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