Female robot is the perfect companion, receptionist, sexual assault victim
While community poster toomey posted on this a few days ago, we've been getting too many emails from readers to not cover it. And it's also really fucking disturbing.
I don't know what's more unsettling: the fact that she expresses pain and distress when you assault her, or the way inventor Le Trung dresses them. (See pic after jump.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Female robot is the perfect companion, receptionist, sexual assault victim.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10922
I saw this video yesterday, plus another one. The sexism throughout really upsets me, because as a computer scientist I have dual feelings. Half of me is getting super excited that someone has managed to create a robot that's very sophisticated as far as recognising objects, deciphering speech, reading text on paper, and responding to touch. Then the other half of me is disgusted that such an advanced project has such a backwards view of women.
What a shame!
Agreed. Really, the robot seems pretty awesome, but did he have to show it's response to touch by groping it? At least he programmed it to be assertive and ask to stop in no uncertain terms.
The inventor designed this model to not be a sex toy. It does not have sexual parts. He was further demonstrating this by showing that the robot was programed to respond negatively to sexual moves.
I think it's more showing to his social awkwardness that he didn't understand that groping a mock woman's breast is not good, rather than his out look on women in general.
Destra,
Where did you get your information that it's not supposed to be a sex toy, or are you just guessing?
Because I also know he said somewhere that he designed her because he was too busy to go out and get a wife. I found that a little insinuating, personally.
I'm starting to feel like you like to disagree with people on this site just for the heck of it...
Destra,
Where did you get your information that it's not supposed to be a sex toy, or are you just guessing?
Because I also know he said somewhere that he designed her because he was too busy to go out and get a wife. I found that a little insinuating, personally.
I'm starting to feel like you like to disagree with people on this site just for the heck of it...
Actually I saw a different video about this in which he said the original purpose for the robot was as a companion for the elderly and disabled. I am not sure how much help she would be since she is not terribly mobile, but maybe he thought she could read to them or provide "human" conversation. There seem to be conflicting stories out there regarding her purpose and his intent.
It actually says that she is not designed for sex but can be modified.
Quoted from below:
"This robot does in fact have synthetic sex organs.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/12/11/7717856-cp.html"
"The inventor designed this model to not be a sex toy."
So it has synthetic sex organs why, then?
I actually find it kind of disturbing on both sides.
This is creepy!
'I do not like it when you touch my breasts.'
That's supposed to be sophistocated!? I'd have it use much more colourful language than that, beginning with a four letter word.
"I do this at home, from my basement..."
No kidding.
Super, super gross.
Ick. I repeat. ICK!!!
...or the way inventor Le Trung dresses them. (
You mean in his mother's old clothes (literally)? With fully buttoned up blouses, gloves, and long skirts? How scandalous!
It actually looks like the Japanese Lolita style in the pink picture, which is an interesting choice, but not necessarily sexual. And I don't think you mean "literally" unless I skimmed over something in the article.
It's noted that the robot is wearing his mother's clothes in this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.wrobot11/BNStory/Technology/home
It's a take on Japanese Lolita, which is pretty creepy. Just because it doesn't show a lot of skin doesn't mean it's not creepy.
"Just because it doesn't show a lot of skin doesn't mean it's not creepy."
exactly!
And here I thought Vanessa was just being snide ... I mean, really, no human OR robot should be forced to wear that little bonnet (what?) or that matronly blouse. Ick.
You mean the Lolita fetish garb she's in? Have you never met an anime fanboi?
I know a lot of girls in favor of loli style claim that they aren't trying to be sexual, which I can believe. I also think it's naive to ignore the fact that tons of boys think Loli is VERY sexy, and inherently sexualizing--witness the cafes in Japan where dudes go to have waitresses dressed in Loli maid outfits serve them.
am i nuts or has Feminist done nothing on Favreau? i see this robot and then decided to see what Feministing had to say about other fondling of non-human and found nothing in my search of the site. please show me the post on Favreau, as i must not be seeing it! thanks
Jill
Why don't you make a community post instead of complaining?
This robot does in fact have synthetic sex organs.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/12/11/7717856-cp.html
I like how the article mentions that he doesn't have a girlfriend. Like, no shit! How would guys feel if women started making male atomically correct robots to be the perfect man? I'm sure many would feel sincerely hurt. Seriously, what the fuck is this shit?
Well, there is a lot more vibrators on the market than plastic vaginas. It is already happening.
Men use vibes too, including straight ones. Moron.
Vibrators are mostly bought for women. Especially vaginal ones. And I don't like to be called "moron" for nothing.
I think theres a difference between sex toys for men and women, and fembots. This thing is supposed to recognize people, have conversations with them, and react to touch. I don't think vibrators are intended to replace real human relationships and interaction.
"Well, there is a lot more vibrators on the market than plastic vaginas. It is already happening."
Vibrators aren't robots.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2023392.ece
In this article, he says he hasn't consummated their 'relationship' but with a few 'tweaks' she could become a sexual partner. "She could be made to simulate having an orgasm," he said. He also describes her as the perfect woman.
Just too creepy.
She should go all "I, Robot" on his ass.
That's not how robots work. Damn you, Will Smith.
She has silicon breasts, but that doesn't automatically make her a sex toy. I agree that the female robot idea is problematic but there is a lot of misinformation and villianizing of the creator. Maybe you should read some local news:
http://www.thestar.com/article/552049
She has silicon breasts, but that doesn't automatically make her a sex toy. I agree that the female robot idea is problematic but there is a lot of misinformation and villianizing of the creator. Maybe you should read some local news:
http://www.thestar.com/article/552049
The link that has been posted is from a tabloid...not necessarily very accurate journalism.
Agreed. He has gone seriously into debt to invent this robot. The parts he used for her body are from a Japanese sex doll, that was probably the cheapest way to get a full-sized and reasonably realistic android body. He is a technological genius. No, he did not craft a male android, but this is a serious endeavor for him...I know a lot of people who anthropomorphise their projects because of the amount of love they put into them. For some highly intelligent people, they have spent most of their lives with their projects and interests and not people. It is no surprise that he doesn't entirely seem socially healthy. As someone who has been around people like this all her life, just give him a break and stop calling him a creep for long enough to see how amazing it is that one single person financed the construction of an android this advanced.
And frankly, when he makes a male version to market, I will be the first one in line for one. ;)
Can't he be a genius and a creep at the same time?
Ya know, if someone is twisted enough to want/need an abuse victim (and I'm not saying this guy is one of those), better they have an android to abuse than a woman. No?
Yup. And preferably, to not have kids. 2 Birds, 1 stone.
on the one hand cool technology on the other hand a the robot-girl/boyfriend talk creeps me out >_
And it reminds me a little bit of the jdorama "zettai kareshi - absolue boyfriend"
Well that's just too fucking creepy.
There are no words.
Is it possible too that we're being slightly ethnocentric in our analysis of this? My mind is reeling with thoughts because I just watched the video that one of Jessica's students made about feminism and anime and I'm just starting to realize how very much we have to adjust our lenses when considering feminist issues in other countries or with other ethnicities.
I'm more bothered just by the fact that I consistently see androids being made (in real life, not science fiction) who are always based on what to me looks like this very idealized young feminine japanese body type/face shape/features. In the science fiction I've read there are androids and robots but they're always heroes, or really good at science, or even lovable buffoons who manage always to save the day. When i see robots and androids as females in real life, and occasionally in literature, they're always meant to be companions who can talk about pleasant things. In reality I know there are a lot of applications for this kind of technology and that the gaffs this man made probably have logical explanations and that due to reporting we might not be getting his motivations clear....but a part of me also is struck with how much this robot, and ones i've seen before, remind me of geishas. they can chat pleasantly, dig up trivial information, are beautiful to look at, and basically fit into everything like a piece of furniture.
'm just starting to realize how very much we have to adjust our lenses when considering feminist issues in other countries or with other ethnicities.
You realise that he was born in Vietnam, and lives in Canada, right?
Truthfully, I was expecting a lot worse. Yes, it's creepy that he's groping a robot in public, but it's for the purpose of demonstrating that the robot forcibly stops him and does not ask but TELLS him she is not to be touched in that way. And I'd rather she notes that she's in pain and tells people to stop than have no pain sensors whatsoever - can you imagine how disturbing this would be if you were allowed to hit her and she wouldn't say a thing?
How can something that isn't human, and isn't even ALIVE be a "victim" of "sexual assault"?
That's like saying using your vibrator without getting it's permission first is "sexual assault".
I was kind of thinking the same thing.
The man is a bit creepy but the idea is not that creepy to me. Even if he was using it for sex it's just an improved version of what we are already using for sexual gratification. I had never heard about this before, I want to know more.
This. I mean, that might actually be a topic worth discussing if the thing were sentient, but as it is the robot's just an object.
As for me, call me when they drag this thing out of the Uncanny Valley...
If we're going to say that a lifelike female sex doll is off-limits why are vibrators, dildos, etc. not off-limits?
Men and women both use sex toys. Maybe men just get a little more vivid when it comes to making theirs. But the principle is the same: it's a replacement for human contact.
What's off-limits? Last I heard real doll et. al. are doing just fine.
And frankly a dildo/vibrator is comparable to a Fleshlight or similar toy for male masturbation. The comparator for of a lifelike female doll, is...wait, hold on...a lifelike male doll.
Now I need to go walk my dildo.
should say "comparison" not "comparator"...damned 2nd language is causing me to start making up words...
Spike the Cat,
Some commenters on the board are using it as an opportunity to say, "Oh! Men are replacing women with objects!"
Scroll on over to the community section and you'll see a very well-received post with the main point, "I don't need a man." And that's supposed to be empowering.
Scroll over here and a man inventing a robot as a substitute for a woman is "sick" and "pathetic." So it's OK to not need a man...but it's NOT OK to not need a woman?
There are male sex dolls.
Alan,
Many people expect a woman to have a man in her life otherwise she is of lesser value to her family and to society (this happens to some degree to men too).
That's where the "I don't need a man" is coming from. I don't even understand how you made the connection to this post. Especially since the OP in the final sentences talks about her options for meeting actual flesh and blood men for, ehem, company.
Also,
I am fully aware that there are male sex dolls, which is why I brought it up. I'm simply not understanding how people can compare a full-size sex doll or robot that you can parade around town (if you wish) with a vibrator.
Here is the issue as I see it. With the robots and the sex dolls we are once again entering into a technological gray area where the technology is moving faster than society is evolving. And we can all see where this robot stuff is going in a few years.
But the fundamental problem remains the same---and that is one of inequality. The fact that so many people create and participate in sexual fantasy that mimics the exact same inequality that society is trying to dismantle is troubling. I'm just not sure how it's going to play out.
People keep arguing that the two can coincide peacefully---that is true equality and fantasy inequality---but I don't know...
(And I'm speaking in general not about the inventor)
"technology is moving faster than society is evolving"?
So...you know how fast human society is evolving? Can you give that to me in social progression points per decade? I'm being facetious.
Technology is created by people. People are part of society. It might seem to me, then, that technology moves right in step with society. But who knows? Maybe you're right. Or maybe our technology is slowly catching up with our collective social fantasies.
But that's a pretty sweeping statement you make, and a statement that says, "I have a complete handle on the social progression of the human race."
The reason this dude is on a tabloid in an obscure corner of the internet is because MOST PEOPLE don't want sex dolls. And if he wants to sit in his bedroom with his doll, what's it to you? Sex dolls aren't catching on at large. People are fucking real people. And I still fail to see how the experience of one lonely man and his robot has any impact whatsoever on the experiences of real women.
1) I'll give you examples of technology moving faster:
Computer technology is good enough to allow for realistic child pornography; this has been brought to court (and will continue to be challenged from what I've heard) because it is murky as to whether this type of media is legal under current laws.
Also that fact that teenager are getting snagged by child pornography laws by taking naked pictures of themselves and distributing them.
Also there is much written about how technology is aiding the globalization of the sex trade and how law enforcement (including the legal system) isn't able to keep up with it. Examples are servers in international waters hosting porn, and the role of the internet in advertising people who are slaves.
Sorry my examples are from the sex trade, but there are other areas as well.
2) And it's not just tabloids pushing the sex and "perfect wife" angle. I've seen it on at least 1 national newspaper (if you can call it that) in Europe.
3) As far as the rest of your rant: Perhaps you meant that for somebody else?
In the first example I should have specified that the technology is increasing better at creating lifelike (meaning not cartoonish) computer-generated porn depicting children...
No one would complain if a man said "I don't need a woman!" because he's happy being single and doesn't need a relationship to complete his life.
Making a robot and considering it "the perfect woman" is different.
And as several people have noted, a vibrator is not a replacement for a man in any way, shape, or form. It's different in pretty much every way.
A word like "perfect" is subjective. Maybe, to him, a robot is the perfect woman. And that's OK if that's what he wants to do. If he were proclaiming to the universe, "All women should be more like my sex doll" it would be a different story.
Apart from everything else all the nice people here have already mentioned--the demand for female sex dolls WAAAY outstrips the demand for male sex dolls. There's a slight market for real dolls with removable penises, but I'd be willing to bet it's mostly dudes buying those.
And a vibrator does not replace human SOCIAL interaction; it doesn't stimulate another being, the way a sex bot does, or is hoped to.
And people, in the main, DO NOT FORM RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR VIBRATORS.
Ahem.
A fair amount of people form relationships with their real dolls/generic equivalent. For me, it's not the masturbatory aspect of this that's so disturbing, but the social implications--if I could believe that the sex toy is just a sex toy in the mind of the user, I'd be relaxed about it. But I don't believe that's always the case, or maybe even the general rule. That men form bonds with sex dolls, dress them, name them, talk to them... that bothers me a bit, because I feel that some of these men are at risk for losing their idea of what a women IS: an independent being with her own feelings you have to consider. And some of these men aren't going to have had very good schema for women to begin with...
Also? I think most chicks using a vibrator understand that an actual penis doesn't hum. I don't think some of the dudes with real dolls know that it's not what real women look like naked--
On that note, did someone get the measurements for this robot? I think she's got a 23 inch waist and 37 inch breasts? Which isn't totally ridiculous, but still, eeeh...
Why does it matter if he forms a relationship with his sex doll?
Who does he hurt?
Isn't it a little condescending to assume that, even if he forms a relationship with his doll (which is perfectly fine with me, even though I would never do it myself), he would not be able to tell the difference between real women and his doll? You're assuming he can't distinguish between fantasy and reality. And that's a little rude to assume of a person, even one who invents sex dolls.
You know, considering how much porn has already warped the male idea of what women look like? No, I don't think I'm being condescending.
To explain why my idea isn't so far fetched--
Porn can be a great thing for couples to use together, and porn can be a great thing for an individual. Porn also leads some people (usually men, who represent the majority of the sexual paraphilias in any case--check any undergrad psych book out for that--to NOT have a concept of what sex is like without the trappings of porn. We have tons of sex therapists out there working on men with this issue, because it DOES hurt their relationships with REAL women. It hurts their sex lives with real women, and it hurts their romantic relationships with women.
And if something like porn can do that--which still involves human, breathing, living women--are you really so comfortable saying a sex doll, which is simultaneously more removed from humanity and yet closer to user in that the user actually physically interacts it, would NOT have a similar effect?
Porn doesn't do that to all men, at least not to a usually problematic degree. Likewise, I'm not saying sex doll = instant creepo. But it IS something to be aware of, nonetheless--
And of course you could argue that the media, x rated and not, HAS really warped EVERYONE's idea of what women are supposed to look like--you think having readily available three dimensional models of that isn't going to worsen the problem?
"But the principle is the same: it's a replacement for human contact." (re: sex toys)
Not necessarily true. My partner and I use toys for fun and humour in the bedroom, which you could say brings us closer.
I don't use dildos or vibrators and say, "oh, you're the perfect man, because you don't have any thoughts or feelings of your own!!! You just do what I want!"
Maybe that's the difference.
Yes, for you lucky people in relationships toys can have a different purpose. But for the lonely masses, toys ARE indeed a sort of replacement for human-on-human intercourse.
I don't think sex toys are a replacement for human contact at all. There is nothing emotional about a vibrator, for one thing, and for another, just because I love using my vibe doesn't mean I'm not having lots and lots of sex with my wife... sometimes at the same time. It's just a different sensation, not a replacement. Nobody says, "well, I have a vibrator now, no need for a date," but people do seem to form these weird emotional attachments to real dolls and the like... therein lies the difference. One is an object that we see as an object. One is an object that's trying to look human and be more than just a "body part".
Really? You've never heard ANYONE say, "I don't need a date. I've got my hand / vibrator / bottle of lotion?" I've heard that sentiment expressed several times from both men and women. You've never even heard anyone JOKE about that?
Additionally, why does it matter if he forms a relationship with his doll? He can do what he wants with his life. It's his friggin' robot! If he wants to dress it up, call it Samantha and have tea with it, far be it from me to stop him. He's not hurting anybody.
You hear people say, "I don't need a date 'cause I've got my toys" comment because sometimes a person just wants to attend to their own needs and doesn't have the physical or emotional energy to attend to someone else's. (This includes people in long-term relationships, btw -- you shouldn't throw out your toys just because you've moved in with your SO.)
However, I challenge you to come up with a single documented case of someone saying, "I don't need a relationship; my emotional needs are being filled by my sex toy" in relation to a non-doll toy.
And nobody's saying that private, "monogamous" doll-lovers are hurting anyone. They're a symptom of wider social problems, not a cause.
Actually, a vibrator is an aid one uses to achieve orgasm or to enhance sexual fun with a partner. It's essentially a tool. For some of us, fingers do not suffice. If you imagine a plastic model of a penis when you think "vibrator" you're way off. Women don't anthropomorphize their vibrators.
"Aiko doesn’t need holidays, food or rest, and will work almost 24 hours a day. She is the perfect woman.” This a quote from Le Trung about his robot. His "perfect woman" has no needs or mind of her own and is a slave to her master. She even one ups skinny starlets because not only does she not eat normal amounts of food she eats no food! Forget objectifying real women, you can instead replace them with objects! Stepford wives for everyone! Seriously, this guy is a sick fuck.
"'Aiko doesn't need holidays, food or rest, and will work almost 24 hours a day. She is the perfect woman.' This a quote from Le Trung about his robot. His 'perfect woman' has no needs or mind of her own and is a slave to her master..."
Bingo. The problem isn't that Le Trung likes the robot. It's actually a cool invention and I like the way he even got it to speak up against being groped. The problem is that he's claiming we should be more like the robot, as if needing time off and food and rest makes us worse women.
Really everyone...I am growing quite tired of the bandwaggoning a lot of people have been participating in lately. It is JUST as sexist to call a nerdy guy a creep because he is not a suave smooth-talker as it is to call a woman a bitch for being outspoken. If you look at the entire interview, not this edited clip, you would probably see a lot more going on that was *not* creepy. Read my earlier comment concerning his choice in gender for the robot.
And...it IS just a robot. I do not imagine he has had sex with it...you just do NOT taint your inventions like that, not a prototype, and not when he is trying to get companies to fund the manufacture of this robot. Robots do not have humanity and *are* made to satisfy human needs. Would you be creepy for inventing a machine to make you milkshakes without having to do anything? IF this robot is to be used for sexual desire, better a robot is abused than a living woman. Robots can possibly help to *solve* issues of deviant behavior like rape. The more technologically advanced they are, the better.
We should be reaching out to this man to help him innovate instead of shunning him as a deviant or pervert. Shame on you. Educate, dont discriminate.
"...It is JUST as sexist to call a nerdy guy a creep because he is not a suave smooth-talker as it is to call a woman a bitch for being outspoken..."
You might weant to take a look at this: http://www.feministing.com/archives/008329.html#comment-124212
"...And there was something else...an undefinable but creepy vibe.
"Now, maybe he's just socially awkward. But what if he's not? If he doesn't follow social norms about how close to stand how do I know if he'll follow social norms about touching? If he follows me down the hall when I've given off clear signals that I don't want him to, where else will he follow me?
"I'd rather be rude than be followed; I'd rather be rude than be groped; I'd rather be rude than be assaulted..."
Now you are just making assumptions. It is ridiculous. Guys like this can barely approach a woman let alone touch her inappropriately. It is not because they were abused as a child or anything, like a great deal of sociopathic men...they just didnt have a lot of playtime with girls, or sometimes other boys. They had *some*, but not enough to make them completely at ease with the general populace. I AM ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. I am not a pervert, I am not degenerate. I learned how to speak to/interact with people eventually. Some never do and it *definitely* doesnt make them potential sex offenders. My god, having to defend people from attacks because they are not of the status quo is below what should be going on here.
A lot of people say "the perfect woman" or "the perfect man" when talking about idealized conceptions of gender and gender roles to describe something that is typically unnatural. It is a fallacy but it is one people make constantly, which is why I said that there should be outreach to try to assist him in the marketing of this product and how to keep it respectful to women. Some of yall are just lashing out. This is NOT the positive direction feminism needs to move in!! NOT by attacking people like this, someone who is obviously naive about womens issues. Seriously, can we start being *constructive* feminists? I am exasperated.
"Guys like this can barely approach a woman let alone touch her inappropriately."
The guy in EG's comment that I quoted was approaching EG in real life. I'll repeat her comment in full:
"Alek, I just want to second what Mina said about women having, for our own safety, to be sensitive to creepy vibes from men. For a while there was a janitor in my office who was, well, creepy. I suspect he has some form of mild retardation, but the fact is, he never did to the men what he did to the women; he would come up behind me way too close and start talking right in my ear; he would wander into my female colleagues' offices and sit down even if they were in the middle of working; he would insert himself into conversations between women. And there was something else...an undefinable but creepy vibe.
"Now, maybe he's just socially awkward. But what if he's not? If he doesn't follow social norms about how close to stand how do I know if he'll follow social norms about touching? If he follows me down the hall when I've given off clear signals that I don't want him to, where else will he follow me?
"I'd rather be rude than be followed; I'd rather be rude than be groped; I'd rather be rude than be assaulted.
"The contrast reminds me of an oft-cited study about gender and fears. When the men were asked what they most feared about women, they answered that they feared that women would laugh at them. When the women were asked what they most feared about men, they answered that they feared that men would kill them. Part of male privilege is the ability to live without thinking about sexual violence in everyday life. Women don't have the luxury.
"I realize that you already thanked Mina for bringing this to your attention, but I wanted to second what she said, because it is vitally important that especially men who are socially awkward understand what is at stake for women who are trying to read their signals, and that they understand that operating in a context in which the worst result of an interaction is being rejected is still a privilege. They need to know this so that they can better understand what is at stake in learning social cues. For women, reading these cues is about survival, and we just can't take too many chances or cut too much slack. If a man stands too close and gives an inappropriate compliment, that tells us something about his ability or willingness to respect boundaries, and we can't afford to make a mistake on that."
---
"It is not because they were abused as a child or anything, like a great deal of sociopathic men...they just didnt have a lot of playtime with girls, or sometimes other boys. They had *some*, but not enough to make them completely at ease with the general populace. I AM ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. I am not a pervert, I am not degenerate. I learned how to speak to/interact with people eventually."
That's good.
"Some never do and it *definitely* doesnt make them potential sex offenders."
News flash: other people (including other people with social learning disabilities) are not telepathic mind-readers.
For example, how on Earth is someone supposed to tell the difference between an abuse victim who grew up to be a stalker and a lonely child who grew up to be socially ignorant when they're both doing the same thing and following her or him so closely that it's stalking?
why are you talking about something that happened to someone else in an entirely different context? As far as I know, this guy was not walking too close to any woman...and his interactions with a robot cannot be construed as interaction with a female. I understand the concern, but there are solutions to this sort of behavior and that is communication.
You firmly tell them to move away, not to act that way around you/women. Please do not go off on tangents, though, it is thoroughly confusing and not on topic. We aren't mind readers, but this is a video interview of a guy interacting with a robot that has the shape of a female. I imagine he was pretty nervous with a camera there anyhow. Ive met plenty "Creepy" guys...if your instinct says to run away, do it. But unless he is making advances or suggesting it, he is not a criminal or a creep. Cute guys can act like slimebags too, you know. Looks arent the only litmus test for being socially awkward. Maybe if women didnt scurry away from them all the time like frightened rabbits and instead treated them like a normal human being, they would understand social interaction better. We have taken enough liberties with this man's demeanor, anyhow, i think its enough.
"Ive met plenty 'Creepy' guys...if your instinct says to run away, do it. But unless he is making advances or suggesting it, he is not a criminal or a creep. Cute guys can act like slimebags too, you know. Looks arent the only litmus test for being socially awkward..."
I never said looks were a litmus test. I was talking about behavior.
"...Maybe if women didnt scurry away from them all the time like frightened rabbits and instead treated them like a normal human being, they would understand social interaction better"
So, which is it? Run away if your instinct says to, or stay?
If it was up to the women on this site I have a feeling women would rule the world because apparently "we" can never do wrong. Seriously, do you have to take everything so seriously. They made a sophisticated robot, who cares if they want to use it as a sex toy? It's not your buisness? We used vibrators, sorry if we haven't had anything more sophisticated like vibrating men. >_
Women who aren't "Feminists" (as determined by Feministing) do plenty wrong!
A vibrator isn't the distaff equivalent of a sex doll -- it's the distaff equivalent of a masturbation sleeve.
And, FYI, it's not the use of sex dolls or androids for sex that bothers us -- it is, as Mina noted above, the statements made by some that women would be better if we were more like sex dolls.
Summary of my thoughts:
* Kudos to him for an impressive creation--I hope some science/tech firm recruits him (since he's now broke and living with family for this labor of love).
* I'm sure the tabloids pushed the sex-doll/girlfriend angle on him, because that's sensational and it sells. The local coverage makes him seems like a sweet-intentioned tech nerd with a great idea (helper for the elderly, disabled, etc.). I love that his mom ask Aiko for the weather, etc. I can see this same functionality in a male bot body.
* The lolita look is odd/troubling, but my sense is that he was working with a limited budget, probably didn't think too much, etc. I appreciate that she doesn't have a "seductive" voice, but instead speaks matter-of-factly. (Yes, there are breathy computer voices!)
* I totally disagree with people that think the doll is *inviting* violence because she responds to unwanted touchings negatively (or with an ow)--I thought that was actually a cool thing. When her arm is squeezed, she doesn't just say ow, but "why did you do that? It hurts!" It emphasizes that she should be treated respectfully.
Yeah, good points!
Though I think it's sad that a man needs to invent a robot, I find it interesting that he makes her say "ow" and "don't do that" when someone touches her inappropriately. In fact, she sounds like a learning device for unwanted touching. He seems a lot more sensitive than whoever invented the sex dolls. His dolls would actually take less crap than them.
I really don't see what the problem is here. A lot of the comments here are basically operating under the assumption that there is a partner for everyone out there, but the truth is, there is nobody out there for certain people and there never will be. I'm talking about people who have conditions such as autism, brittle bone disease, cerebal palsy, Down's syndrome, muscular distrophy, etc. The kind that aren't wanted by a lot of people because they have never lead normal lives and never will.
These kinds of things are perfect for people who have been rejected from society due to their differences. And let's not forget that the majority of these people are moral human beings and not psychopaths.
I find the idea of sexbots (not saying this is one) pretty creepy, but then again I don't promote sex toys on my blog.
Aleks, have you read the replies to Alan, above? Because you really should.
Yeah, you probably just meant the comment as a snide little joke. But it's a joke we're fucking tired of hearing, ok?
I've worked in two sex shops. The motives behind buying a sex doll and buying a masturbation sleeve are quite different.
Ouch. He makes a good point. So what if some lonely Japanese dude makes himself a robotic sex doll? Sex doll purchasers/users/inventors likely aren't the kind of people who will have any impact whatsoever on the lives of women.
Let him fuck the doll in his bedroom. And as long as Feministing actively promotes "Pussy Plush Toys" on Christmas it does seem a little hypocritical to go after a male sex toy inventor.
When you worked in a sex shop did you have in-depth conversations with the people who came in about their motives for buying sex dolls?
A plushie uterus is not the distaff equivalent to a sex doll -- it's the distaff equivalent to plushie testicles. It's disingenuous of you even to make the comparison, as you yourself must realize how absurd it is.
I asked customers enough questions to ascertain that they were getting the product that was best for their needs, which can get pretty personal. And that's not counting the "waaaay too much information was just volunteered there" moments.
But hey, you don't have to take my word for it -- go have a look at some of the RealDoll forums, where men talk about the kind of qualities that make dolls "superior" to women: namely, not having needs or interests of their own. On the one hand, I'm kind of glad that these guys have voluntarily taken themselves off the market, but it can't be denied that there's still a very strong "perfect woman = perfectly submissive to male needs" message, which has resonated very strongly in these men.
In those men, yes. Their message does not resonate with society at large. The social message of "women should be submissive, docile androids" is coming from influential places. A message board frequented by lonely middle-aged men with robot sex toys is not one of those places of influence.
No, it's just much more obvious and explicit on those message boards.
Nope, I was sincere. I think your toys are creepy, you think his is. Thankfully, we live in free countries and don't have to care about each other's judgments about our "motivations".
You think a non-anthropomorphized tool is creepy, but a fake person isn't? Seriously?
Well, if that's the case, you've got issues that you probably ought to keep to yourself. Just remember for future discussions:
Vibrators and dildos = pocket pussies and masturbation sleeves.
Female sex dolls = male sex dolls.
Female sex dolls != vibrators.
Clear? Can we not waste any more time on this? Thanks.
"I find it interesting that he makes her say "ow" and "don't do that" when someone touches her inappropriately. In fact, she sounds like a learning device for unwanted touching."
Not necessarily his original intent. Responses to touching or handling are a way for creators or researchers on androids to test or demonstrate touch sensors, for a humanlike response as part of the overall package. It is not necessarily meant to be creepy like this video, or to encourage inappropriate behavior. See the work of Prof. Hiroshi Ishiguro, a featured researcher from Japan, for example, in his android "double," the Geminoid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WijMCSfX0RA
It is his express wish for androids to be able to reproduce a "human presense." Ishiguro would like to conduct class lectures at his university through his android, controlling it remotely from the comfort of his home, and has already demonstrated this. He would also like people to communicate remotely with e.g., loved ones living apart, through android representations of themselves that they leave behind.
As may be seen on YouTube, this is not the limit of LeTreung's work, though his explicit view of his creation as a substitute for real companionship is what it is. There are numerous other international teams, more well funded, and generally, more successful at creating humanlike androids, with the potential to fill a variety of more socially acceptable roles. Japan already has some androids in place as information guides, for example, and could spare some humans from unnecessarily mundane tasks, like being an "elevator girl," whose purpose in urban department stores is to stand facing the wall and push buttons to bring visitors to floors they would like to visit, while making scripted announcements like "6th floor. Women's undergarments. Restaurants. Women's shoes. Watch your step." Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2gjZcZBMjY
Ones I have witnessed do not smile and avoid eye contact or conversation with customers, literally going about their jobs like androids would, making those same bows, hand gestures and scripted announcements EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO RIDERS ON THE ELEVATORS. By personal choice or perhaps actual company policy, there are of course exceptions. Most Japanese department stores have thankfully replaced elevator girls with prerecorded announcements and trusted customers to push buttons or watch for closing elevator doors by themselves.
I like this demonstration better where she calls him a pervert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yomx7bXMf2U
"A lot of the comments here are basically operating under the assumption that there is a partner for everyone out there, but the truth is, there is nobody out there for certain people and there never will be."
As some may immediately recognize from the video and previous posts on sex dolls, LeTreung uses as the base of his android body, a Candy Girl "love doll," manufactured by Orient Industries of Japan. I believe this face is called "Nana." The founder of Orient Industries began in 1977, manufacturing his product for handicapped men, widowers, and others. Here is one serious piece on their work:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/features/view/plastic-fantastic-japans-doll-industry-booming
"It’s debatable to what extent geriatric or disabled clients can manipulate the dolls, which weigh in at around 60 kg, but these two demographic groups have traditionally been the top customers."
I don't expect a lot of people to understand people who have those kinds of needs, as people who would buy these products are more generally viewed as losers who can't or won't try to form mature relationships with real women. It is notable that most of these products are particularly by western standards, disturbingly petite and short, even down to four feet tall (130 cm), and childish (as in, prepubescent) in appearance. Orient Industries products are equipped with artificial vaginas, but their mouths do not open, as a closed mouth was considered more aesthetically pleasing. Physical attractiveness is a priority to them. Other manufacturers have dolls that do have "functional" mouths.
Here are Orient Industries employees making what I consider to be oddly less respectable comments about their own products. Not safe for work and potentially triggering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEch_17CdpU
It is also notable that more so than in the US, there is a definite absence of male "love dolls" meant for women or male homosexuals among Japanese manufacturers. I'd be interested in knowing the reasons. Why may a man find a representation of an entire female body necessary, or to have a relationship with it; while most female customers may find a compact product like a vibrator, designed for a specific purpose, sufficient? Why do even women not feel the need for an artificial male body for companionship, as these men do with their dolls?
Correction: the shortest ones by mainstream manufacturers like Orient Industry go down to 140 cm (4'7"). I should also refer to their faces as "adolescent." There are other manufacturers with more extreme products.
Interesting stuff, A male.
I read the "doesn't need holidays, food or rest" comment not as a description of how women in general should be but more as trying to explain why the doll would be a good idea as a complement to real employees in retirement homes etc.
Hell, if I had that robot, I'd be too scared to even look at it- I've seen enough bad scifi to know what happens when you have scarily 'perfect' robots around the house...
I'm sure there is debate between those who believe personal service or companion robots should have some sort of human qualities (or that of some other familiar living thing, like a dog), to impart some feeling of comfort; and those who feel that something approaching human or "too" human in appearance, is disturbing. If this were some guy too attached to his R2 unit, it would not have the same effect.
For example, recent articles with numerous related links, and links within links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080226165233.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924085549.htm
I was not aware of the entire line of WowWee products, like the alleged "Tribot Talking Companion," their "Alive" animal series, or Hasbro "Fur Real" products. Apparently there are people, particularly children, who really enjoy them and become attached to them, despite being obviously not real. Read the Amazon customer reviews. I'm interested in some of these products myself, despite having a family and a variety of live pets.
I find it extremely disturbing that someone took the time to program this robot to respond to physical violence and sexual assault. Of all the things you could program a robot to do, this is all they could come up with-- "ouch" and "please don't touch my breast"?
Again, it's not responding to "sexual assault".
You cannot sexually assault a robot. It's not alive, it's not sentient/sapient, it's not human, it's not a woman.
I find it extremely disturbing that you seem to want to extend "sexual assault" things that outwardly resemble females.
It's not a real person. You can't assault it. It's not real.
taken from the project's website, this is quite disgusting:
"Aiko's future abilities:
Facial Expressions
Make tea and coffee
Feed me sushi
Make simple breakfast: eggs and bacon
If I lie my head down on Aiko lap, have her clean my ears with a Q-tip.
Ability to massage my shoulders and neck.
Able to do print and write
Clean the windows
Dust the shelves
Clean my toilet. (I hate cleaning the bathroom, might as well have someone else do it for me)"
Yeah, hand feeding sushi is a little weird and I would NEVER trust any machine to put anything in my ears, but the rest seems like basic caretaker stuff which is really what the machine is designed for.
Assuming that by feed he means hand-feed (remember English isn't his first language), isn't one of the stated intentions for the robot as a care for the disabled? Japan has a huge aide crisis because of the extreme shortage of young people.
There is no doubt in my mind that the business vultures are circling the inventor of this robot at this very moment, offering him lucrative incentives to sell them his product so they can repackage it and market it as the ultimate sexually abusable sex toy.
And once the buyers of this robot get bored with inflicting various violent acts upon her and not obtaining the thrill that terror-filled eyes, screams and blood can procure them, they will move on to live human victims.
That's pretty sick. You make it sound like tons of people are into this sort of thing, because you just described is a homocidal maniac, and I'm pretty sure that someone like that is going to do that regardless of what is available to them.
Even if someone was somehow into that sort of thing, I'd rather they used a doll then a real person. And I do believe these things can be a good outlet for people who these desires.
I think it is even more sexist that all of you automatically think because she is female she must be used for sex acts. That is like saying "omg they made a female robot, it MUST be so she can wash laundry and raise children!!!!" - Woman are good for many things, not just sex, why is that the default of your minds?? Anyway - I am glad they made a robot that tells people to stay away from her breasts, rather than one that does nothing when she is groped! She reacts just as a human female would.
Also, I was watching videos of Aiko at the science center and little kids kept poking her face and arms and she would tell them to stop, I imagine that is more effective than him constantly watching children and telling them to stop grabbing Aiko. (as a child if a robot told me to stop touching it I definitely wouldn't disobey!)
The fact that it has a synthetic vagina leads me to believe it was meant to be fucked. That's not an assumption.
I was under the impression that the guy who made it wanted the robot to have a body that looks as much like a person as possible and so used a Real Doll (or whatever brand it is) which is made to be as 'lifelike' as possible, including to the touch.
Just two general comments on the general discussion:
The robots objections to being handled too roughly could very reasonably have been built in as a warning system so people don't damage their robots. The response to groping could also just as reasonably be taken as the inventor thinking it improper for people to treat the robot like that as it could be to feed into the minds of sick perverts. In fact I would suspect it is more likely, particularly given his proposed uses and that he stated that it is not intended for sex. I mean he lists a future uses as "Cleaning Ears with Q-Tips" and "Clean Windows" - the closest thing to sex mentioned is the massage ability, which is still wide of the mark.
In practical terms if the robots are intended to be used for what he says then the "female' Real Doll is also a better choice than the male versions as it is lighter and would be easier to physically handle for the person it is caring for, who very likely would not be in prime physical condition.
It's an android.
It has obvious applications as a sex toy.
Instead of saying it's disturbing, please articulate: are you offended by androids or sex toys?
The Aeon of Robot-Feminist War has begun...
Many people already have explained that.
I think the bit that is disturbing is that a female-formed machine-servant is automatically seen as a target for sexual touching, and that it's already getting accolades from some men as being the "perfect woman". If it were a male-formed robot, even an attractive-looking one, there would be almost no media focus on it as a sex object.
[Quirrell] Troll! Troll in the dungeons! TROOOOOLLLLLL!
Thought you ought to know. [/Quirrell]
I'm not sure this guy built a robot just to sexually abuse. I think he's an emotionally crippled individual who can't relate to the opposite sex. Someone with his technical ability might be better served constructing fuel efficient cars for the American automotive industry.
I would believe that her telling people to leave her alone is a good thing if there were actually consequences. Like, if you touch her and she tells you not to and you keep doing it anyways, is she going to get up and kick your ass? Otherwise, it will have the exact opposite effect of teaching people to respect boundaries -- it teaches that there's no punishment for not respecting someone's boundaries. In fact, a lot of the guys I grew up with would have been MORE likely to keep touching her once they figured out that she would ask them not to but wouldn't do anything else. How's that teaching anybody anything?
And seriously, Alan, stop using the same fucking argument over and over again. People have already pointed out that feminists have no problems with guys using pocket pussies, which is ACTUALLY the equivalent to dildos and vibrators.
And really, how hard would it have been for this guy to say that her not eating or sleeping or needing anything makes her the perfect CARETAKER rather than the perfect WOMAN? Or does "woman" just automatically mean caretaker/bitch who'll do whatever I want nowadays? And if she's really meant to take care of elderly and disabled people, why the fuck does she need a vagina? And why did this guy make a robot modeled after a woman rather than a man, or an android? (God, watch, when they start appearing in the US they'll be replicas of black women...)
Mmm, somebody is lacking in intellectual fortitude...
Oops, the troll comment I replied to was removed.
Somehow I never thought this would be the first thing I ever commented on here but here we are.
Anyhow, if the guy didn't make the exterior, if he bought it, it may have come with the vagina. So maybe it wasn't his choice. Unless there are a lot of exteriors you can get cheaper that don't have plastic vaginas. I'm not shocked that the computer guy thinks people should be more like robots. Its unfortunate that he said that women should be more like robots but he probably thinks the same about men. Again though, if he bought the exterior it seems that buying a female shell would be simpler than buying a male shell if the information in the comments is accurate. I have no idea. The point that I was heading towards was that if you are trying to sell someone your android saying it is a woman (or if it were economically feasible a man) makes it seem more real than saying it is a person. Hence possibly his use of the term woman rather than person.
None of that explains the responses to groping that he programmed into it. Though if a therapist brought it into a group session where the clients roleplay and learn in a (This sounds worse than I intended) hands on manner what constitutes inappropriate touching it could be quite useful as a teaching aid. I am thinking specifically of work with teenagers and adults that have mild intellectual impairments. Its obviously inappropriate with other groups because it would very quickly become a joke.
I never knew there was a forum for real doll owners and right now I have a morbid curiosity. I hope it goes away. I wonder what Charlie Sheen posts under?
Does anyone remember the episodes of Buffy with the 30 years from now version of this thing?
Also Wumpscut, do you really need to refer to someone as an emotional cripple?. Or did cripple become an acceptable pejorative again while I wasn't looking.
For those debating whether it is meant to be a sex toy:
The faq (http://www.projectaiko.com/faq.html) includes "What can Aiko do?" and one of the answers is
"Companionship: Yes, it is possible to have Aiko as a companion. Aiko has sensitive sensors on her faces, body, including her breasts and vagina. Aiko will know the difference when being touch gently or being tickled. The BRAINS software and Aiko can be re-designed to simulate her having an orgasm. The software can be re-designed to "play hard to get" or "straight to the point". Well, you get the point... no need to go further into details."
I'm not personally assuming that that's a bad thing - although my gut feeling is one of squick some of the comments have made me rethink that somewhat. But it does seem that a sexual "function" is at least accepted by the creator whether or not he originally intended it.
No Divorces , No strange men living with your wife in your house with you picking up the tab. No beer swilling boy friends telling your kids what to do. No child support , no raising someone elses kid thinking it's yours! Piece of Mind! Why, I predict this is the New Man's best friend!
Good slogan; Cheaper then a hooker , more appealing but just as loyal as Rover!!
If you don't like the robot, don't buy it. Its an inanimate object why get in such a fuss about it??? We should keep the righteous indignation in reserve for real women, who could actually benefit from it.
plastic penises! good?
plastic girly parts! bad!
i know i know... dildo's arent robots right (which is an IRON CLAD argument right there) but you are suggesting that there is a line that was crossed then...
awesome...