I just don't think it's particularly good for a person to get so fed up with the difficulty of relationships that s/he seeks out *actual* substitutes -- like, not just a coping mechanism, but a real substitute. I just don't think that's healthy. People can disagree, whatever. And I'm not saying this device would only be used as an actual substitute. Mostly I guess I take issue with the guy's suggestion that people who are too busy to bother with real relationships could use this instead, almost like some kind of get-out-of-humanity-free card. Just rubbed me the wrong way.

LopgrusZed, the study is mentioned in the book Pornified... so I have no clue where to find it online. It was not hypothetical in the way you seem to be thinking, but more "Is x wrong?" (x was usually some variant of rape) "How should people go to jail for x?" Watching violent porn, which was shown to them in a lab, changed students' opinions on whether rape was wrong and whether it should be punished, among other things which would indicate that they respect women less. This study was so persuasive that the university decided it had done actually mental damage to its subjects in the form of making them less able to see women as human and is often cited as a reason why further studies can't be done- it would be damaging to the psyche of the subjects.

Rape may in fact be going down due to feminist efforts in the rape awareness and prevention movements in spite of the violent material we ingest.

Finally, the use of objects for sexual gratification vs to replace the emotional presence of a human is completely obvious. You, as a male, might think I like to cuddle a plastic penis, but you'd be ridiculously wrong and I wouldn't feel at all obliged to take you seriously until men stopped watching porn or using sex toys themselves. This is in a different category than a sex toy, and your opinion "as a male" doesn't really mean squat for something so apparent.

Women are not "just as capable of violent acts as men." For someone who quotes statistics, you seem rather willfully ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes, particularly rape, are committed by men, usually against women. Maybe I shouldn't say 'never ever ever," but I can be pretty goddamn sure almost all of the time that if someone is objectifying, sexually harrassing, or raping anybody, that person will be male.

Until you can address the ways in which your gender more than mine has been trained towards violence and sexual dominance, you will have trouble understanding this whole feminism thing.

The nature of the interaction would be different, just as it's different when a black person says "Dammit, white people are starting to annoy me," then when a white person says it. People of color and women have legit complaints and are completely powerless to enforce a construct of oppression against men or white people because we ourselves are too oppressed to have much of an affect on white people or men, who control us. When a white person or a dude says the same thing or makes a similar gesture, it becomes a threat that they actually have the power to carry out, one for which they had very little provocation because they already own the world and are only punishing us for being exactly what they made us.

If this is gender-boxing, I don't care. Do you realize we live in a patriarchy?

This device is completely involved in gender politics as much as prostitution or getting a younger trophy wife is. Women are constantly made to feel uneasy and unhappy because men can easily "replace" them, and this threat is designed to keep us in line.

The sleeping clothed woman looks a lot more like a porn actress than a real woman, and she is performing intimacy on demand, so I tend to see her as serving the same function as a porn actress (existing to meet the demands of men), except that she is working for men who are already sexually sated.

Ultramagnus, I believe this has already been said, but it's a bit disingenuous for you to assume that because I think it's wrong I plan to pop into the bedroom of everybody doing it and hit them over the head with a baseball bat or something. I was voicing disapproval. Period. I would try to explain to my friends why it was wrong and would not endorse said product, period. I would also argue that it's a bit more my business than you seem to think, given that I believe this product would have an affect on the real breathing women in the lives of those who used it.

I don't accuse people who like porn of trying to force every man, woman, and child in the country to watch it. The question here is simply whether we think something is right or wrong.

“Dean, I am always amazed that some men who consider themselves unappealing to the opposite sex never seem to consider the fact that there are just as many "unappealing" women as there are men.
I am sure there are plenty of women who'd like to be with you. Maybe you don't realize that because you don't recognize them as "women?" (because they're not young, slim and conventionally pretty)
Just a thought.�

Maybe, speaking from my own experiences, women he has met (that’s women in general mind you, not just supermodels) just don’t seem to be interested in dean that way. Is it so fucking outrageous to assume a person just doesn’t evoke that kind of interest in other people? Before you start accusing me of the same shit, no, I never simply looked for the “hottest� women, considering all others who don’t meet that standard “not women� like they were beneath me. Just a thought, but maybe you should look at your own opinion of men if you cant even consider the possibility that he might be having difficulties through no fault of his own? Oh but of course not, hes a man, why would he, right? He gets the world handed to him on a silver platter! The stupid ass is just aiming too high, and being sexist in the process right? Jesus Christ!

Just a little bit of outrage here from someone who was in the same situation as dean once. I personally would have been fucking insulted by the accusation that its because I was relegating some women to the status of “not women�, and only going for the “young, slim and conventionally pretty�. What, because hes a guy you would naturally assume him being so vain, selfish and totally sexist?

I'm confused. Does Burrows thinks he's gonna start a business and *market* this thing to all those sad traders and lawyers? 'Cause, if so, that might be a problem. It is somewhat offensive that he compares the function of the projected girl to that of a blow-up doll - and, of course, it's so typical that this is a young (white?) male artist making such a thing.

But otherwise I don't feel it's necessarily that big of a deal. I just hope the asshole keeps it to himself.

I mean, it's kind of sad in the same way as those person pillows are kind of sad, but I don't see what's offensive about this. It's not like he's got his two dimensional girlfriend doing objectifying things or acting like she's in love with him like that robot girlfriend Warren builds in Buffy.

I saw this on exhibit at the NYU Interactive Telecommunications Program showcase, and although I didn't have an opportunity to speak to the artist about his intent or interpretation of the piece, I think it's interesting to note that everyone who "tried it out" seemed to experience it as an interactive commentary on intimacy and loneliness, as Vanessa suggested. Being in the bed next to the image was depressing, even when it responded to your presence. It was like a chalk drawing - an indicator of absence. I agree that the artist's comments about marketing it as an alternative to sexist toys were gross and inappropriate, but at least that wasn't the way anyone seemed to experience it.

SARAHMC said: "I am always amazed that some men who consider themselves unappealing to the opposite sex never seem to consider the fact that there are just as many "unappealing" women as there are men...

Of course, even physically unappealing men are still considered to have some worth, whereas a physically unappealing woman has none.

ALD,

I see your point that perhaps SarahMC's critique wasn't entirely fair, but it is also true that you and dean are ascribing certain reactions (or a lack of interest) to any/all women while viewing yourselves as individuals worthy of respect. And yet, TLF and I have both expressed our own difficulty with finding suitable partners.

It goes both ways. If you are individuals worthy of respect, so are individual women, and if you are having difficulty with relationships, it isn't because any/all women reject you, but because the ones you have approached have rejected you. Which is a more universal human experience, not an exclusively male one. Like I said upthread, it happened to me a lot. In fact, my least successful (although longest) relationship was with the guy I picked and pursued.

When I would get frustrated with "men" when in the dating world I would remind myself that I wasn't being fair. It was the men I was choosing (or choosing to respond to) who weren't working out. And I was not entitled to their love/attention/affection whatever. And I didn't really want it if they weren't in to it as much as I was (that one took me one long relationship with someone who liked me and was attracted to me but did not requite my love to figure out.)

So, please don't fall into the trap of thinking that because x number of women have reacted y way in the past, this is how "women" react to you. Maybe you should think about how you're picking women (and I'm not picking on you, really, this was something I had to do myself--I examined why I was attracted to people, and got better at cutting things off if they started treating me badly or if they just weren't as into me as I was into them, or if, even if they were great people, they just didn't relate to me in a way that met my needs.) On the other hand, maybe you just are having a run of bad luck and dating/interacting with 'stealth jerks.'

It is true that there are general rules about who is considered appealing, and what behaviors are considered appealing. And like I said, I would never encourage anyone to change their fundamental personalities, unless they were mean or were letting themselves be treated badly by others.

But please don't think that when a woman treats you badly all the rest of us are on the hook. We other women are only on the hook to the extent we perpetuate/engage in the bad behavior, and some of us do not. Really. The same is true of men. Good men are not responsible for the men who have disrespected me, and they are only on the hook to the extent that they have encourageed/engaged in mistreatment of women.

I am not particularly disturbed by the various technological attempts to "replace" women. If a person is so messed up that he prefers a technological solution to real human companionship, a technological solution is probably the best outcome anyway. The partner they would otherwise have is probably better off not being in a relationship with them.

Ismone, I appreciate what youre doing, but Ill just say one or two more things and then finish on this. Its getting further away from the actual topic of discussion anyway, but I just wanted to say a couple more things. Im most definitely not trying to pin this lack of success with partners as an exclusively male thing, or in any way blame all women. Though I am aware of some men who have, Ive never been mistreated by any woman when looking for a partner. I know how trigger happy feminists are in calling out the ‘nice guys’, but I wont accept being called one of them. I don’t blame or harbour any ill feelings towards “women� because of my lack of success in finding a partner. However, with enough rejections and failures I stopped continuing to sit there thinking and saying “Ah well, at least there are still women out there for me�.

Im not going to stop saying I don’t have what it takes to attract women, especially when I take responsibility for my own failures in this regard. I will continue to say “women don’t find me attractive�, because from my perspective its 100% true. I don’t say it to strike back at women or anything like that, I just don’t shy away from my own inadequacies. Pretty much every women that Ive ever been rejected by has just done it because she wanted someone better for her, or nobody at all, and I don’t resent that at all.

With all that in mind I hope you can see how its insulting to see suggestions that a guy cant find women as partners because they have unreasonable and sexist standards on what makes a women. That they cant find a partner because they automatically reject any woman who doesn’t look like a supermodel. After honestly holding your hand up and accepting responsibility, it still doesn’t stop someone from slapping a “sexist� stamp on your forehead. Maybe SarahMC was right about dean, maybe she wasn’t. Without knowing for sure though, I just didn’t like the assumption. Like I said, as someone who didn’t hold unreasonable beauty standards on who I found attractive, I just took offence to that.

I don’t care what anyone else says, sometimes there just isnt “someone out there for you�.

I hear what you're saying. When one of my good friends said "one day your prince will come" (and she really said that, prince and all) for the nth time, I finally unloaded on her. I said "well maybe he won't! Maybe there isn't someone for me! There aren't any guarantees!" But the point I am trying to make is that saying that no women find you attractive sort of treats women as a collective group (not that you think that way, or mean it that way, but it suggests that interpretation) where I think there is a different, and subtle difference, in saying that you have a really hard time finding women who find you attractive (and perhaps haven't found one) and the effort to payoff ratio just isn't worth it.

And I have known guys like the ones Sarah describes (a lot of them) and get really annoyed with the thought that they think being nice = they deserve more than just another nice person, but a woman of a certain sort. So for us, it becomes a sort of knee-jerk reaction, which, as you point out, isn't fair at all. (Unless the person has done something to indicate that they've got a double standard going on, which I don't think you have. Or dean either for that matter.)

And it just makes me wince that you say that "women don't find me attractive" to yourself or to others. It just strikes me as so damaging. The truth is, you don't know what an individual woman, let alone women, think of your looks/attractiveness. You really don't. The other thing is, why does that matter? Is it a statement of self-worth? An explanation of your behavior?

I used to complain about the "dating scene" in state x. My friend, who was settling there long-term, finally had it with me, and told me that I was really in no position to complain since I hadn't even tried dating. So I did try, and ended up with a great boyfriend. And there is NO WAY I would have been able to pull someone like him in my early 20's, even though I was thinner and prettier. For whatever reason, getting older really did something for my attractiveness--maybe it was increased confidence, maybe I became less socially awkward, maybe I or the men or both matured, who knows.

But like you said, back on topic. :)

You aren't the only one that took offense to SarahMC's comment, alllife.

I'd also like to shout out to dean, that in one of your comment you seemed to lament the fact that women have sex toys to spice up their mono-sex life, while you didn't. I'd just like to let you know, that male sex toys/masturbatory aids rock my socks off. I've just last week recieved my first vibrating anal plug, and... my god.

"This device is completely involved in gender politics as much as prostitution or getting a younger trophy wife is. Women are constantly made to feel uneasy and unhappy because men can easily "replace" them, and this threat is designed to keep us in line. "

Sera, I take offense to this. Quite simply, many of these things are NOT about you. Deal with it.

CoasttoCoast- I found YOUR comment to be extremely offensive. As I am sure you are aware this is a feminist blog that discusses WOMEN'S issues. I am quite sure that Sera is a woman and therefore has every right to take issue with an installation (by a man-let's not forget) that uses the figure of a woman.

How dare you put her down. This issue is all about her as well as every woman!

On a more general note-
My problem with this piece is not whether it can be classed as an 'adequate substitution for a real woman' or not. I would prefer it if more men would be in relationships with imaginary women instead of real women and would abuse them instead of their real-life partners.

My problem is with the fact that it is ALWAYS women that are depicted in this way. Be it in the bible or in every lad's mag or in any product that is aimed at men, women are put on earth to service men's needs. I am sick to death of this portrayal.

There is a single big difference between a women using a vibrator and a man with this device. A man with this "virtual girlfriend" is getting the illusion of comforting intimacy from this device when a real women could provide real intimacy. When a woman uses a vibrator for sexual pleasure, she is getting something that cannot be provided by a man.

The virtual girlfriend makes up for it's user's incompetence with the opposite sex, whereas the vibrator makes up for the user the incompetence of the opposite sex.

Well thats just fucking beautiful open-sketch. Thank you for providing a nice reminder of what a fantastic lifestyle choice I have chosen.

open_sketch:

Lonely man = always the man's fault.

Sexually frustrated woman (or simply a woman wanting to get off w/o having to socialize or go through hoops, but her lack of desire to do this is different from the aforementioned "lonely guy" for some unnamed reason) = always mens fault.

I'll have to write this down so I don't forget what a shit-heel I am.

ALD, you're doing it again! Because open_sketch, one person who you presume is female, says something you think is awful, that supports your lifestyle choice to foreswear all women?

Ack!

But no I don't agree with open_sketch---not entirely. I don't think men are inadequate because, regardless of shape, you rarely vibrate in the manner that certain toys vibrate. But I do think it is creepy that the compliant personality-free female is seen as companionship. That real dolls, for some, are seen as companionship. Not that I object to what someone might get out of owning a sex toy like that, but to call it companionship instead of some form of solo sexual expression seems really weird. And kind of sick.

Ismone, sorry, I was actually talking about sex when I said about my lifestyle choice. I can see how it looks like Im saying "Im glad I dont bother with women", but its not. I was trying to snarkily suggest Im glad I dont bother with sex, but I obviously didnt communicate it well enough.

Ninapendamaishi:

Minor tangent here: but I do feel like there's also pressure on women to "perform" if you will... Like I know that guys I'm friends with talk appreciatively of women with experience, and I have performance anxiety, fear I don't have enough experience and know-how, what have you. I think part of this could be generational, since in older generations in western culture women weren't really supposed to have experience...

Nina, I concur with you. It was never my intention to imply that women don’t face any pressure to perform, but merely that the larger burden is placed on the men. I think this is merely a function of biology, since, correct me if I’m mistaken, it requires more time for a woman to reach orgasm then a man (generally, of course). Therefore, more time and “skill� is required to satisfy and please a woman than for the reverse.

However, because of this very perception, I feel that this can cause some women to wonder what’s wrong when they can’t get their male partner to orgasm/ejaculate. Because of the very popular conception that is extremely easy for men to have an orgasm, this might indeed put pressure on the lady in question and question her attractiveness, her “skills� , etc , which is of course not right and should not happen!, and ties into the whole concept that sex must involve orgasms to be satisfying.

With women being increasingly sexualized in popular culture, and with certain sex acts getting notoriety where once they would prove scandalous 20-30 years ago, it is no wonder that women are also starting to feel the pressure to perform.

Above quote by Ninapendamaishi should be in parentheses. My bad.

[Opensketch]:“There is a single big difference between a women using a vibrator and a man with this device. A man with this "virtual girlfriend" is getting the illusion of comforting intimacy from this device when a real women could provide real intimacy. When a woman uses a vibrator for sexual pleasure, she is getting something that cannot be provided by a man.
The virtual girlfriend makes up for it's user's incompetence with the opposite sex, whereas the vibrator makes up for the user the incompetence of the opposite sex.�

Ah yes, men are incompetent and are unable to provide sexual pleasure to women, and THAT’s why women use vibrators.

Is it any wonder that men face performance anxiety once in a while, and some men take Viagra in order to keep an erection so that they can be good as a vibrator/dildo?

Sorry, but I am not going to imagine that just because one woman (I assume that opensketch is a lady) states this, that it is the opinion of all women out there. There are many reasons women use vibrators, and while some women may be of the same opinion as opensketch, here’s to hoping its not true for all women! =)….

Throughout all this, I have yet to see someone counter the statement made by H-Nasty in an earlier post. Is there ANYWHERE that says that the artist thinks the 2D image is “just as good as a real woman�? I can’t know what he thinks about the image, but I doubt he finds the image as some sort of wonderful replacement for a real flesh-and-blood woman.

[Ismone:]
“But please don't think that when a woman treats you badly all the rest of us are on the hook. We other women are only on the hook to the extent we perpetuate/engage in the bad behavior, and some of us do not. Really. The same is true of men. Good men are not responsible for the men who have disrespected me, and they are only on the hook to the extent that they have encourageed/engaged in mistreatment of women.�

I agree with you, Ismone. Painting an entire sex as bad due to the actions of a few specimens is stereotyping and unfair to the rest of said sex. I have had bad experiences with a couple of women, but no way am I going to avoid relationships just because of a few sour experiences. It might make me more wary, more cautious, but avoiding them altogether? No.

But one thing I have always wondered, is that I’ve noticed that in popular media, women are always painted as saying “All the good men are either gay, taken or married� or something along those lines. Since I’m not female, I’ve always wondered whether this is anywhere remotely true, whether the dating “market� for single women is as abysmal and as terrible as people make it out to be. Thoughts?

Timothy, I disagree with the notion that how long it takes to reach orgasm is wholly (or even mostly) determined by biology. I think it's at least as much influenced by culture. When someone receives the repeated message, over and over, that sex is bad and dirty and unhealthy and that engaging in it makes you a worthless, unlovable person, it's really only natural that you'll have a harder time enjoying it, even if intellectually you have put those thoughts to rest. Women still get this message a lot -- not nearly as much as we used to, of course, which is why there are fewer inorgasmic women in younger generations. But we aren't completely there yet. I suspect that if the societal treatment of sex were truly equitable and non-gender-biased, you'd see very little difference in the relative ease of achieving orgasm as between women and men.

"There are many reasons women use vibrators, and while some women may be of the same opinion as opensketch, here’s to hoping its not true for all women! =)…."

Hmm... I definitely believe that vibrators, for most women, make reaching orgasm far /easier/ and /quicker/ even if it's not /impossible/ without them...

"I suspect that if the societal treatment of sex were truly equitable and non-gender-biased, you'd see very little difference in the relative ease of achieving orgasm as between women and men."

Really? I mean sure, I know that a lot of women (myself included) don't start masturbating until they're much older than most boys are when they start, but still... I for instance, need a lot of pressure to get there -almost more than I can provide with my own hand, even... I feel like it's biological, b/c I don't have much trouble getting turned on/ready for sex itself...

About the 'dating market' I can't speak for everyone, but my experience was not that all the good men were taken, but that a lot of the men who made an effort to get me did so based on superficial criteria. (i.e., guys would start making a serious play for me without first figuring out who I was or what I was like. which showed a lack of self-respect as well.)

And after having asked men out, my theory was that while many of my girlfriends would think, oh, he's okay but not my type, and go on the date anyways, many of the guys I pursued (or who I was friends with) would turn down dates with women if they had any doubt.

Things got a lot easier for me when I went on match, b/c guys had to deal with me in print (and vice versa) and also, as my guy pointed out, people online who paid for a service are generally pretty serious about wanting to date.

But before him, I definitely felt like I was going to have to compromise on something important to me--I'd end up with someone who didn't get feminism, or who wasn't supportive of my career, or who was just slightly sexist. So in that way, I feel like the deck is slightly stacked. A lot of good women end up married to pretty good men who don't really treat them like equals.

open_sketch, are you a MRA trolling in the guise of a feminist? Seriously, this is the second time in as many days that you've posted something which is 1. contrary to the philosophy of gender equality and 2. easily refuted.

As a former sex-toy saleslady, I repeat: toys cannot replace people, nor are they meant to. Humans desire the contact of other humans -- that's just how we're wired. However, even the most accommodating partner can't be sexually available 24/7. Also, no matter how much caffeine they have had, a human can't vibrate. For the guys: a masturbation sleeve will allow for flesh-like sensations and no friction burn, and straight men have prostates too.

Back to the original subject matter: those of you who read all the way through my second comment must realize that I'm not against "artificial companionship" -- quite the opposite. I do think it's best if the people using it are able to recognize it as a coping mechanism, but I can't bring myself to be too outraged if they're not.

I was not saying that women can replace human contact with sex toys. I was simply stating that, for the most part, men are incapable of sexually satisfying women (as you said, we can't vibrate, nor are we capable of going as long as women want, or reading women's mind to know exactly what they want, etc) and so it is understandable why any woman would have a vibrator. Meanwhile a man looking for intimacy and comfort from a human being can get that from any person, male or female, that is willing to put up with him and who he can attract, and things like this "virtual girlfriend" show that either he can't work up the courage to meet these people or he's too much of an asshole/slob to avoid driving them away. One is a requirement brought on by man's biological failings, the other a crutch for a man's emotional and psychological failings.

Ninapendamaishi:
“Hmm... I definitely believe that vibrators, for most women, make reaching orgasm far /easier/ and /quicker/ even if it's not /impossible/ without them...�

Well, I was not disputing that fact! I’m sure it does…it would make sense. After all, how can a flesh and blood penis possible compare to a machine that is powered by batteries that does not fail and goes on and on (and Vibrates!!- show me a penis that can vibrate? Clearly one is going to be superior than the other. I was merely taking issue with the whole “men are incompetent in sex and cannot sexually satisfy a woman� meme that was being passed around by opensketch. If that were indeed the case, why bother sleeping with a man at all (assuming you’re a heterosexual woman)? Afterall, if a penis is indeed inferior to a vibrator/dildo and women cannot get true sexual pleasure from a real flesh and blood man (as opensketch implied)…well, things do look rather bleak for men and their penises worldwide! Haha. A vestigial procreation tool that would only function as a waste disposal organ….it would make a good sci-fi story for sure, and maybe even become a reality one day.

The Law Fairy:
“When someone receives the repeated message, over and over, that sex is bad and dirty and unhealthy and that engaging in it makes you a worthless, unlovable person, it's really only natural that you'll have a harder time enjoying it, even if intellectually you have put those thoughts to rest.�
“I suspect that if the societal treatment of sex were truly equitable and non-gender-biased, you'd see very little difference in the relative ease of achieving orgasm as between women and men.�

I agree with you somewhat, in the sense that society’s message towards sex does affect the ability to reach orgasm, but, coming from a culture that sees American openness with sex as hedonistic and immoralistic, I can say, from personal experience and anecdotal stories, that it might affect a man’s ability to reach orgasm as well, and not only women’s. Afterall, if you have society saying that sex should be something done only after marriage, and it’s sinful to have pre-marital sex, then, yes, it definitely has a psychological impact on men, and women. Of course, in Western culture, the pressure would be less on the males, and more the females.

I’m not sure about your statement regarding the idea that if such barriers were down, that women and men would have similar ease to reach orgasm. Since I am not a woman, I can’t say for certain whether the relative ease for women to reach orgasm is affected largely by society’s attitude toward sex. But if it were true, that would be great for women.

Timothy, well, I'd say it has more to do with the *woman's* attitude toward sex. Where society comes in is that it's really, really tough to undo decades of social conditioning (i.e., once you realize you've been raised in a sexist society).

And I completely agree with you that social conditioning has just as much of an impact on men as on women. That's likely part of why, in modern American culture, it's pretty easy for a guy to orgasm -- it's not only acceptable, it's expected. Which, sure, is its own kind of pressure, but an American male doesn't have a *ton* of sources -- at least relative to women and to people in less sexually open cultures -- of disapproval for having and enjoying sex.

And, to be clear, Nina, I certainly didn't mean to suggest there are no biological differences with respect to orgasms. Clearly there are -- but they may well be just as much between individual women as between men versus women.

"I suspect that if the societal treatment of sex were truly equitable and non-gender-biased, you'd see very little difference in the relative ease of achieving orgasm as between women and men."

I think it depends what you mean. If you mean equal ease by intercourse, then I disagree just because of the simple fact that the male glans (head of penis) is directly stimulated during sex while the female glans is not (clitoris).

If you mean that sex viewed in a positive way and celebrated and people communicate openly and people were free to explore all avenues without prejudice, I still don't know if we can clearly say achieving orgasm would be as easy for women as for men on average. All we can do is clearly conclude the disparity would be far less than it is currently.

NINA: "That's likely part of why, in modern American culture, it's pretty easy for a guy to orgasm -- it's not only acceptable, it's expected."

I think you meant to say "most guys" or "many guys"? Obviously there are many men for whom that isn't true, for reasons relating to performance anxiety, stress, disability, health, natural variation, etc.

TIMOTHY "I can’t say for certain whether the relative ease for women to reach orgasm is affected largely by society’s attitude toward sex."

I think it's safe to say there is a great deal of social pressure that makes women think of sex as dirty, impure, and discourage women from exploring their sexuality (see feministing post on "purity balls). This leads women to start exploring sex later, to not explore what makes them orgasm, and to be less interested in sex.

The pressure on many men is different. It's not pressure to think of sex as dirty or impure. It's intense pressure to perform, to be take charge, to be skilled, to objectify women, etc. It's pressure to approach sex in a specific way, rather than to view sex as dirty or wrong (relative to the average experience of women).

Of course there is the religious fundamentalist experience, which is a whole nother ball game.

In my last post, it says I was responding to Nina but it was actually the Law Fairy.

open_sketch, I call BS on both of your arguments.

"...for the most part, men are incapable of sexually satisfying women (as you said, we can't vibrate, nor are we capable of going as long as women want, or reading women's mind to know exactly what they want, etc..."

Even if a guy doesn't have the natural talent for going a long time, it's a skill that can be learned. I'm not going to list all the methods here, because I don't think this is the thread for it -- read some books and sex-advice columns for more.

As for figuring out exactly what a woman wants in bed? ASK HER. That's how you learn.

"Meanwhile a man looking for intimacy and comfort from a human being can get that from any person, male or female, that is willing to put up with him and who he can attract, and things like this "virtual girlfriend" show that either he can't work up the courage to meet these people or he's too much of an asshole/slob to avoid driving them away."

Having watched several friends, male and female, struggling to get and to keep significant others, I can say that this too is false. Finding someone you click with physically and psychologically is not a given, and while it's good to have emotionally supportive friends, they simply don't provide the same kind of intimacy and companionship. Small wonder a lot of people crave an intimate relationship so badly that they need some sort of virtual coping mechanism.

And hey, even if someone's lack of a real significant other is in fact due to weakness of character rather than bad luck, how is looking down your nose at them in any way helpful?

you bloggers are unbelievable.

do some research before you cut and past someone else's tongue-in-cheek article and act like its fine to make judgements on a piece youve never seen nor even gone as far as to do a simple google search on.

Well, drew, did you make the comments about the blow-up doll and full body pillow? And did you read the debate going back and forth in the comments here?

There is a lot of discussion about loneliness, about sex toys, about what real companionship means, and if you can't understand why women get fed up with passive idealized voiceless female images in art, perhaps you should give more thought to that.

I didn't like the "pitch" the artist used for his piece, but I'm willing to believe that might have been taken out of context. As a stand-alone installation, without the benefit(?) of his comments, I rather like it. It's evokes a stark loneliness, and an ache that's almost lovely, really. I think it's kind of a beautiful piece.