Your Very Own Live 3D Virtual Girlfriend?

 

She’s not imaginary—she’s just not real.

In Japan, technologists have created some kind of cutie-pie cartoonish virtual young woman who follows you around in real life. You won’t get any street cred for having this gal by your side, though, because you’re the only one who can see her. She’s not imaginary—just fake.

Before we go on, take a look. Start the video at about 1:00 since I’m assuming you can’t read Japanese. (And if you can read Japanese, tell me below about how my assumption made an ass out of me. Only do it in Japanese!)

Here’s the video:

However silly it might seem right now, it’s definitely a step forward in technology, having someone or something right there in your own “augmented reality” as they’re calling this. And not just to see her, but to be able to interact with her. It would take some pretty sophisticated computering to be able to have this virtual person respond to finer interactions, but we should be hopeful that one day this companion can play chess or even have a conversation.

Or how about this scenario off the top of my head: prisoners too dangerous to be left with other inmates could still be in solitary confinement—but without being alone. And a creative commenter on YouTube said, “wow that’s scary … imagine horror videogames in the future.”

Of course, like the Internet and television before it, technology has its inherent, dichotomous positives/negatives. It’ll allow those with isolatory tendencies an enabled way to avoid actual interaction. Plus, the gist of the video seemed to carry a “see what I can do to this girl” vibe.

Is this video just guys being guys: demonstrating a breakthrough technology via a sexy character? Or are we seeing a new realm for a population of men out there who lack confidence and will take this as a way to play out their fantasies with this passive, young code of 0s and 1s?

What do you make of this technology?

 

—Image credit: nikovideo.jp

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Brandon Ferdig

Brandon Ferdig is writer from Minneapolis, MN. He shares his personal growth pieces, human interest stories, and commentary at his blog. He is currently writing a book titled New Plateaus in China, a compilation of travelogue, personal experience, human interest, and social observations from China. You can follow Brandon on Twitter @brandonferdig.

Comments

  1. The Blurpo says:

    I was wondering when this would show up here at the GMP.

    Im totally fond of this technology. The applications are huge. It could revolutionize what we consider gaming; imagine playing Left4dead with tech? or some well known retro games like Doom halflife or Quake? wow is the wow is the word. But it may also lead to some unforseen conseguences like PTSD from gaming?

    Anyways gaming and pornography aside, the more practical applications could be a virtual teacher? a cybernetic nanny? a companion for lonely people? a turist guide? a tech assistant? maybe even a virtual psychologist? maybe it can even be used for some for for therapy? who knows. But I would not be surprised if the military show some interst in this. Like in gaming soldiers can be trained ALSO using this tech, instead fighting against zombies or alien creature, they will fight enemy soldiers and at the same time avoiding civilian casualities?

    Yes I like this, endless possibilities :-)

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Yeah, I’ve been waiting for this kind of technology for a while (personally I see the concept of the monitor disappearing entirely) but jeebus if this isn’t a really bad/scary way to demo it.

      There must be dozens of ways this technology could have been brought to the public and they chose to make a digital blowup doll?

      • Soullite says:

        This is hardly a coincidence. Virtually all new technologies that can be used for pornography will be used for pornography. You can’t digitize food, water, air or shelter. But thanks to a few quirks of the human mind (that same ones that make watching sports enjoyable), it’s fairly easy to provide a somewhat satisfactory sexual experience in a digital format.

        They led with their best move. Not exactly a shocker. None of the other applications you can think up would be even half as profitable.

        • The Blurpo says:

          “They led with their best move. Not exactly a shocker. None of the other applications you can think up would be even half as profitable.”

          yes right now, but the same thing was said about personal computers or the internet. And look the present world now. All new technology are always recived with skepticism; In the 80’s people usually said, why buying a computer? I have all I need, and they are so complicated, I mean to interact with them I should learn some totally new languages like, Basic or Pascal? no thanks. In the 90’s why should I connect my comp to the internet? wow imagine the phone bills or in the early 2000’s high speed internet? cable? isdn? adsl? my slow speed is just as good. What do I want with a cellphone? if people wants my, the can call me at home or 3g wtf is 3g lolz ect ect….

          • But with the way companies are now they don’t want to wait for that slow development even if in the long run slow penetration is better than pump and dump.

            Most of the time now if it’s not a mega hit in 30sec or less it gets dropped for greener pastures.

            It may not be the best for the long haul but for getting their name and product out there fast and in a hurry (and then work on becoming viable for the long haul) porn is a sure fire hit. Look at how popular GoDaddy has gotten so quickly.

            • The Blurpo says:

              there are only certain sectors where the pump and dump is in use, like music or android/Iphone, fashion and games in other words, light technology. Others like, fornitures, computers, cars, airplanes, ships, space ect are more subject to the long programming. If they dont do the investment now, on few years they may leave the market.

              And this is not new, VR googles (as opposed to the 90’s vr mask) and 3d googles have been in the market for a long time. Maybe this application will make them go boom?

            • Going boom is the key and sexy is a good way to get that boom.

            • The Blurpo says:

              I never said that porn and gaming wont work on this, at the contrary. Im only claiming that it has also other possible application than porn and gaming.

              Just like internet. Pornography was also one of the main engines behind its diffusion, but not the only one.

            • The Blurpo says:

              Look at this other piece of tech. Now apply the new gen of superadvanced 3d vr googles, apply the virtual cyber girl tech and there you go. You have a hand free controller withouth clumsy glowes or josysticks/joypads. And fancy girls doing what you want. Beside that you can even surf the net and even work without a comp screen.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zapK5wvYU84

              Controll the comp screen with you eyes.

        • David Byron says:

          How is that video pornographic? Is any image of a female pornography to you — even one that is fully clothed and not in any sexual context?

      • The Blurpo says:

        as I understand it, this is a homemade tech by a dude unyfing kinetic with vr googles, or what?

    • Copyleft says:

      Endless possibilities, yes, but also endless ways to get it wrong and become very, very annoying. Remember the “helpful” MS Office guide, Clippy? The #1 question he was asked was “How do I shut you up?”

      And think of what marketers and advertisers would do with this technology, forcibly injecting themselves into your every online experience. You thought popup ads were bad….

      • The Blurpo says:

        “Remember the “helpful” MS Office guide, Clippy? The #1 question he was asked was “How do I shut you up?”

        And think of what marketers and advertisers would do with this technology, forcibly injecting themselves into your every online experience. You thought popup ads were bad….”

        Lol wery true, or the old ‘Bonzo Buddy’!

        I think a ‘doom’ style shotgun to blow off all thise cyber add caracters would be a necessity pretty fast.

  2. David Byron says:

    Isn’t that Hatsune Miku?
    Matsune Miko in live hologram concert

    Matsune Miku wikipedia entry</a.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo&feature=related

    So she’s about five years old I guess. She’s an established character not some random girl image.

    Is this video just guys being guys: demonstrating a breakthrough technology via a sexy character? Or are we seeing a new realm for a population of men out there who lack confidence and will take this as a way to play out their fantasies with this passive, young code of 0s and 1s?

    The technology has been there for a little while too but it was an obvious move to combine it with a character who has already had successful holographic concerts.

    The other aspect of the question seems sexist. We were told that, “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle“. In other words it was considered “liberating” for women to say they didn’t need a man. When men say they don’t need a woman however they are seen as perverts or losers.

    Just another example of choice only being something women can have, but the fact is more and more young men seem to be opting out of the cost, humiliation and criminal liability associated with having anything to do with women.

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      “The other aspect of the question seems sexist. We were told that, “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle“. In other words it was considered “liberating” for women to say they didn’t need a man. When men say they don’t need a woman however they are seen as perverts or losers.”

      The fish-bicycle thing wasn’t about replacing men with virtual partners though. This is considerably creepier.

      I think a better analogy would be to the jokes I’ve seen that men’s contribution to women’s lives can be replaced by a dildo and a step-ladder.

      • David Byron says:

        The fact that you think it is “creepier” (especially given the deeply sexist and offensive nature of that taunt and what it means to subjugating men) reveals your own prejudices. Nothing in this video was related to sex while as you say women have their plastic facsimile of a man’s penis which they literally have sex with — but THAT isn’t “creepy” to you. That is just a sex “toy”.

        I’m not blaming you since all your life you’ve been told men’s sexuality is dirty and violent whereas women’s is innocent and virginal. This is just women controlling men through sexual stereotyping.

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          Ok, firstly, it is sexual. The woman is described as a “virtual girlfriend” and she’s dressed in a pretty sexual manner. If you saw an actual woman wearing that dress would you not think so?

          Secondly, it’s creepy because it follows a trend of neotanous depictions of women in manga. It’s not restricted to women but it’s more common from what I’ve seen.

          I brought up dildos because I thought the idea that a piece of plastic being an adequate replacement for a man is insulting and similar to calling a 3D projection a “girlfriend.” It takes a human role and equates it with an object.

          I don’t have an issue with either porn or sex toys (I have both). The issue for me is when someone suggests that they equal or replace a person.

          • The Blurpo says:

            “I don’t have an issue with either porn or sex toys (I have both). The issue for me is when someone suggests that they equal or replace a person.”

            you go and tell that to someone who has no friends, has trouble socialicing and at 35 has never been close to a woman, not even a mercenary.

            But your right its not a replacement for another human bein. But nobody claims it should be.

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              “you go and tell that to someone who has no friends, has trouble socialicing and at 35 has never been close to a woman, not even a mercenary.”
              Like I said, I’ve no issue with anyone (eternally single or not) using porn or sex toys. I’d still say to them that they can’t get from them what they’d get from another human being though. Also I’d probably tell them to keep trying, I’m sure it’ll work out eventually :)

              “But your right its not a replacement for another human being. But nobody claims it should be.”
              If that’s the case then the term “girlfriend” shouldn’t really be used to describe it.

            • The Blurpo says:

              “Like I said, I’ve no issue with anyone (eternally single or not) using porn or sex toys. I’d still say to them that they can’t get from them what they’d get from another human being though. Also I’d probably tell them to keep trying, I’m sure it’ll work out eventually ”

              overly optimistick, the big enemy number one, they have to defeat is themselves. Its like the brain goes in loop mode when they are dating or approaching a woman. Dont do this, dont say that, and all the flashbacks that follows. And then they prefer to retire to something they are familiar with even if its not optimal. But its always better than get hammered on the head, you are not good enough or you are a creep ect.

              The keep trying or be yourself its more a curse than a sincere help.

              “If that’s the case then the term “girlfriend” shouldn’t really be used to describe it.”

              but girlfriend, in the english language isnt just a female friend, perhaps even one you go to bed with? or is it a fidancee?

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              In english “girlfriend” implies a sexual relationship.

            • The Blurpo says:

              ah ok, im Italian, and english is not my forte. As you also can see through my spelling :-)

              but thanks…

            • Mark Neil says:

              “If that’s the case then the term “girlfriend” shouldn’t really be used to describe it.”

              That’s the author of this article’s bias. One you choose to accept and promote. There is nothing provided by the author to suggest this is intended as a virtual girlfriend except the tendency to think if a man makes something that looks like a girl, it’s for the purpose of fucking it.

          • David Byron says:

            The video is in Japanese (I assume). Do you know Japanese and are you saying it says she is a “virtual girlfriend”? Because that phrase was supplied by the author of the article (or else possibly by Lisa or one of the editors if they come up with the titles of the pieces as well as the photos — I think they do but I am not sure).

            I would think you’d know that. Aren’t you a moderator?

            Do you consider any female image at all to be sexual? Another commentator seemed to think any female image at all constitutes porn. She’s not showing any skin but her shoulders, hands and her face. If that’s sexual so is wearing a burqa. She doesn’t have a sexy expression not even to the point of flirting. She does dance a little bit but its not in a sexual way at all. She doesn’t lift her leg up or bend over to show her ass or emphasise her breasts.

            And you’re saying she is “creepy” compared to making a facsimile of someone’s body parts and having sex with them?!?

            Even if it was sold as a virtual girlfriend that wouldn’t be “creepy” especially not compared to a dildo.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “The woman is described as a “virtual girlfriend” and she’s dressed in a pretty sexual manner.”

            Really? where is this defined as a “virtual girlfriend”? Because I’m familiar with the character as a Japanese Virtual IDOL (not girlfriend) named Hatsune Miku (you seemed to have skipped over that fact of the very post you replied to) that does a great many things, including holographic concerts. So where does it say it’s a virtual girlfriend?

            “The issue for me is when someone suggests that they equal or replace a person.”

            Even if that person is you, not anyone related to this technology? given every bit of information supplied for this article was in Japanese, and only the visuals are available, I find it rather odd that you insist this is intended as a replacement girlfriend. Isn’t that your own prejudices manifesting as the intentions of others to justify your feelings of dislike for these images? After all, between your accusing anime of having neotaneous depictions of women, and then accusing this technology of being intended as a virtual girlfriend, you are coming very close to accusations of pedophilia.

        • To ride your coat-tails David, I have another point. What’s interesting is this: If men really wholesale objectified women, then all single men who don’t ooze the charm and confidence to easily pickup women should have a fleshlight in their sock drawer.

          But, they don’t. For me personally (and I think I can safely hypothesize for most other men as well) I find the fleshlight thing wholely dissatisfying. I think what most men crave is female affection (i.e. if they just wanted access to body parts, then those men could easily replicate that). But, because the male role is so limited this is expressed from men as a need for sex.

          Quite frankly the fact that men are trying to reproduce the whole body experience rather than fleshy parts of women throws this whole “men objectify women” into the garbage bin.

      • “This is considerably creepier.”

        Why? Granted this whole “vitual girlfriend” thing isn’t for me by a long shot, but what exactly is “creepy” about it? Who is being harmed by the use of this technology in this way? The girls aren’t real, and therefore can’t be harmed (they aren’t even using the image of a real person)

        what’s the objective difference between this and a dildo?

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          It’s creepy in that the character is quite childlike and also that it’s being used in a public place. If it’s a sex toy then it belongs in a bedroom, not in a public park or a kid’s playground. If it isn’t a sex toy and it’s some kind of “companionship” deelie, then that’s slightly worse, you can’t (currently) replace a human relationship with a computer program.

          I don’t think anyone’s being harmed by it I just think it’s suggestive of a screwed up mental process.

          • Mark Neil says:

            David already provided you with the characters name, which is more than this articles writer provided regarding her. He also provided some links. Why is it you haven’t taken a look? A little research would show she has allegedly been nominated to perform at the London Olympics. and this is what you are calling a sex toy because someone wrote an article calling it such based on a video written and spoken in a language they admittedly can understand? Do you not see the sexism in all of this jumping to conclusions of male sexuality?

    • Mark Neil says:

      You beat me to it. Yes, she is a virtual idol developed to work alongside a virtual voice synthesizer that can sing. She is, as you said, very well established win Japan. What I find funny is that she is as much a manufactured idol as Brittany Spears ever was, but I doubt she will ever be accepted as anything but a male sex fantasy in Anglo-western feminist territory.

    • The fish-without-a-bicycle thing was to encourage women not to define themselves by their success, or lack thereof, in “catching a man.” It wasn’t about rejecting relationships with men, except I suppose for a small minority of lesbian separatist types. The phrase actually seems a little dated now because no one (or almost no one) doubts that women can be whole, valuable, functional human beings and individuals totally on their own, with or without men.

      I agree men should see themselves the same way. Your success as a human being should not be judged based on whether you have a wife/girlfriend or not. And the truth is, the more confident you are in yourself as a whole person, the more attractive you will be to others.

      • One problem I see is that while people say that a man’s success as a human should not be judged on having a girlfriend/wife they will still turn around and shame a man for not engaging in attempts at meeting women. Regardless of a man’s confidence levels they go straight to presuming worst faith in such guys. And that’s when the virgin shaming comes in.

        Fish and Bicycle aside, folks can’t both say that guys shouldn’t feel obligated to find a girlfriend/wife but then turn around and shame ones who aren’t looking for a wife/girlfriend.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        @Sarah: Very well said.

        @Danny: I agree, if someone doesn’t want a relationship or even doesn’t want to interact with humans at all (say a person with autism) then that’s their call and I hope they’ll be very happy.

        But if someone buys a “virtual girlfriend” for reassurance and emotional support that suggests to me that they do want/need human interaction on some level.

        I’m not sure if what you were saying extended to such a situation but I was trying to place it into the context of the above article.

        • But if someone buys a “virtual girlfriend” for reassurance and emotional support that suggests to me that they do want/need human interaction on some level.
          I can agree with that. However since this emotional support would be coming from people that want to be there there is always the possibility that there are people that want that interaction and emotional support but simply will not get it.

          I’m not accusing you of saying it, but there seems to be this vibe that says that if you’re nice and confident and all that then you are sure to find someone (to the point that the fact that you haven’t found someone is taken as an indicator that you are not nice and are not confident).

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            Ok, there’s all kinds of reasons why someone might want a relationship and not be able to have one. But if it’s emotional support they want (rather than sexual stimulation) then I really think they’d be better off getting it from a friend than a program. Even if they don’t go as far as spooning, most people know someone who’ll come over for a movie and pizza.

            • The Blurpo says:

              @Peter I agree, but I think to truly understand we need to be in the situation. A situation who is alien probably to me as it is to you. We can only sympathize….but not truly understand.

            • Fair enough.

              But I think that there may be more to wanting a girlfriend/wife than sexual stimulation. From what I’ve seen the emotional support from that type of relationship is of a different type than other relationships.

              Now maybe you are saying that in light of not being in a relationship it’s better to have other friends than to go for the program? I can agree with that. But there seems to be some holes that those other friends simply cannot fill.

            • David Byron says:

              Considering that over a third of young men in Japan have sworn off women and relationships because of the cost, humiliation and criminal liability such relationships carry these days, don’t you think that comment is condescending and sexist?

              Again the double standard. A woman who cries off men we call “independent” and “strong” but a man must have mental problems.

  3. Peter Houlihan says:

    Sprouts tentacles in 3… 2… 1

  4. If a technology like this gains some amount of popularity – even if it’s only in Japan – it’s only a matter of time before someone makes a pair of glasses like this that network together to form a virtual-meets-real-life MMO video game where all players can see the avatars of all other players in real space and interact with them accordingly.

    With the Google Glass project gaining some popularity – assuming they can make that technology available to the average mobile gadgets user within the next few years – it’s not a crazy stretch of the imagination to see this type of application coming.

    A few more steps beyond that and we start moving into the territory of anime shows like Ghost in the Shell: a society with prosthetic augmentations in their brains that allow them direct mental access to the Internet and other communication platforms at all times. If a technology like that gains widespread use, you just have to wonder what the people are going to do with it. That little virtual anime girl that follows you around in a virtual space is only the beginning.

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdh4TqWFfX4

      Oh, I hope so. Imagine playing chasing (tag for the yanks) with lasers and forcefields.

    • PursuitAce says:

      Well said. Anyone that doesn’t see this as a significant part of the future of “relationships”, sexuality and sex is just behind the times. But I also see society evolving beyond the simple pleasures of age-old sex. At some point physical sex will be seen as barbaric, animalistic, dangerous, and unnecessary.

  5. David Byron says:

    Btw? Traditionally the first use of new communication technology is to allow nerds to play Dungeons and Dragons.

  6. Was I watching the same virtual girlfriend as everyone else?

    I saw an anime sexualised 5 year old being hit by a male fist.

    So many ways to introduce the technology and this was considered the most apt.

    • Dianna, I felt much the same way upon seeing that. I was really disturbed the how he hit her over the head as well. I can’t help but wonder how many guys saw that and said “Wow! That’s cool!”

      The technology certainly is interesting but there is something intrinsically off about the entire thing. Aren’t these Japanese anime characters usually mirrored after very young girls with hyper idolized and idealized body parts? That’s what is ‘sexy” now? Underaged girls with porn-star body parts? I am not quite sure what’s great about that. Nevermind the fact that she is a cartoon. Not even a real protrayl of a real woman.

      Even if it’s feeding into a lonely man’s life. This isn’t about men “taking back” whatever they fear they lose in relation to real women. By buying such a product and encouraging it, aren’t you encouraging your own isolation?

      I know women aren’t easy but neither are men. There is no program I know of that has made a visual of underaged looking boys with over developed body parts that women can hit, smack, stroke or whatever with.

      From my understanding, Japanese culture in general allows a lot of sexually disturbing things.

      I also fail to see how this techonology being used to replaced nannies or pyschologists would be positive. Sometimes I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with technology. Making digital images of such professions takes away from real people having real jobs, not to mention interaction with real people! Which is currently part of the our economic problems right now. I worked in the newspaper industry that was significantly downsized due to growing technology. The music, film, paper and a million other kind of companies one might not even think of get cut back when technology over monopolizes our lives. If technology keeps conglomerating companies, it’s going to have a heavy affect on the jobs that are avaible to the public.

      • The Blurpo says:

        “Even if it’s feeding into a lonely man’s life. This isn’t about men “taking back” whatever they fear they lose in relation to real women. By buying such a product and encouraging it, aren’t you encouraging your own isolation?”

        I dont think this is a replacement for a girlfriend or boyfriend, gender relations in general. I think this is just a game, with lots of possible applications. About the isolation factor. The guys/gals who choose this for a real partner, are already isolated and they have practically capitulated. And the isolation meme show up everytime a new multimedia technology hits the store. The same thing was said with the TV, personal computing, internet ect. I hardly belive it leads to isolation, maybe in some extreme cases, but not in general.

        • First, lets not pretend that this is a gender equal issue. I don’t see anything in the article that indicates that they worked just as hard to make a male counterpart to the female one displayed. So yes, you would be right that this wouldn’t be a replacement for a boyfriend since there is no male counterpart that was even created. I think it’s very important to note that the tecnology was use to exploit the female form, not the male.

          Secondly, I actually do think that computers and techonlogy has isolated many of us. Does it make us stay locked up in our homes 24/7, unbathed and in our bath robes? No. However, unlike TV, the internet takes a much more interactive role in our lives that TV doesn’t even begin to meet. We see very real displays of the way the computer and internet has taken up space in our social lives. We will continue to rattle around with the question of connection vs disconnection but I do think we are seeing an increasing amount of disconnection from each other and reality in society. It’s not to the extreme you may be looking for, such as being so isolated you never leave the house. But there are many forms of human “isolation” that goes beyond our physical bodies or outward apperances.

          And perhaps the character isn’t 5 years old, but she doesn’t exactly look like a full grown mature woman either. Again, from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want?

          If you want to defend the visual reinforcement of a female character being hit by the male users, you’re welcome to. But there are many other way to test reactions then hitting.

          • The Blurpo says:

            ” First, lets not pretend that this is a gender equal issue.”

            Never stated that.

            ” I don’t see anything in the article that indicates that they worked just as hard to make a male counterpart to the female one displayed. So yes, you would be right that this wouldn’t be a replacement for a boyfriend since there is no male counterpart that was even created. I think it’s very important to note that the tecnology was use to exploit the female form, not the male. ”

            That would be easy, just add a new skin and some masculine animation, and here you go, you have the cyber boyfriend. Female form attract viewers both male and female, men dont attract so much attention. But its just a prototype, more work has to be done.

            ” Secondly, I actually do think that computers and techonlogy has isolated many of us. Does it make us stay locked up in our homes 24/7, unbathed and in our bath robes? No. However, unlike TV, the internet takes a much more interactive role in our lives that TV doesn’t even begin to meet. We see very real displays of the way the computer and internet has taken up space in our social lives. ”

            I find that today we hardly can be isolated, maybe only if we chose so. With internet, social media, laptops, Ipads, blogs, facebook ect. We are more connected now than we were 10y ago. Perhaps not physical but otherwise we are more sourrounded now than ever.

            “But there are many forms of human “isolation” that goes beyond our physical bodies or outward apperances. ”

            true.

            ” And perhaps the character isn’t 5 years old, but she doesn’t exactly look like a full grown mature woman either. Again, from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want? ”

            Yes she isnt 5y old, and she doesent even looks like a 5y girl. So I dont know why somebody bring this aspect in. Hatsume is a popular character in Japan, she make concerts, games and cartoons. So is not surprising you are going to use a cyber celebrity for your new tech. And if they are guys logically htey are going to choose a female form.

            ” from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want? ”

            I dont know, most men like the girl next door type, rather than the blonde silicone goddesses and young anime characters. Most women dont like big Swarzneger type bodybuilders either. But I cant speak for everybody, and neither can you.
            I still think this tech is good and has many application, whenever with Hatsume or not.

            • I agree you didn’t outright say it was a gender equal issue but in your dialogue you said “guys/gals who choose this for a real partner…” At this point and time there doesn’t seem to be an avenue of choice for “gals” so I don’t think it makes much sense to pretend that this is a gender equal technology. If a male animation equivalent is easily done, why isn’t it already done? Even if there are women and men that are both attracted to woman (not that the cartoon depicted even looks like a real woman at all), there are still a significant amount of women that are more attracted to men over other women and just attracted to men!

              I think the internet, social media, laptops, ipads, blogs and facebook only give the illusion of connectivity. I do not really think the foster real human connection. When I interact with friend and family in real life, it goes unmatched to any computer interaction I could have. I also think that the amount of avenues we have available for us for “interaction” plays a part in spreading us much thinner then humans are socially truly capable of. I do wonder if people today truly do feel more connected or if they feel more isolated despite the technology. I am not sure I feel more connected to the real world despite the time I may spend online talking and sharing ideas with others.

              You haven’t really addressed the issue of the cartoon character’s seemingly strange age. I agree she doesn’t look 5 but she doesn’t look like a woman either. And she doesn’t need large breasts to look like a woman. She looks like a little girl if you ask me. She looks about 14/15 to me. From my understanding of alot of anime and Japanesse cartoon, they are very focused on underaged girls and I am sorry but there is something entirely off putting about that alone. I also fail to see how the cartoon in this animation is “girl next door”. Girl next doors don’t have long blue pigtail haired, tiny little mini skirt and thigh highs, arm warmers and tight little shirts with cute little ties.

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” If a male animation equivalent is easily done, why isn’t it already done?”

              1: because the technology is still being developed. So making multiple versions is a little wasteful on the resource front

              2: There are currently no male virtual idols already established. If you consider how few male teenage idols we have here in North america vs the number of female ones, this fact isn’t really that surprising.

              “You haven’t really addressed the issue of the cartoon character’s seemingly strange age.”

              I have. Several times now. The blurpo did too, though more subtly. It is a pre-established character, and these guys didn’t developed the character, and this wasn’t developed as a virtual girlfriend, that was the article writers bias.

            • If the technology is still being developed then it isn’t easily done Mark. It seemed to me that Blurpo was making the argument that because the technology is so easy, they could have a male counterpart very quickly. Great. Then why don’t they? If it’s that easy, why not just create it that too?

              Then you come in and say that the technology is still being developed and that it wastes resources. Okay, then it’s not easy. Then they specifically decided to commodify feminmity for male entertainment first. (And I specifically say “femininity” and not “women” because the cartoon image doesn’t even appear to be that of a legal female.)

              This appears to be another case of the commodification of femininity. And now it’s okay to do so with an underaged female because it’s not a real human being, it’s a cartoon character. So they can get away with using what appears to be an underaged female character for male entertainment. Any male. Not just males under the age of 18. Grown men too. Disturbing. I know that’s going to sound a little feministic to some of you and put your backs up but it puts my back up that a female underaged looking cartoon charcter is being marketed for most likely boys AND grown men to enjoy. I don’t think it’s fair to deny the reality that a female character is the one being commodified off the bat. Not a male one. I think we need to be very honest here and ask ourselves why this character was picked.

              As to your second point, why are there no male virtual idols already established? What seperates boys (to me though this would be reasonable for younger boys to be interested in) or grown men (not as reasonable in my opinion) idolizing female underaged looking cartoons and why don’t females tend to do the same to the point that there is no male virtual idol? What is the difference that is going on between the genders to make that true? That’s the question I am interested in.

              You mentioned teenage idols here in North America. I actually just read that Justin Bieber is the top grossing teen celebrities over any other male or female celebrity. Then there are guys like Zac Efron, Tyler Lauten, Robert Patterson, Alex Pettfyer, The Jonas Brothers, The Bebs. This doesn’t even touch on all the boy bands that crop up decade after decade. Are you sure that there aren’t as many male teen idols as female? The thing is, that these idols are peddled to other teenagers.

              I am not convinced that the technology isn’t infact being developed to market virtual girlfriends to most likely males. I think you have to look at the character they decided to use for this technology. They didn’t choose a virtual dog or cat. They took a popular female character. It’s also not a big surprise that anime does sexualize females, even underaged ones.

            • The Blurpo says:

              “” At this point and time there doesn’t seem to be an avenue of choice for “gals” so I don’t think it makes much sense to pretend that this is a gender equal technology. If a male animation equivalent is easily done, why isn’t it already done?”

              Because its a prototype, its not the finish product. And as I already explained Hatsume is a cyber celebrity, so it makes perfect sence they are using her, as test character to this technology. They could have used sailor moons or Jinx’s to test this, but they are cartoon characters, not cyber celebrities.

              “I think the internet, social media, laptops, ipads, blogs and facebook only give the illusion of connectivity. I do not really think the foster real human connection. When I interact with friend and family in real life, it goes unmatched to any computer interaction I could have. I also think that the amount of avenues we have available for us for “interaction” plays a part in spreading us much thinner then humans are socially truly capable of. I do wonder if people today truly do feel more connected or if they feel more isolated despite the technology. I am not sure I feel more connected to the real world despite the time I may spend online talking and sharing ideas with others.”

              I think connection means alot of things, and real life connection is just one aspect of it.

              “She looks like a little girl if you ask me. She looks about 14/15 to me.”

              thank you, at least we agree on this. I think the people who claims she is 5y old, have never seen a 5y old girl before.

              ” From my understanding of alot of anime and Japanesse cartoon, they are very focused on underaged girls and I am sorry but there is something entirely off putting about that alone. ”

              Donald duck is a duck and he wanders around without pants. Is that a duck flasher?

              I really dont think you understand anime culture, and how it captivate both men women, girls and guys worldwide. I think you are to much euroamerican centric to understand a eastern culture like japan. And the cultural message it sends out. Thus your mistake in beliving everything is about mysoginism and pedophilia, and that is because you use cultural american or western point of references.
              I think BEFORE making such assumption you should investigate, in both japanese culture (shinto/buddism) and the habit, witch is also a religious one, to make ‘ everything cute and juvenile ‘ (yes in their worldview, objects also have a spirit, and please them is important) and usually anime is designet to a Japanese audience, not to a western one. finally in your place I would be whery carefull with your assumption, since you accuse the entire japanese anime culture to exploti underage girls for male plust, that borders with xenophobia.

              “I also fail to see how the cartoon in this animation is “girl next door”. Girl next doors don’t have long blue pigtail haired, tiny little mini skirt and thigh highs, arm warmers and tight little shirts with cute little ties.”

              You are not paying attention. If you dont pay attention, there is little to debate/explain, and I mean no disrespect, but I explained that already. I told you that most men like the girl next door type. And (again) Hatsume is not the girl next door, but a cyber celebrity.
              What is you dont understand about this? maybe since English is not my first language im not explaining myself properly, but I think this is clear enough. But what do I know…

            • The Blurpo says:

              “japanese anime culture to exploti underage girls for male plust, that borders with xenophobia. ”

              wow spelling is really not my forte. I meant, exploit, not exploti and lust not plust.

              DUH!

            • “Because its a prototype, its not the finish product. And as I already explained Hatsume is a cyber celebrity, so it makes perfect sence they are using her, as test character to this technology. They could have used sailor moons or Jinx’s to test this, but they are cartoon characters, not cyber celebrities.”

              Who is she a celebrity with? What age group of males?
              I just do not understand the popularity of anime and the protrayl of cartoon characters that look like underaged girls. i think they could have used anything to develop this technology. They purposely chose her because she is a sexualized cartoon character. You don’t put a cartoon character in a tiny little mini skirt and thigh highs to not sexualize it. They could have used anything. they didn’t.

              “I think connection means alot of things, and real life connection is just one aspect of it.”

              To me, real life connection is the most important one, the most real one, the truest one. Having a zillion friends on Facebook is a distant distant way off from having two good friends in real life you can count on.

              “Thank you, at least we agree on this. I think the people who claims she is 5y old, have never seen a 5y old girl before.”

              I just think they are disturbed by the imagery of what still appears to be an underaged female protrayed sexualized.

              “Donald duck is a duck and he wanders around without pants. Is that a duck flasher?”

              Can you see his penis like you can see the clevage of so many anime cartoon females? Is he wearing a tight pair of boxers with a big bulge sticking out? The cartoon figure is in a little tiny mini skirt with thigh highs, she has long pig tails, big eyes and a small nose. You do not dress up a figure in this kind of outfit if you aren’t trying to sexualize them.

              “I really dont think you understand anime culture, and how it captivate both men women, girls and guys worldwide. I think you are to much euroamerican centric to understand a eastern culture like japan. And the cultural message it sends out. Thus your mistake in beliving everything is about mysoginism and pedophilia, and that is because you use cultural american or western point of references.

              I think BEFORE making such assumption you should investigate, in both japanese culture (shinto/buddism) and the habit, witch is also a religious one, to make ‘ everything cute and juvenile ‘ (yes in their worldview, objects also have a spirit, and please them is important) and usually anime is designet to a Japanese audience, not to a western one. finally in your place I would be whery carefull with your assumption, since you accuse the entire japanese anime culture to exploti underage girls for male plust, that borders with xenophobia.”

              Blurpo, I’m not sure why you’ve decided to take the time to make personal shots against me to make me the topic instead of strictly sticking to the topic alone. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t give you the right to tell me I hate a whole culture of people because of the very real reality that a lot of anime appears to include underaged looking girls with sometimes and often, hyper-idolized body parts. For you to say I boarder on xenophobia because I see issues with such cultural popular entertainment, would be like you telling me I have xenophobia for America because I dislike a lot of ways pop culture advertises women and femininity here as well. Which would make no sense. You would have to think that someone hated any culture simply because they saw issues within the culture.

              By the way, I have investigated some Japanese culture, while I am not claiming to be any expert, and I know that this entire “cute and juvenile” thing as really taken off for them within the last 20-30 years and is wrapped up more so in pop-culture then it is in religion. Infact, it seems that this “cute” culture is actually rebellion against the old traditional ways of Japanese culture that their parents strictly adhered too. Even in the Catholic/Christian religion, people are taught to remain childlike in their relationship with God. Meaning, being open, vulnerable, loving and gracious to God. It doesn’t mean dressing up in school girl skirts and bubble gum make-up. I also know that this “cute” culture in Japan is sparking some interesting debate about the actual survival of the culture itself among an entire generation of teenagers, 20 somethings and even 30 somethings that have given themselves to being more “cute” and “childlike”. In Japanese culture it’s perfectly normal for a child to remain at home forever if they don’t marry. Which further enables their play in “cute” culture. However, when their parents begin to age, what will these grown children do then? There are many problems with “cute” culture despite what you may think the positives are. And I don’t see much evidence that “cute” culture is born so much out of Buddist teachings as it is pop culture rebellion. there is nothing wrong with remaining “childlike” in some aspects of your life as long as you don’t actually act like a child. But to me, it appears that in this “cute” culture, it is not about just being “childlike” in your heart but actually acting like a child.

              I have never seen anything in Buddism or Shinto that was about making everything “cute and juvenile”. But I do know that some Buddist teachings is about keeping your heart light and open like children do. Which is a simliar approach within Bible teachings too.

              So please continue to suggest I hate culture of people just because I see issues within culture of people. You better though tell me I’m an xenophobe for America as well though since I see many problems in American culture as well.

              “You are not paying attention. If you dont pay attention, there is little to debate/explain, and I mean no disrespect, but I explained that already. I told you that most men like the girl next door type. And (again) Hatsume is not the girl next door, but a cyber celebrity.
What is you dont understand about this? maybe since English is not my first language im not explaining myself properly, but I think this is clear enough. But what do I know…”

              I really have no clue what you are saying. When I complained about this female character you told me it’s because men like the girl next door type, now you are saying that this characte, Hatsume, isn’t the girl next door type. I don’t understand. But I do think it’s offensive to tell me I am not paying attention in having a dialogue and debate with another person. As if I am not capable of something you are. Really offensive. I see nothing in anime that has anything to do with the “girl next door”.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “So yes, you would be right that this wouldn’t be a replacement for a boyfriend since there is no male counterpart that was even created.”

            There is curently no existing virtual idol on which to develope the technology for.

            “I think it’s very important to note that the technology was use to exploit the female form, not the male.”

            Again, this character is based on an existing virtual idol that has existed for years, even to the point of doing “live” concerts and having online campaigns to include her in the Olympics. The technology was created to exploit the celebrity of the existing character, not to exploint the female form. This has been stated many times within the comments. Please realize this and stop promoting the idea that this was some attempt to victimize women further. Seriously, must everything be taken so personally?

            “And perhaps the character isn’t 5 years old,”

            Yes and no. The technology that created the character is about 5 years old. The character herself is supposed to be around aged 16.

            “Again, from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want?”

            Are you suggesting anime is just designed for men? Are you familiar at all with anime, the just how many different genre’s it encompasses, and the varying target audiences these different genre’s appeal to? Or are you simply making baseless attacks on men (“this is what men want?”) based on little more than heresay and the occassional glimps from people with agenda’s? Are you at all familiar with Japanese culture, and therfore the cultures influence on what’s seen in it’s media? I also find it rather odd that you would make such a hostile generalization against men as “this is what men want?”. But the presumption of hostile motives onto men are what I’ve come to expect from certain types.

            “If you want to defend the visual reinforcement of a female character being hit by the male users, you’re welcome to. But there are many other way to test reactions then hitting.”

            Again I ask if you are at all familiar with Japanese culture? Hitting on the top of the head is very common in anime, and quite honestly, more often then not is performed by girls against both girls and boys. Only on occassion is it done by boys to girls. It is often used as a reaction to something said that is very stupid or very embarissing. As this is a virtual idol that appeals to girls, being able to react in an appropriate manner to actions commonly taken by girls is also important. But of course, all some people can see is men masturbating over young girls and then beating them, and being unwilling to examine the issue further to see if there is reason behind it other than a presumed “men areevil” narrative.

          • And perhaps the character isn’t 5 years old, but she doesn’t exactly look like a full grown mature woman either. Again, from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want?
            That portrayal does exist. However just with about anything that comes along there will be people who actively try to paint up the most negative subsets as the sole representations of the whole.

            If you look at anime titles that actually develop strong followings and old titles that reach classic status you will see that those under aged girls with hyper idolized body parts are soon forgotten in comparison to good stories, interesting characters, and good quality artwork/animation.

            There’s a reason why people still cosplay (as in wearing a costume of a character and playing them to an extent) Rurouni Kenshin characters15 years later but most people have never heard of U-Jin Brand.

            In short please don’t buy into the idea that anime is nothing but big eyed cartoon porn.

            • I think a big portion of anime is infact big eyed underaged girl cartoon porn Danny. This is exactly what I think it is. I don’t think that basis is very far off. Good story or not.

            • We’ll just have to disagree. It does exist but it’s not the majority that it is made out to be and its certainly not all that it’s about like people make it out to be.

            • Mark Neil says:

              You’re welcome to continue believing that, but it says far more about you than anything else. Especially given you have been told repeatedly that this was a pre-established virtual idol and you continue to pretend this was built for the express purpose of being a male sex toy.

            • I am not disputing it being a pre-established virtual idol. How does it being a pre-established virtual idol negate the fact that it was designed as a male sex toy anyway? I fail to see the logic your using. Again, I ask, what age group of guys is this cartoon chacarter that looks to be about 14/15 in a mini skirt and thigh highs an idol for?

              I hope my thoughts do say something about me Mark. I see a lot of sexualization of underaged girls in this Japanese cartoon popularity.

          • Thank you Erin.

            Imagine a role reversal here. An attractive anime boy being hit over the head by an adult female fist – Oooh the outcry from a particular subset of men.

            • The Blurpo says:

              Dianna, actually lot of anime has scene where the female charcter hit males, blast them off, elettrocute them ect. Is that really so hard investigate on the topik before replying???

            • You are trying to justify your own enjoyment at being entertained by watching a young female being hit by a male.

              BTW I do watch a lot of anime – and enjoy some loathe some. I an trying to stick to the main issue which is the particular video being discussed in this article.

            • The Blurpo says:

              “You are trying to justify your own enjoyment at being entertained by watching a young female being hit by a male.”

              No you are emotively reacting on a false assumption, and you are attacking me, who is showing a more rational position. Nowhere I stated that I condone violence ( that is pure delusion) so please stop making B.S. up. Thank you.

              “BTW I do watch a lot of anime – and enjoy some loathe some. I an trying to stick to the main issue which is the particular video being discussed in this article.”

              The main issue is the new tech who will one day come in market, and the OP call this (mistakely) as a virtual girlfriend. So what are you talking about?

            • Mark Neil says:

              The only outcry from a subset of men would be to point out the utter lack of people like you objecting to it. If the roles were reversed, there would likely be no response, or worst, support for it, such as this guy raped to death, and us being told in the comments that he deserved it. It is not sane to believe all violence can be purged from the world. The best we can do is deter as much as we can, punish those who continue to commit it, and support those who are victimized by it.

              The virtual character seen in the video is not a girl, it’s a simulation. A demonstration of technology that can be used for any number of purposes, including, potentially, role-playing, a game with combat involved. Showing how it can interact is a part of the demonstration.

    • The Blurpo says:

      “I saw an anime sexualised 5 year old being hit by a male fist.”

      5y old? she doesent looks like a five y old girl to me, not even by a long shot. The touching and hit, to me seems for testing the reactions with the user. But what do I know, im not in the developers mind, and neither are you.

    • I just rewatched that video and I have been reading the recent comment and I’m starting to wonder.

      Was I watching the same virtual girlfriend as everyone else?
      How did people manage to jump straight to the conclusion that this was meant to be a girlfriend.

      I saw an anime sexualised 5 year old being hit by a male fist.
      I’d say she’s about 10 but where are you getting the sexualization from?

      So many ways to introduce the technology and this was considered the most apt.
      What makes this so inapt (or however the opposite of apt goes)?

      • Mark Neil says:

        “How did people manage to jump straight to the conclusion that this was meant to be a girlfriend.”

        Misandry. It’s easier for some people to believe that a man doing something involving images of a girl are doing so for sexual self gratification. It’s an example of the presumption of negative male motives to explain any unknown behavior.

        “How did people manage to jump straight to the conclusion that this was meant to be a girlfriend.”

        The character is supposed to be 16 actually.

        Hatsune Miku
        Birthday August 31
        Age 16 years
        Height 158 cm / 5.2 ft
        Weight 42 kg / 93 lbs
        Suggested Genre Pop/Dance
        Suggested Tempo Range 70–150bpm
        Suggested Vocal Range A3–E5

        • Mark, then maybe you can explain what grown men like about images of young girls even in cartoon form that are protrayed wearing mini skirts and thigh highs if I am mistaken that it appears to be sexual. If it is not somewhat sexual, I am open to hearing what it is about then. What do grown adult men get enjoyment from, from a protrayl of a 16 year old female cartoon characters?

          • Mark Neil says:

            Maybe you can explain where the assumption comes from that it’s grown men these characters are appealing to? You’ve latched onto the assumption that this technology is for the purpose of being a male sex toy, yet not a single word in that video suggests that’s what it is, especially given the article writer even acknowledged she didn’t understand a word of it. Now you’re expecting others to disprove your assumption. Well, I say no. Prove your assumptions correct. I won’t jump through your hoops.

            • Well I have asked two times now what age group this character appeals to Mark. It doesn’t appear that anyone can answer that question for me. Perhaps it’s cynical of me but I do not thing this kind of technology being used for male sexual entertainment is that far off. Since in general, people find ways to turn most technologically availble material toward sexual entertainment.

              Further, I am simply baffled by your deflection to answer questions I clearly don’t know the answer to. Usually within a discussion, if someone asks a question and someone else knows the answer, they answer it. They do not lay claim that someone else’s opinion or questions means that they are only asking these things or holding that opinion to make others jump through hoops. You either want a discussion or you don’t. Or perhaps you only want a discussion where everyone thinks like you do. That is the only way you will be unchallenged and thus have no ‘hoop” jumping..whatever that means in the context here.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Well I have asked two times now what age group this character appeals to Mark”

              Actually, you have asked why this character appeals to grown men, or why grown men would find this “oversexualized” girl in a miniskirt and thigh highs appealing. That is an entirely different question that relies on us to accept a premise that isn’t necessarily true and that you have not yet supported with anything more than hateful assumptions of men. Who this character appeals to is very likely the same group that girls like Gomez and spears appealed to, plus those who are inclined towards artistic expression, as this character inspires a lot of songwriters to create music for her, and artists to create imagery of her. A simple read through her wiki page would have answered this, but instead you choose to have others run around, jumping through your hoops, answering questions in order to counter the hateful rhetoric your suggesting. And this is what I’m opposed to. I will not begin a discussion from the position that you are correct for no other reason that you say so. You (and this article writer) have made a pretty serious and hateful accusation about this technologies purpose and male sexuality in general. And you don’t seem you feel the need to defend that opinion in any way, you feel we should accept it as truth and should be required to disprove it. No, it doesn’t work that way. If you want to claim that The Japanese people, and men in general, are all a bunch of pedophiles sexualizing children and creating child imagery sex toys, you’re going to need more than a video of technology creators interacting with the image of an open source virtual idol in a video demonstration of their technologies progress.

              “Further, I am simply baffled by your deflection to answer questions I clearly don’t know the answer to.”

              And I’m simply baffled you can come to the conclusions of men that you’ve come to without already knowing the answers to those questions… But I do realize that, because you’re capable of doing so, nothing will be able to change your mind. You’ve fit this event into your narrative and everytime you’ve been provided additional information, you have changed your perception to include it into your narrative, that results in the same conclusion, rather than acknowledging even the remote possibility you’re wrong. For example, the assumption was made that this is a sex toy because there was a sexualized girl imagery used to display the interactions. Once it was explained the girl imagery wasn’t random, that there was a celebrity to it, instead of questioning your initial assumptions, you instead incorporated it into your narrative by making the assumption the celebrity character was ALSO made for grown men’s sexual purposes. Rather than seeing the celebrity of the character as the reason for it being used, you instead injected your sexist conclusion onto the purpose of the celebrity itself.

            • That’s right! I did say that. Because I would like to know why grown men find a underaged teenager in a mini skirt and thigh highs appealing. I am confused why this is a bad question to ask. But guess what? I also asked these questions that went unanswered:

              Response to Blurpo on July 27 at 8:10 am: “Again, from my understanding of anime, they are usually protrayed as young underage girls with hyper idolized body parts. Is this what men want?”

              Response to Blurpo: on July 28 at 4:51 pm: “Who is she a celebrity with? What age group of males?”

              Then see my response on July 29 at 8:34 am: “Again, I ask, what age group of guys is this cartoon character that looks to be about 14/15 in a mini skirt and thigh highs an idol for?”

              I do not understand why these questions are so hard for you to answer. You seem to want to spend more time arguing with me about arguing then sincerely responding to questions asked from people who may not understand. If you don’t think I understand, then explain it to me. Answer the questions I have. This is normal protocol for people that may have insight into something others may not have.

              “For example, the assumption was made that this is a sex toy because there was a sexualized girl imagery used to display the interactions. ”

              Then you agree that the imagery is of a sexualized underage girl? Why would an underaged girl, cartoon girl, need to be sexualized in the first place?

              “Once it was explained the girl imagery wasn’t random, that there was a celebrity to it, instead of questioning your initial assumptions, you instead incorporated it into your narrative by making the assumption the celebrity character was ALSO made for grown men’s sexual purposes. Rather than seeing the celebrity of the character as the reason for it being used, you instead injected your sexist conclusion onto the purpose of the celebrity itself.”

              Actually, once the celebrity status of said cartoon was explained I asked who she was a celebrity for. See above. You are fighting awfully hard to not answer questions that should be easy for you to answer. You seem more intent in deflecting and using distracting points that have nothing to do with our conversation and accusations instead of honestly having a discussion.

              I think my questions have merit, so again, I ask, who is this cartoon character a celebrity for?

            • The Blurpo says:

              “Response to Blurpo: on July 28 at 4:51 pm: “Who is she a celebrity with? What age group of males?””

              Actually I answered in my last reply, as soon it jumps out of moderation. But its funny you assume only males are her fan base.

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” Because I would like to know why grown men find a underaged teenager in a mini skirt and thigh highs appealing.”

              First demonstrate the premise upon which this question is based is in fact true. Prove that grown men do, in fact, find an underage teenager in a miniskirt and thigh highs appealing? Why should I be expected to answer the “why” of something I don’t actually believe occurs to any significant degree?

              “I am confused why this is a bad question to ask. ”

              It’s a bad question because it’s based on a misandric assumption of men that you have yet to back up. It’s bad because you are making an assumption of men being pedophiles. If this assumption isn’t made or accepted, then your questions make no sense. If you don’t see how that is sexist and hateful, well, I don’t know what else to say.

              “I do not understand why these questions are so hard for you to answer. ”

              As said above, these are hard to answer because they require an acceptance of a belief I do not agree with. If one does not assume grown men are into young girls like this, then answering why is impossible.

              “You seem to want to spend more time arguing with me about arguing then sincerely responding to questions asked from people who may not understand.”

              And yet, you’ve still raced to judgement. You’ve made a judgement, and a rather hateful, misandric one, based on something you admit to not understanding, of being ignorant of. Do you realize what that makes you?

              “This is normal protocol for people that may have insight into something others may not have.”

              You’re the one that is so certain of her judgements of others as to feel the need to be convinced otherwise. Normal protocol dictates one does not demand of others to disprove a theory based on ignorance, nor does it dictate that any evidence be ignored or rewritten in favour of the ignorant judgement.

              “Then you agree that the imagery is of a sexualized underage girl?”

              Quoting you does not mean I agree with you. Nice try though. I don’t see this girl’s outfit and any more sexual than what I see on any given day as my bus passes the two schools on route to work, with the exception of the stockings, which aren’t popular in Toronto, but are quite so in Japan. It is far more stylized, but stylized is not the same as sexualized. Of course, in north america, men have also been accused of hypersexualizing girls, even going so far as suggesting Dad getting a goodnight kiss is a sexual act

              “Actually, once the celebrity status of said cartoon was explained I asked who she was a celebrity for. ”

              Never did you ask who it was for, at all times you presumed it was for men. Every single one of your quoted questions specifies men and males. And in doing so, you attempted to maintain your hateful belief of men, you incorporated the celebrity into you male-negative marrative.

              “You are fighting awfully hard to not answer questions that should be easy for you to answer.”

              They aren’t easy to answer, because they are based on a premise I don’t agree with. How can I answer why men find little girls appealing when I don’t actually believe men do find little girls appealing? Ironically, you’re doing the exact same thing. I’ve asked you several times to defend your assertions. To explain why you feel men find under-aged girls appealing, to explain why you feel that this technology was built for male pleasure. The closest you came to an answer was the circular logic of using one presumption to reinforce the other. you answer boiled down to: Men like little girls because this technology which is used for male sexual gratification using a little girl proves that. And This technology is intended for male sexual gratification using little girl imagry because men are into little girls. It’s a hateful little loop you’ve built for yourself. And you honestly do seem confused others aren’t interested in joining you in your little hate spiral.

              “I think my questions have merit, so again, I ask, who is this cartoon character a celebrity for?”

              Already answered this. Notice this question doesn’t make an assumptions of men, and gets an easy answer?

              July 29, 2012 at 11:46 pm “Who this character appeals to is very likely the same group that girls like Gomez and spears appealed to, plus those who are inclined towards artistic expression, as this character inspires a lot of songwriters to create music for her, and artists to create imagery of her.”

            • Mark, how about you demonstrate how the premise isn’t true since you are the one that finds the premise so offensive to begin with. Instead of dictating me to “demonstrate” to *you* anything.

              If you don’t want to answer my question Mark, don’t. But don’t tell me I need to “prove” something to you to simply have a normal conversation. I asked a question, you can either answer it or not. Normal conversations require a give and a take, an exchange of dialogue. Not one person belligerently putting down another one as you do further down in this conversation and artfully wiggling out of answering tough questions simply because your feelings are hurt that they were asked.

              Mark: “It’s a bad question because it’s based on a misandric assumption of men that you have yet to back up. “

              What is misandristic about asking why *some* adult men are attracted to cartoon depictions of underaged girls in mini skirts? How does questioning the lure of teenage cartoons for adult men equate to hatred of men? That’s like saying questioning the behavior of some things women may do must mean I hate all women. That simply makes no sense.

              Mark: “It’s bad because you are making an assumption of men being pedophiles. If this assumption isn’t made or accepted, then your questions make no sense. If you don’t see how that is sexist and hateful, well, I don’t know what else to say.”

              I don’t know how many men are pedophiles and I never accused anyone of being pedophile.

              Lets look at the reality of anime Mark. Anime originates from a heavily dominated traditional culture where men dominate. Anime is heavily influenced and dominated by male creative control that clearly focuses on the sexiness of the female form more times then not. The animators, drawers, producers appear to be largely men. There appears to be much more of a focus on young girls in anime. Usually these young girls are portrayed in tiny little outfits usually associated with “sexiness”. Such as mini skirts, outfits showing off cleavage, bellies, legs and more. These characters have hyper dysmorphic bodies that high-light extremely tiny waists, round hips, big breasts, long legs, long hair, big eyes and small little button noses..all wrapped up in an what appears to be teenage girls. It certainly does seem that anime enjoys exploiting underaged dysmorphic body types in girls/women specifically. Some of these characters originate from video games and cartoons. We are no stranger to the over sexualization of women in many video games that are often popular among boys and men. Anime does appear to have a big male following. It even appears to have a big adult male following.

              Do you know what is sexist and hateful? Postulating underaged girls in over sexualized outfits and body types for fun.

              Now I proved what lead me to ask the question I asked. How about a sincere response now.

              Mark: “As said above, these are hard to answer because they require an acceptance of a belief I do not agree with. If one does not assume grown men are into young girls like this, then answering why is impossible.”

              Then prove why you believe your beliefs are correct if you disagree with me! Don’t sit there and simply tell me I am “misandristic” and stubbornly refuse to have a conversation with me. I think you are simply using me as a smoke screen not to have a real conversation. It’s easier to sit behind your computer and tell me I hate men then talk to me and understand why it’s disturbing to see popularity among young boys and men alike for underaged teenagers drawn to highlight sexy qualities.

              Mark: “And yet, you’ve still raced to judgement. ”

              But your judgements are okay right Mark?

              Mark: “You’ve made a judgement, and a rather hateful, misandric one, based on something you admit to not understanding, of being ignorant of. Do you realize what that makes you?”

              I made a judgement based on what I see. I see a huge industry in anime that has turned underaged girls into sexual icons. I see that a lot of men are drawn to the anime industry, not just underaged boys. If you have an industry that highlights a lot of underaged girls with over hyper drawn body parts (like their breasts and legs and waists) and it has a following with both young boys and men, then why don’t you tell me what message I should be getting from that since you seem to disagree with the one I am getting.

              I totally was honest that I don’t know everything about anime. I don’t know everything about a lot of topics. I am still capable of being an intelligent person who can talk about them. Don’t use my honest attempt at dialogue as a means to shame me and tell me I am not intelligent enough to hold an opinion on something based from what I do know. You shamed me by being honest to say, “hey, I don’t know everything here but this is what I think.” And you shamed me when I asked questions to get a better understanding.

              If you want to share information with me you think I don’t have, I am open to that! Don’t shame me because I was honest that I don’t know everything about everything. And don’t call me a misandrist over and over again simply because you don’t like the difficult discussion that sometimes these things will present. Stop with the nonsense and nuckle down to having a real conversation with me and we can actually get somewhere here.

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” But don’t tell me I need to “prove” something to you to simply have a normal conversation.”

              But isn’t this precisely what you have been demanding of others? To prove this isn’t some sex toy, that men don’t want to have little girl imagery combined with technology for their own personal fulfilment? And for the record, a normal conversation doesn’t begin with a premise about all (or even most) men that paints them in a negative, pedophile like light, based on little more than assumptions and bigotry.

              ” I asked a question, you can either answer it or not. ”

              The question that can be answered has been. The question that requires one to believe hateful things about men in order for it to make any sence will not be, because I don’t believe those hateful thing.

              “Normal conversations require a give and a take, an exchange of dialogue.”

              And what have you given? We’ve provided information regarding the character used to correct the initial assumptions upon why this character was selected (IE, it wasn’t just some random girl figure to please the men creating the tech, it is a known Virtual idol that does not require licensing to make use of, granting anyone, including the tech developers, access to her celebrity).

              “What is misandristic about asking why *some* adult men are attracted to cartoon depictions of underaged girls in mini skirts? ”

              Adding in the word “SOME” now doesn’t change the fact you have been arguing this whole time from a position that this technology is for the sexual gratification, through child imagery, of men, in general. You continue to make that assertion. Why should I accept your assertion that adult men are attracted to this character simply because a couple used her celebrity for their technology? Why should I assume the underaged nature plays any part in establishing that attraction you claim we have? I do not accept these premises, so I can not answer the question. I don’t know what is so hard about that to grasp. Would you be able to answer a question along the lines of “why do women like drowning their own children?”

              “How does questioning the lure of teenage cartoons for adult men equate to hatred of men?”

              By the assumption that men are lured by teenaged cartoons for their sexual gratification.

              “Lets look at the reality of anime Mark”

              You’ve already demonstrated you never have an understanding of Anime, nor are you willing to listen to the opinions of those more informed if those opinions don’t fit your narrative. You also demonstrate here, quite clearly, that you are of the gynocentric feminism that blames men for everything and believe men control and dominate the world, and that you women are helpless, hapless creatures divoid of any influence whatsoever. I think more highly of women than that, thanks.

              “Do you know what is sexist and hateful? Postulating underaged girls in over sexualized outfits and body types for fun.”

              Didn’t you above claim you weren’t accusing anyone of being pedophiles, and now you accuse the entire japanese culture of it.

              “Now I proved what lead me to ask the question I asked. How about a sincere response now.”

              No, you listed off some feminist theory (hint, theory is not fact) and a bunch of biased assumptions about a culture you know nothing about. The fact this is seen as proof for claiming this technology is intended for male sexual gratification through the use of child imagery only demonstrates your bigotry, given you never even mention the technology, you just whince about Anime with a typical feminist tyrade.

              “Then prove why you believe your beliefs are correct if you disagree with me!”

              Already done, but i’ll explain again. There is no reason to believe this technology was designed for male sexual gratification, that is strictly an injection of this articles arthor, and your own, misandric bias. The use of the imagery used (IE, Hatsune Miku) is of benefit to the company, particularly the promotion of the technology, by banking on her celebrity.

              “But your judgements are okay right Mark?”

              I’m not the one making judgements of the entire male gender based on nothing more than assumptions and bias.

              “Don’t sit there and simply tell me I am “misandristic” and stubbornly refuse to have a conversation with me.”

              Don’t like the shoe being on the other foot it seems.

              “I made a judgement based on what I see. I see a huge industry in anime that has turned underaged girls into sexual icons”

              You’ve changed the goalpost to suit your needs, we’re talking about the technology presented in the video, the one you claim is for the sexual gratification of men using child imagery. You can’t seem to defend that position so you’ve gone on to attack the entire japanese culture and their media expression through anime. As someone else noted, seems both misandric and xenophobic.

              “I see that a lot of men are drawn to the anime industry”

              Correct, and I’m one of them. But despite your assertions, the underage girls are not what draws me to it, and isn’t as common, nor prominant. Danny already told you this and you dismissed his/her opinion based on nothing more than your own, so no, I don’t see you as open to discussion.

  7. They make fun of this a lot in the cartoon Archer, which is a spy spoof. The technology agent has a digital bride. Archer has to be the funniest show I’ve seen in a long time.

    They also have an overweight woman and the interplay with her is very interesting. She is so affection and sex starved that she hits on everybody, and acts in many ways like a man (or the stereotypical man).

    It’s very interesting how troubling this is for women who don’t seem to have any empathy how affection-starved some men are for the opposite sex. Men who visit prostitutes or topless bars are always displayed as predators.

    In my experience, and in some of the various documentaries I have seen, most men who visit prostitutes or topless bars are the desparate dregs of society who actually need a lot of help and support, not condemnation and criminalizing.

  8. This is just not real. It’s huge in Japan – anime fanboys marrying fictional characters, sleeping with pillows of their favorite female characters… It’s simply just not real. It just gets me to thinking all the times couples fight with each other, just because humans can’t control each others’ emotions except their own. This is just not ideal, no matter how appealing it seems at first..

  9. It is not the age of the anime female that is the crux of the problem here (although some are using this as a red-herring to avoid the primary issue). We have more than enough violence from the powerful over the weak and this particular piece of anime supports that violence.

    Yes, I was physically assaulted by someone I should’ve been able trust. Maybe if violence against females was never acceptable I would not have been abused, I really don’t know. The point remains a girl (of whatever age) is being struck over the head by a male fist. I, and far too many other women, know exactly how this feels, and here we are with a few men defending this anime portrayal.

    Where are the men who do not condone violence? Where are you?

    Violence against women affects everyone not just the victim.

    • The Blurpo says:

      “It is not the age of the anime female that is the crux of the problem here (although some are using this as a red-herring to avoid the primary issue).”

      Somebody are claiming that is the primary issues, but some of them even claim she is 5y old. Then I say she’s a baby walking around ;-) . No seriously its just because of ignorance (everybody is ignorant, nobody is omniscent, so that should not be understod in the offensive sence) and then they make thir own explaination, that fits with their feelings. Like Erin, they are exploiting underage girls or you ‘ this condone violence against women’. But thise ideas are false because they dont match with the intention of the producers.

      ” We have more than enough violence from the powerful over the weak and this particular piece of anime supports that violence.”

      No it does not.

      “Yes, I was physically assaulted by someone I should’ve been able trust.”

      Im sorry about what happen to you.

      ” Maybe if violence against females was never acceptable I would not have been abused, I really don’t know.”

      Violence is never acceptable, against nobody , thus the name ‘ violence’ because it violates. Otherwise it would have another name.

      ” The point remains a girl (of whatever age) is being struck over the head by a male fist. I, and far too many other women, know exactly how this feels, and here we are with a few men defending this anime portrayal.”

      If you watch SCREAM, you see a man with a “spooky” mask assaulting people and slashing them. Who has survived a knife attack are obyusly going to be disturbet by such movies, my advice is dont watch then.
      As other has mention, this is a prototype, and the interaction with the character is for testing, you also see it caress her and touch her (now somebody are going to scream sexual abuse). So claiming this is made for exercising violence against women is false, just like the claim its exploiting young girls.

      • “…and then they make thir own explaination, that fits with their feelings. Like Erin, they are exploiting underage girls or you ‘ this condone violence against women’. But thise ideas are false because they dont match with the intention of the producers.”

        Oh please stop with the condsending “my opinion on this is better” rhetoric Blurpo. You have yet to prove that this isn’t just another way to exploit femininty. I am going by the evidence supported. It’s a big gigantic world out there where they could have picked absolutely anything to use. They could have used Pokeman. They didn’t. They decided to use a sexualized underaged female cartoon character where they infact show themselves touching and hitting her. Once again, femininity has been commdified for male entertainment. If this wasn’t about that, they would have picked a more neutral character. They didn’t. They picked an underaged female character. And denying that reality is denying the truth.

        But since you consider yourself an expert on the intention of the producers, do share what those intentions are. What is the point in creating this techonlogy and how do you suppose it’s going to be used if it’s successfully completed and marketed to society? You don’t think people, particularly men, won’t get delight from hitting or “carressing” this chacater? You don’t think they won’t put their hand over her breast and give it a hypothetical squeeze? What then do you suppose will be done with it? Are you really telling me that using a 16 year old cartoon character in a tiny mini skirt and thigh highs is sexually innocent? Come on, you know better then that.

        • Mark Neil says:

          “You have yet to prove that this isn’t just another way to exploit femininty”

          And you have yet to prove that it is. You’re the one making hateful, sexist assumptions about all men based on nothing more than a short video where you don’t understand a word written or said, let alone know anything about the character, technology or industries involved, with all the blanks filled in with your own personal bias. Do you really feel you are entitled to make these assumptions and feel you are correct, without having to back them up in the slightest?

          “I am going by the evidence supported”

          What evidence? A video you don’t understand, showing the man developing virtual interactive technology interacting with a virtual idol?

        • The Blurpo says:

          “Oh please stop with the condsending “my opinion on this is better” rhetoric Blurpo.”

          Erin, you are the one who make facts out of assumptions. You dont have posted any evidence. Only prejudges, like you belive only men are interested in this. ignoring that there million of young girl who are fanatically supporting this: fashion, music, cute looks. It appeal more to girls than to males.

          ” They picked an underaged female character. And denying that reality is denying the truth. ”

          See you are doing this again. Erin assumption = facts!

          “But since you consider yourself an expert on the intention of the producers, do share what those intentions are. What is the point in creating this techonlogy and how do you suppose it’s going to be used if it’s successfully completed and marketed to society? ”

          Do you know why the producers choose her? because she is a cybercelebrity, she sells and make earn them money.

          “You don’t think people, particularly men, won’t get delight from hitting or “carressing” this chacater? You don’t think they won’t put their hand over her breast and give it a hypothetical squeeze? What then do you suppose will be done with it? Are you really telling me that using a 16 year old cartoon character in a tiny mini skirt and thigh highs is sexually innocent? Come on, you know better then that.”

          Is that what you feel when you look at her? because I dont, and im a man. So please stop making BS up about men ok?

          To answer your question, no I dont think men enjoy hitting her. I wonder where do you get this strange ideas. What kind of men do you know, since you have so a low opinion on us?

    • Where are the men who do not condone violence? Where are you?
      This one here is wondering if you are taking a few hits that were clearly meant as a technical display and in no way condones violence against women (if you were talking about an actual anime series and not a single event then I think I’d see your point) and forcing them into the context of violence against women where nearly any instance of hitting a female is seen as supporting violence against women.

      • It what case would hitting a female not be seen as supporting violence against women?
        Better yet, lets say it isn’t about “supporting” violence against women. Perhaps this isn’t about them “supporting” violence agianst women so much as having a neglectful approach to violence against women or being ambivilent to violent displays against women to the point that projecting a female being hit, even for “science”, is A-Okay.

        • It what case would hitting a female not be seen as supporting violence against women?
          Self defense, attacks clearly not meant to do harm (like the “wrestling” that some couples and friends do), and tech displays. This is a tech display.

          But if you want to go negligence rather than support/condone then let’s go there.

          At best you might be able to say that this could trigger some past treatment and some past experiences.

          Sure you may have a point there. But fact of the matter is while this might trigger some people that is a far stretch from saying that this was meant to harm girls or support harming girls.

          • Why is it okay to show someone hitting another person in tech displays? What makes a tech display acceptable to show abuse toward someone else? Would it be okay if the cartoon was a baby that was being hit? If all display of violence are okay because they are “tech displays”, then you should be able to hit anything without it meaning anything. Maybe they should have done something where they could kick a kitten, smack a baby, punch a girl…all these would be acceptable if they were just “tech displays” right?

            I think more then anything, the image of the man hitting her is another example of female subordination to male power. The tech world is heavily dominated by men and in the video there are men that are experinmenting with what appears to me, to be a very vunerable protrayal of a female that is following these men around. And using an underaged female in a mini skirt and thigh highs to either strike or carress appears to further illustrate some kind of strangeness to the entire thing.

            Maybe they aren’t supporting physical violence against women .But they aren’t desueding it either. And they certain are supporting a mentality about how it’s “fun” to manipulate female characters by either hitting them or carressing them. Not exactly a positive message if you ask me.

            • Danny, also, thanks for always being able to have respectful conversations with me even when I know we often disagree with each other! I greatly respect that about you.

            • Why is it okay to show someone hitting another person in tech displays?
              Because (at least in my estimate) it is a single instance, not part of larger context (which is why I said earlier if this were part of an actual series I might see your point).

              What makes a tech display acceptable to show abuse toward someone else?
              Mainly because it’s not actual people but again like I said above it’s a limited instance. We’re talking the different of this one display versus say, the constant stream of anti-damn near everything and everyone material on Family Guy/Clevland Show/American Dad.

              If all display of violence are okay because they are “tech displays”, then you should be able to hit anything without it meaning anything. Maybe they should have done something where they could kick a kitten, smack a baby, punch a girl…all these would be acceptable if they were just “tech displays” right?
              I’d wager as far as to say that if this had been a cat or something other than a girl this thread would not have gone on for as long as it has.

              I think more then anything, the image of the man hitting her is another example of female subordination to male power. The tech world is heavily dominated by men and in the video there are men that are experinmenting with what appears to me, to be a very vunerable protrayal of a female that is following these men around. And using an underaged female in a mini skirt and thigh highs to either strike or carress appears to further illustrate some kind of strangeness to the entire thing.
              You’re free to think that. I see some developers using an image of a virtual idol that has a following of millions across numerous walks of life (in Japan at least) in order to get attention for their product.

              Danny, also, thanks for always being able to have respectful conversations with me even when I know we often disagree with each other! I greatly respect that about you.
              Same to you. We often disagree but there is mutual respect.

            • I disagree with the idea that because something is a cartoon, having discussion about the implications of what happens in cartoons and how people are depicted through them, isn’t important.

              “I’d wager as far as to say that if this had been a cat or something other than a girl this thread would not have gone on for as long as it has.”

              And what do you think would have happend if it was a group of women in a room hitting a male cartoon character?

              But I do agree with you. Doesn’t that tell us something important about how, especially women, feel seeing a female represented thus? Isn’t it important to acknowledge what kind of response these things bring from women? Especially because in this case, the image is projected as female?

              “You’re free to think that. I see some developers using an image of a virtual idol that has a following of millions across numerous walks of life (in Japan at least) in order to get attention for their product.”

              A virtual idol that is underaged in thigh highs and in a mini skirt that grown men are playing with to develop their technology.

              Same to you. We often disagree but there is mutual respect.

              Agree!

      • The Blurpo says:

        some people simply see what they wants to see….

        • Too right, you don’t see a young girl being hit by a male fist. You just see advances in technology and don’t give a toss how it is presented.

          • The Blurpo says:

            “Too right, you don’t see a young girl being hit by a male fist. You just see advances in technology and don’t give a toss how it is presented.”

            No I dont see that, I think you are exagerating far to much, and overfokusing on something that is marginal. This does not promote violence against women. And it doesent exploit young girls.

            • Blurpo: “This does not promote violence against women. And it doesent exploit young girls.”

              You are claiming a video depicting violence against a young girl does not “depict violence against a young girl”.

              Good one.

              I guess, in Blurpo World, video of a rape scene isn’t about rape either.

              Just go on fooling yourself – but please, don’t expect other people to agree.

            • Mark Neil says:

              Changing the words and pretending the sentences new meaning is a legitimate point to argue is not only dishonest, it’s silly.

            • Neither I nor Erin are trying to call a spade a toothpick. Unlike the Blurpo brigade.

              The technology is of a young girl being hit in the head by a male fist. No amount sophistry or name calling will change the fact that someone thought it a good idea to demonstrate new technology by using the image of a young girl being hit in the head by a male fist.

              Don’t these techs realise that there is a market consisting of both men and women, not all of whom are into slapping young girls, even if it is simply a cartoon?

              Would you like to see a cartoon image of any female in your life being hit around the head? I have asked before that you try and see this issue from a more empathic angle instead of the self-gratifying one that you have been attempting and failing to justify.

              Because there is no justification for this image.

              (Edited to remove personal insult.)

            • Mark Neil says:

              Erin is the one who’s been claiming this is about self gratification, and nobody is claiming you’re attempting to make a spade a toothpick, they are saying you’re attempting to make a toothpick into a backhoe. Furthermore, you have now, repeatedly, misconstrued others arguments. You are now lashing out because i called you on attempting to equate the words depict and promote as interchangeable, and they are not.

              And don’t you realize that this is technology depicting a fictional character, so equating it to someone I know getting hit is nowhere near the same. Furthermore, if I saw a family member getting hit on a video and I knew it was fictional, I would, again, have no issues, and I say this noting that my mother was one of the extras on prom night, an old horror movie. This technology has many potential uses, and gaming is one example… and a lot of games have violence involved. If you don’t like that, then complain about that in general, don’t try pretending this lone tech display is the sole perpetrator… Or is your problem not with violence, but only with this particular display of hitting because it’s a girl? Do you have no issues when a boy receives violence in games and other media?

            • I have stated in previous posts (do you even read through before replying?) that I would find this image offensive no matter whether the subject was a girl, boy or any other creature being used for sexual gratification and violence.

              Also YOU are the people calling a spade a toothpick – again try reading my post before replying.

              The girl is sexualised and being hit – that you will not admit a simple fact is really sad. What hope do we have in creating a more peaceful society while a new tech presentation is only for a limited segment of the population? BTW the “limited segment” is you guys. You appear to require careful explanation. Or you are deliberately seeing just want you want to see? I am betting on the latter.

              The USA is still reeling from yet another mass murder from a deranged young man who probably didn’t have healthy relationships with anyone. Sad but true. This is the world that has been created – a world where personal needs triumph over the greater good of all. Where harm is apparently mandatory for gratification. Where dissent with this view is regarded as hatred. Bizarro world indeed.

              OK, I understand you do not have close relationships with women, this is unfortunate. Maybe if you tried getting out and socialising instead of spending ALL your hours online abusing a couple of women because they have the temerity to disagree with you, you might actually understand why many people find such imagery really disturbing. Get our of your tech towers and start seeing the world – maybe it is a bit scary – reality can be like that. That’s why I suggested you do need the cojones to do so.

              MODERATOR’S NOTE: Dianna, you’re attacking Mark Neil, and we don’t permit that on our site. Keep to the subject at hand, and leave his personal life out of it.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “OK, I understand you do not have close relationships with women, this is unfortunate.”

              No conversation with a gynocentric feminist can ever progress without the obligatory accusation of a failure to have relations with women, as if a man can not be human unless he is capable of subverting himself to the all mighty vagina. Well, you don’t know me. You don’t know what kind of life I live outside these forums (nor in these forums, as I haven’t interacted with you in any other discussion here).

              “instead of spending ALL your hours online abusing a couple of women”

              And here we have the virtually mandatory accusation of abuse, that allows you to claim victimhood. Erin did the same thing in her recent posts.

              ” you might actually understand why many people find such imagery really disturbing.”

              Oh, I do understand why you find this imagery offensive. That said, I think you’re wrong. I think you are over-reacting and I think it is people like you that would have everyone walking around wearing helmets to go grocery shopping and life-jackets in a kiddy pool. I think you have some ideal of a utopia where everyone loves fluffy bunnies and violence doesn’t exist. And I think anyone who believes that kind of utopia is damaged, and dangerous to the freedoms and liberty of the normal, rational people. The bizzarro concepts you seem opposed to appears to be what I’m talking about. Do you really want a world where the greater good triumphs over personal needs, IE, where the ends justifies the means and one persons need, for example food and medicine, can be withheld for the greater good of the community? The harm mandatory for gratification is hyperbole. Nobody said anything about mandotory, nobody is forcing you to like this, but to be forcing us to oppose it is just as unacceptable. To try and frame this as some kind of offense to all women is rediculous. And when Dispicable motives are attributed to an entire group of people (men like little girl imagery for their sexual gratification), then the dissent is hatred.

              “That’s why I suggested you do need the cojones to do so.”

              Is this your way of saying “man up”? Are you seriously attempting to shame me into silence for doing the exact same thing you’re doing? You do realise that what you are accusing me of doing is precisely the same thing you are doing here, yet you seem to think I’m doing it because I lack real relationships and am afraid of the world… what’s your excuse? Or are you simply projecting? And I’m surprised the mods allowed this level of personal attacks.

              And just for the record, Holmes did have normal relationships. He began withdrawing from them over the last 6 months as he became psychotic.

            • Ultimately, I do think this technology will come down to being about personal self gratification. You mentioned gaming and violence, Mark. The other element gaming often uses is sex. And usually it’s women that are exploited a lot in gaming to a degree higher then men. With lots of sexy little things with big bursting breasts stuffed in little shirts, showing their little belly buttons but they are “empowered” because they might have sword or some chinese stars. Empowerment is young women in barely there shirts holding fine weaponry.

              If you can’t see the sexualization in an underaged character in a mini skirt and thigh highs, idol or not, I’m not sure what to tell you. If you can see how violence is used in video games but not sex, again, I don’t know what to tell you. We are far past the days of Donkey Kong and Princess Peach. If you don’t think technology like this isn’t going to contribute to the already large creator of hybrid-female-male-fantasy, I still don’t know what to tell you.

              In most cases, it certainly appears that with this kind of tech, cartoon and gaming industry, a lot of it amounts to exploiting female personalities to hyper dramatized male dreams.

              You forget Mark, way before I made a comment on the article, the male author of this article seemed to find something off color about the technology first. And there are many men in this thread that also believe the over sexualized pursuit of such technology.

              By the way, your “do you have no issues when a boy receives violence in games and other media?” Doesn’t apply here. A boy wasn’t used in the example.

  10. Mark Neill

    1. If you do have any close intimate relationships with women – you must spend a lot of time hiding your true self.

    2. You do need to “man-up” as you are currently unable to admit that other people have different opinions to you without having a massive dummy spit.

    3. You don’t know me either, yet have assumed a lot about me – touche.

    4. You apparently lack the insight to understand that images of young girls being punched in the head by a male fist is a woeful way to introduce interactive technology.

    5. No I am not into “nanny-state” type restrictions. I just believe that adults should acknowledge that their actions have consequences – images of innocents being abused as a way of introducing technology is reprehensible. Suck it up.

    “And just for the record, Holmes did have normal relationships. He began withdrawing from them over the last 6 months as he became psychotic.”

    Exactly. Thanks for proving my point on that. Having stable healthy intimate relationships aids people’s well being. Holmes stopped having any (close relationships) and yet another USA style massacre has occurred.

    • Mark Neil says:

      1: I have no idea what this is attempting to say. You seem very sure about who I am and what my relationships are like outside of these forums. I personally feel this is getting well into the realm of personal attacks and I am annoyed the moderators are allowing this.

      The other thing about this statement that annoys me to no end, is the female chauvinism involved in this, not to mention the complete disconnect from feminist theory… So often, including in this comment section, we are told that women have been powerless and lacked any kind of influence and dominance, that women were simply helpless victims of male control… yet here we have you claiming that a woman has, not only an influence, but a profound thought altering influence on men to the point that men are deemed defective in some way, emotionally stunted, without the influence of a woman. With that kind of profound influence over men, I’d hardly call women helpless victims and dominated, lacking any kind of influence or control. The diametrically opposed ideas of being both influential and being a necessary influence are simply ridiculous, yet also somehow necessary to feminist belief. Feminists have a lot of these contradictions.

      2: Man-up

      3: Hence why I ask questions based on the impressions I’ve gotten from your actions and comments. Feel free to quote me making an assertion of you that can’t be identified through your actions here on these boards. I can assure you, you have no way to know what my personal relationships are like outside this forum. Those are the difference between our approaches. And congratulations on derailing the discussion onto my personal life rather than discussing the issues. Standard.

      4: Another personal attack. Ironically, you claim I need to man-up because I am unable to admit others people have different opinions, yet you insult me, claim I lack insight, simply because I hold a differing opinion from you.

      5: Suck it up… And your accusing me of having a dummy spit (WTF?) because others are holding a differing opinion? I’ve often believed that feminism was an exercise in group psychological projection. You seem to fit the bill.

      As to you and a nanny-state, your arguments would suggest otherwise. Your expectations of others seems to be in excess, you are intolerant of the slightest deviation from your ideals, and you provide no solutions short of thought control and censorship.

      As to holmes, and don’t think I haven’t noticed you attempting to equate me to being the same as him, making yet another ongoing personal attack… You are equating him going psychotic with the loss of his relationships, but is it not far more likely, given the cutting off of all relationships at the same time, that it was his becoming psychotic that was the cause of the loss of relationships? If it was the cutting off of relations that caused his psychotic break, what was the explanation for the initial cutting off of relations? But I suppose my holding this differing opinion is just another dummy spit to you.

      • Tell me do you call men who disagree with you misandrists?

        All I have done is disagree with you on your acceptance that a male fist hitting a young girl is an acceptable way to introduce new technology.

        You, as your most recent post above indicates, cannot handle this disagreement and go on at length trying to obfuscate the issue and accuse myself of being a man hater. Which is absurd. I don”t like images of innocents being hit for commercial gain, this has nothing to do with the majority of men. Just a persistent minority who are more concerned with their personal gratification than whether their behaviour may cause harm.

        As a result, I may have gone too far in suggesting that you don’t have strong relationships with women and that you lack courage. The real Mark Neill outside of this forum is probably a very nice person who would not normally countenance violence on sexualised innocents. I am only guessing. I don’t know for sure. You actions on this forum regarding this topic suggest otherwise. I can only call it like I see it.

        Maybe you just like to ‘win’ arguments irrespective of the topic. Maybe that is why you continue to present such a mountain of writing – my contributions are small by comparison. This is because I primarily concentrate on the issue at hand. However, being called names like “misandrist” and “man-hater” merely for disagreeing with a man is offensive.

        Do you have no concern that this issue and many like it continue to have ramifications on our society? The sexualisation of children, violence on innocents and the easy acceptance of this by a few members of society such as yourself.

        Your sense of entitlement trumping societal well being is a shame, such selfishness does not bode well for others or our future. You appear unable to see the consequences of your actions.

  11. Clearly attempting to discuss this issue from a moral standpoint is a waste of time. Images of teenagers being struck by adult fists do not concern the Blurpos, Mark Neills et al.

    I would like to consider the introduction of new tech from a purely pragmatic POV.

    In selling a product which has a potential wide appeal – why would an advertiser limit themselves to a small section of the consumer population? Why try to appeal to a few men who are into sexualised children and compound that with them being hit by adults?

    There is a massive market out there for interactive technology – this market (for the truly uninformed) consists of women, men and children. OK so the children mostly get their $ from their parents however, they are influenced by advertising and place pressure on mum and dad for their spending money.

    The purveyors of interactive tech have limited themselves in conjunction with disenfranchising themselves from potential buyers.

    Therefore, even by removing the moral issue of a teenager being punched in the head by an adult, the advertising has limited itself. Why?

    I am sure that eventually interactive tech will reach a broad audience. However, it could have hit the ground running by NOT using sexualised images of females being struck by men. Which, despite all the ‘outrage’ expressed by a few men is divisive, is demeaning and is very disturbing.

    When selling, one must consider the market, the promoters of interactive tech have failed.

    It would’ve been so easy to show an anime cat being stroked by an adult or a child – thus providing a broader view of how this tech can be used.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This is a comment by The Blurpo on the post “Your Very Own Live 3D Virtual Girlfriend?“ [...]

Speak Your Mind

*