The Girl Below Is Actually An Android Sex Doll
Posted by: Kate Torgovnick
Filed in:
sex
3:14PM, Friday September 18th 2009
Robots these days can perform surgeries, walk the runway, and even teach a class of students. And now there’s a robot that can ... have sex. A German company called First Androids has created the world’s most advanced sex doll. Her name is Andy (guess men are really into women with guy’s names, à la Joey Potter?) and she costs $3820. Her face and body are crazy realistic and she appears to have hair and eyebrows (and, uh, pubes) that look pretty convincing. She also has a “heavy breathing” function and an actual G-spot. So far, First Androids has received four million orders for the sex ‘bots, which kind of shocked me at first. But then I remembered that there are guys out there (cough, Eliot Spitzer) who spend $3820 a month on hookers and it all made sense. Guess the age of robot prostitutes isn’t so far off? [Asylum]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bumbler
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]
She looks more life-like than Megan Fox
*snap**snap*
FrzKey
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]
Uh First Androids’ site is from 2002 and doesn’t look like it’s been maintained or updated since then either. Basically, she’s nothing new.
effing hickster
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 02:47 pm: [report]
I don’t see how they could keep up with production.
ootie
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 02:57 pm: [report]
she looks like natasha lyonne.
majicksand
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 03:30 pm: [report]
Does she move, or is it a doll like the Japanese ones last week?
_jsw_
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
I checked out some pics via Google. Disappointingly, their breasts all look fake.
effing hickster
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]
Just so creepy…
ThatWeirdGamerChick
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 05:34 pm: [report]
Out of curiosity, I wonder if it would be illegal to produce sex robots that looked like they’re under 18. I guess it would be, but in real life, there are people over 18 that just look young (like me -.-)
I’d assume it would be illegal, but who knows? Hard to draw a line on what “looks” 18 and older. Hmm. I wonder what their range of movement is? Like, do the arms just stay at her sides all the time? Now I’m getting really curious about this! And I agree with hickster, it’s a bit creepy. :/
effing hickster
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 06:09 pm: [report]
@TWGC: Well, maybe not so much if you’re a sleep-creep or into necrophilia.
And I can totally see this child-but-not-a-real-child issue coming up in the future. I think the jury’s still out on the guy who was cutting out photos of little girl’s faces and pasting them on photos of adult women’s bodies.
On the other hand, Nabokov wrote that exemplary novel Lolita, about a man with an underage lover.
I would assume that if it’s not a living being, human or animal, then it’s not an issue as of yet. I think the real issue is about the offender blurring the line between person and object, and child and object.
ThatWeirdGamerChick
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 06:14 pm: [report]
It might not be a living being, but it is a sex toy, and intended for sexual uses. So I guess it would be a form of child pornography - something that represents or shows children and is intended for sexual use. Weird.
And people thought it would never happen!
It’ll be interesting when courts start trying to make laws for sex robots
Therese
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 10:54 pm: [report]
The porn industry make loads of money on franchises like “Barely Legal” and the like. Although the actresses must be over the age of 18, they are very deliberately cast to look much younger. Some even get braces to enhance their youthful look.
We interviewed some porn experts for a documentary I’m doing and I did a post on it called ‘The Semiotics of Pigtails’ on my blog The American Virgin.
http://theamericanvirgin.blogspot.com/2008/04/semiotics-of-pig-tails.html
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 18 2009 @ 11:41 pm: [report]
@Therese: Barely Legal is an awesome series. I believe it is over 100 by my count as well.
saucygeek
wrote on September 19 2009 @ 03:03 am: [report]
There’s actually a much more realistic sex doll on the market if you really want to see what they’re like: realdoll.com. There’s also a documentary based on actual people who have relationships with these Real Dolls. It’s rather fascinating (or disturbing to some) and worth checking out on youtube under “Real Doll experiences (pt1/5)”. Keep an open mind should you choose to watch it. =)
SamL
wrote on September 19 2009 @ 05:12 am: [report]
Euuuuch! What sicko fantasy came up this perversion? And so, so realistic! (Not!)
However I have one practical question. Since men are usually pretty squeamish about cleaning up after themselves, are they more or less likely to roll over and go to sleep after sex with one of these life size Barbie dolls?
And will they expect her to clean up?
canadiancutie
wrote on September 19 2009 @ 09:09 am: [report]
I am watching that Real Doll Experience documentary on Youtube… fascinating…..
afsweetstuff72
wrote on September 20 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
Ahhh hahahaha! I think this is soo funny! Almost scary for us girls though… are we going to be replaced?! Hahaha, kidding, kidding…
It’s creepy how they tried to make her as life-like as possible!
Canadiancutie… I’m going to have to watch that now!! I’m intrigued!
Kristyn
wrote on September 21 2009 @ 12:26 am: [report]
@bethlynn00, I was thinking the same thing. I think its mostly the hair though.
*Lee*
wrote on September 21 2009 @ 10:41 pm: [report]
I swear for a minute I thought it was a corpse. Close enough I guess.
spark
wrote on September 22 2009 @ 09:54 am: [report]
i was going to say, it seems like it would be like #&@$% a… dead thing?
cohiker
wrote on September 22 2009 @ 03:48 pm: [report]
Other sex dolls on the market:
http://www.honeydolls.jp/en/main.html
stiffinp
wrote on September 22 2009 @ 07:21 pm: [report]
Anybody watch the movie “Cherry 2000”?
Frederica Bimble
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 06:17 am: [report]
So, instead of these men working on what it is in themselves that would make them want to have sex with a log that looks like a woman instead of actually engaging in contact with a human, they’ve gone the lazy route.
It is sad for more reasons than most people on here can grasp.
_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:39 am: [report]
@Frederica Bimble: Two comments.
One: this is a sex toy. I don’t think you’d have written what you wrote if the article were about women who buy vibrators. Purchasing one of these doesn’t mean that a man doesn’t engage in contact with women, and it doesn’t make the man some sort of misanthrope. It makes him someone with enough money to buy a somewhat realistic sex toy. It’s not my cup of tea, but I don’t think it’s wrong to own one.
Two: There are men who, unfortunately, are shunned due to issues beyond their control. Deformity and disease come to mind as some of the reasons. Also, some of them might be too nervous or shy to interact with women. These dolls give those men a chance to at least replicate some portion of the experience.
I doubt that there are many men who decide to buy a sex doll instead of working on getting women to like them.
majicksand
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:31 am: [report]
@jsw: Did you check out the youtube link? Admittedly, I only watched the first part of a five part series, but the guys on there were living in a fantasy world where these dolls are real. They talk about their “relationships”, dress the dolls up, apply make-up, take “family photos”, and public outings. The one guy shushed the cameraman because his “girlfriend” was still sleeping. This behavior goes way beyond any relationship I’ve ever had with a vibrator, I assure you.
Neither man was deformed (or diseased as far as I know). I didn’t find either man particulary attractive, but they weren’t hideous either. If I had to guess, I’d say that these men expect to be in relationships with supermodels instead of “normal” women. When they can’t have a live version of society’s “elite”, they purchase beauty that can’t turn them down or break their hearts.
They weren’t looking for relationships with live women. As far as they were concerned, they already had one.
_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:37 am: [report]
@majicksand: Point taken, but for those men… well, isn’t it better that they have a sex doll instead of trying to work out their issues with real women? They obviously have some imbalance, and without the dolls, they might even be worse. I suspect that some of the trolls we see on here would be better off with a doll like that.
I hope they make them even more realistic. Because, well, the better the dolls are, and the more men who choose them over real women, the better the odds are for the rest of us.
majicksand
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:50 am: [report]
Yeah, you’re right. I’m now wishing that at least half the guys I’ve dated had had a doll instead.
Humble Bee
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:08 pm: [report]
You guys at the Frisky are so messed up. How could you you say this is a robot girl, we all know this is Heidi Montag!
hehehe :D
_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:12 pm: [report]
The post by millionairegirl, if it is still above this one, has been reported.
Amarie21
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:12 pm: [report]
maybe i’m weird but…
does anybody else think it kind of looks like Michael Jackson in a Shakira wig???
SamL
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 05:58 am: [report]
@Amarie21. Well I hadn’t thought too much about “who” this thing had been modeled on, but now you come to mention it, you’re right!
personaltimeguy
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:07 am: [report]
SamL that looks like an albino michael jackson…rip king of pop!
jenny9255
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 07:33 pm: [report]
guess men don’t need us anymore.
323Felicity
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 04:59 pm: [report]
@Humble Bee: LMFAO!!!!
It looks like Jacko if he’d had a normal nose and chin. But aren’t these customizable like the RealDolls? I saw a show on those guys as well (though I’m not sure if it’s the same one you guys are talking about) and those dudes were kinda freaky. Like the one guy who had a REAL girlfriend who didn’t know about his sex dolls and she comes in the room and he has two of them sitting on his couch in these skimpy outfits. Appearantly the guy was pretty rich, because he had stacks and stacks of old dolls in his garage. I mean like 30 of them at least. All I can say to the girlfriend is: Run away! Very, very, far away!!!!
SamL
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 06:30 am: [report]
Now I know who the reason is there is such a huge market in vibrators…. Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you, the current lightweight misogynist of the world; TheRon!
SamL
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
Yeah TheRon, that’s what you’d like to think, I don’t agree with you so in reality I must look like a Michelin man! But what if I was an Uma Thurman look-a-like, that enjoys occasional porn and real sex with real men? (Hint for your reference: real men don’t refer to women as bitches… )
Obviously what you don’t like are women that have an opinion. Or disagree with you. Or a mind of their own. And if they do, they must all look like the Michelin man, and be nagging bitches right?
My guess is that women don’t need to belittle you. You do that all by yourself. Women intimidate you because of your own lack of self esteem.
And I also guess you’d even have a difficult relationship with the sex doll shown at the top of this thread. You’d complain that she was a bitch for being cold and unfeeling of your needs right?
Unfortunately your stunted intellect doesn’t give me any reason to change my opinion of you. Sorry!
SamL
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]
My guess is that women don’t need to belittle you. You do that all by yourself.
So my guess was right… you are a dork!
torri.
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 06:07 pm: [report]
that is creeepy. i would never use that if i were a man. i guess they don’t need us anymore lol.
gwimberly
wrote on November 22 2009 @ 10:21 pm: [report]
For anyone who has not seen this android IN ACTION, go to the following site. Cursor down to the bottom of the page. You will see 9 movies. Check out numbers 4, 5, and 6 especially.
My feeling? Not sure. Weird. People use sex toys anyway. People masterbate with their hands. I mean, what’s the difference? What is “real” sex?
It’s certainly weird. But weird AIN’T always bad. Am I going to buy one? Nope. I’m married. Would I buy one if I WAS NOT married. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Yodar Critch
wrote on January 11 2010 @ 10:06 am: [report]
“She also has a “heavy breathing” function and an actual G-spot. “
If I am F-ing a damn robot, why the hell woudld I care if it had a “G-spot”?
_jsw_
wrote on January 11 2010 @ 10:14 am: [report]
@Yodar Critch: Obviously, it’d be so one could practice on the off chance that one actually ever was with a real woman. The idea is that you can use this doll to get better and thus appear to have teh skillz once the real ladies become interested.
Of course, it’s a bit misleading, because the G-spot on the doll is actually on her navel with a “G-spot here—->” tattoo next to it. And it’s one of those little red push buttons.
Or, well, maybe that’s where the actual G-spot is. I’ve never really cared. It’s the plus of always paying.
NaomiK
wrote on February 14 2010 @ 07:44 pm: [report]
I think the biggest difference between this thing and other sex toys is that it has, you know, a face, and of course arms and legs and other body parts that one wouldn’t really need on a sex toy to get off. Having a replicated whole person rather than just something to tickle your fancy seems to indicate that this is for more than just getting off. I haven’t watched the youtube thing though so… There’s a movie with Ryan Gosling about a guy who orders a doll to have a relationship with. It’s actually a really cute and touching movie. I just can’t remember the name of it.
NaomiK
wrote on February 14 2010 @ 07:46 pm: [report]
Also I think “she” looks like the girl who plays Britta on Community.