Virtual Girlfriend

Sven-Erik writes " BBC News reports about a Hong Kong based company called Artificial Life that has developed a solution for men without a partner, in the form of a virtual girlfriend that appear as an animated figure on the video screen of a mobile phone. But there is a downside to the virtual girlfriend - she will require more flowers and gifts than many real women. All virtual girls will look the same - but each girl will behave differently - depending on how much money is spent on her. In return, she will introduce them to different aspects of her life, like letting them meet her female friends - also electronic images. Artificial Life is hoping to launch the new game later this year, on the latest 3-G mobile phones.

Comments

is it just me...

[kippy]

or is this the most pathetic thing ever?

Re:is it just me...

[rrhal]

Well just don't spend any money on her. She can't dump you - all she can do is get bitchy. Then You'll feel better about not having a real girlfriend.

The sad thing is...

[spacecadetglow]

people will actually buy it.

Let me be the first to say...

[dhalgren99]

WTF!!!???
Who would buy this service!?

Re:Heard this on the Beeb Yesterday

[Cyclotron_Boy]

How is this any different from "Dating Sims" like this one or this one? Am I missing something, or is the innovation here just that it is on a mobile phone? -F

No jokes...

[Wind_Walker]

I swear, I've been sitting here for 5 minutes trying to come up with a joke for this topic. But as soon as I think of an idea for a joke, I have this overwhelming sense of pity for some poor lonely guy out there who would have to get a Virtual Girlfriend because he cannot hold a real relationship. All this guy wants is a bit of love and respect, but he just can't get it. Then I get disgusted at the greedy, money-grubbing company trying to capitalize on these poor souls, feeding their thirst for money off of their victim's need for love and acceptance...

Then I get pissed I didn't think of it first.

Idiots

[Morphix84]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to pay for virtual gifts for a virtual woman. This is the ultimate version of hell. Appearantly she nags at you if you don't spend money on her. It's like all the punishment and none of the reward. Morphix Game Rate: -5 (Would rather run tongue across a rasp than play this game)

Re:Idiots

[Aerog]

...anyone in their right mind...
They're not part of the demographic.

What a week for women's rights

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

Ten years after Demi Moore went for a million bucks, we've found a way to bring the objectification of women to a new level. The computer is apparently Larry Flynt's new meat grinder.

It's sad to see the rate at which our runaway technological advances outstrip the advancement of society. In one hundred years we've developed flight, space travel, nuclear physics, gene therapy, and global digital communications networks, but we still can't get past treating women like property instead of people.

Articles like this are why I'm so excited about the possibilities of genetic engineering. I feel like the only way to get this bug out of the system is to change the source code. Imagine a world of humans without gender or race - imagine what we could accomplish!

For now we're stuck with a world where we hang female children for mouthing off, create computer programs to be interchangeable currency for female slaves, pretend that gender warfare is actually a natural state, and where female developers can't post on Slashdot without seeing the first ten replies read "show us your tits".

Humynity sure has a long way to go.

Re:What a week for women's rights

[mblase]

In one hundred years we've developed flight, space travel, nuclear physics, gene therapy, and global digital communications networks, but we still can't get past treating women like property instead of people.

There are some things that are simply built into the genes. Human men are compelled to have sex without commitment; women are compelled to form commitments. It's a broad generalization, but all of anthropology, sociology and natural biology boil down to this simple axiom.

You can try to deny it, argue it, or change it, but human nature will always defeat you in the end. The successful social institutions are the ones that use this nature to achieve good ends, the way democracy uses selfishness to achieve good government. Marriage, in essence, is a way of getting men to commit to a woman and her children by promising him an available sexual partner at all times.

Pornography in all its myriad forms, including "virtual girlfriends", is a way to give men (limited) sexual gratification without bothering with a relationship. Romance novels and movies do the same by giving women a relationship fantasy they can enjoy without an actual partner. Both businesses have been spectacularly successful over the decades because those principles are true.

Re:What a week for women's rights

[ambrosine10]

SHOW US YOUR TITS!!

Ok, just kidding.

But you know, you're going way overboard. While sexism is most definitely a problem in today's societies, this little gadget is not a representation of that at all. How is this in any way sexist? It's fun and harmless. I could just as easily see a "virtual boyfriend" game. There's no sex involved here and it no more "objectifies" women than any other form of media.

A society without gender or race? You would do well to read up on some evolutionary biology/psychology. Biodiversity and two sexes are crucial components to ensure our long-term survival. We need to get rid of societal prejudice, not our biological markers. You're attacking the wrong problem.

Gender warfare may not be a "good" or "moral" state, but it IS a natural state. Hmm. Read some Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker. The two genders evolved to perform different functions and the conflicts between them can be attributed to their differing needs and goals. This doesn't justify sexism, but that doesn't mean we can pretend there are no differences between the sexes, because there are.

Re:What a week for women's rights

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There are some things that are simply built into the genes. Human men are compelled to have sex without commitment; women are compelled to form commitments.

This belief is one of the most successful memes of all time, for obvious reasons; it allows both sexes to justify things they want to justify in the first place. (Men get to say, "I can't help it, it's in my blood." Women get to say, "See, men are pigs! We're so much more virtuous.")

There's only one problem: it's not true. The fact is that both sexes are equally promiscuous -- perhaps for different reasons, perhaps not, but everyone pretty much screws around equally.

Re:What a week for women's rights

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The point is that those are all cultural factors, not genetic ones. Citing the behavior of women in patriarchal cultures to justify a claim about inherent tendencies toward certain types of sexual behavior is kind of like citing the behavior of black people in Mississippi in 1952 to justify a claim that black people aren't interested in voting.

Re:What a week for women's rights

[taxevader]

A bit off-topic....

Hmm.. yes, sexism is a problem today. But seemingly only for women, who are still seen as the gender requiring protection. Just spend a few minutes thinking about the following:

1.Although women have financial independence, men are still expected to pay for everything when going out with them. Taxis, meals, tickets, and eventually a $3000 DeBeers diamond. If he doesn't, society will deem he doesnt love her anymore.

2. Watch some TV. Whether in ads, movie or sitcoms, men can be made to look like the fool. Their sexual capacity, or even size can be made fun of, they can be ridiculed for not understanding things inherent to women, and they can be kicked in the genitals, all in the name of comedy.

3. More men die of prostate cancer than women do of breast cancer, yet breast cancer receives 700% more funding. Just look at the public awareness of both to know how in which direction the gender is pushed.

4. Family courts rule in favour of women 95% of the time. Perjury is an accepted way of women to get what they want. 'He beat me' is an instant way to get access to the kids, whether true or not. And if it is proven that the woman lied, there is no punishment in practically all of the cases. FOR LYING IN COURT!! Lawyers tell women to use this to their advantage.

So, yes, sexism is a problem. As men, we must be strong, raise a family, be the breadwinner, or be seen as a loser.

Women have choices. Be a strong career woman or a caring housewife/mother. People respect both, which is a good thing. But men don't have a choice, they are still seen as expendable wage slaves.

Oh yeah, women still live 5 years longer than men. Could that have anything to do with the pressure of work and poorer gender-specific health care?

Virtual Girlfriend is a "service"

[GuyMannDude]

I have this overwhelming sense of pity for some poor lonely guy out there who would have to get a Virtual Girlfriend because he cannot hold a real relationship. All this guy wants is a bit of love and respect, but he just can't get it. Then I get disgusted at the greedy, money-grubbing company trying to capitalize on these poor souls, feeding their thirst for money off of their victim's need for love and acceptance...

I'm not sure if all of this is meant to be a joke (as one respondant has already suggested) but since you are being modded as Insightful I'm going to reply as though you were serious. This company is providing a service. To think of them as exploiting someone is a real misunderstanding of commerce. Do grocery stores exploit me because I have a biological need to eat? There are numerous reasons why some guy may need to find love and finds this Virtual Girlfriend thing to be a less-risky outlet. Perhaps someone has recently been hurt very badly in a relationship (e.g., engaged and then his fiance ran off with someone else) and just isn't ready to date real people just yet. Rather than forcing him to interact with other (real) women when he's still thinking about his loss (which wouldn't be very much fun for the women he meets) or having him sit on his couch bawling to himself, this Virtual Girlfriend may actually serve a theraputic purpose. In this case, the company is not exploiting him but is helping provide a way for him to get over his loss. Yeah, it would be great if this company provided this free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts but that's not the world we live in. They developed the technology and need to recoup their investment as well as reward those who came up with the idea. This is legitimate commerce, not exploitation.

GMD

Re:Holy Cow!

[Xugumad]

I have to say, I'm catastrophically single (25, never dated, - things could only be worse if I lived in my parents basement), and I think this is a bad idea. This should tell you something.

Re:Holy Cow!

[orac2]

Dude, ouch! You're obviously not thrilled about the situation, but it can be changed -- but it takes a lot of groundwork. If it's a psychological problem like chronic shyness, social phobia or generalised anxiety disorder, get thee to psychotherapist (preferably one that's into Cognitive Therapy instead of Freudian analysis). If you've got Generalized Nerd Syndrome (bad clothes, overweight, etc), get thee to a gym, book a starter session with a personal trainer and work out a realistic routine. Then find a department store that offers a 'personal shopper' service (it's like your very own 'Queer Eye for The Straight Guy') Ask for help with clothes and toiletries. It won't be cheap, but if you haven't been dating you should have some disposable income and you'll end up smelling nice with well fitting clothes that suit you, which makes a huge difference. If you're actually disfigured due to injury or disease get thee to a support group and start exploring options with them. Once you've laid the groundwork, consider something like eHarmony, Match.com or Nerve (meeting someone through a dating service has finally lost it stigma, at least on the coasts if not everywhere). Take it easy: you haven't had the opportunity to practise dating skills in the sandbox of adolesence, so resign yourself now to making screw-ups. Don't sweat about them, just learn from them. But the point is you actually have to start doing the spadework: self-awareness is great but only if you use it to chart a course to somewhere else. Set short-term concrete goals: i.e. "By the end of the week I will have made an appointment with a doctor/personal trainer..." not "I'll try get fit by Christmas," because Christmas will be here in the blink of a eye and you still won't be in shape. Remember, Do or Do Not, a Jedi does not try.

Re:Holy Cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention a bit of advice which has saved countless people from being intimidated... If you go on a date, DO NOT think of it as a date. Just think of it as going out with a friend to hang out.

If the chemistry is right between you, things will happen. One of you will just know the right time to make a move.

Thinking of a date as a date can set unrealistic expectations.

MOD Parent Up Please

[T-Kir]

Enough said really... striking up a friendship or rapport with someone is the best ice breaker ever.

Oh, so it is a profit motivator!

[Orion Blastar]

Let me see if I get this straight.

You pay money for the Virtual Girlfriend program. There is no sex involved, no nudity, no dirty talk, no physical contact, not even a kiss.

Ok, now, in order to have her talk to you, she requires virtual gifts. Lucky you, for the company that makes Virtual Girlfriend can sell them to you FOR REAL MONEY, yet she will keep requiring more and more from you, otherwise she won't speak to you.

Apparently, as I understand it, not only does it waste your time, it also wastes your real money, and only rich people can afford to keep her talking to them. The amount you have to spend has not yet been determined, yet I got a funny feeling that they can change the setting on you to make her require more "gifts" that end up costing you more money. You might, oh, start by spending $20 a week on her, and then they send an instant message to your phone that turns on the golddigger routines to make you pay $200 a week. That is what I think will happen.

If you want to waste your time and money, find a webcam whore, cell phones have amazing web browsers now and the Internet fees and webcam fees can potentionally be less than the Virtual Girlfriend. I used that link because Maddox explains how to be a Web Cam Whore so well, that you'll know what to expect. At least you might be able to see some female body parts for your money, and be able to get some bad poetry, which should be better than the Engrish responses the Virtual Girlfriend would give you. I think Virtual Girlfriend is targeted towards the guys who visit Web Cam Whores anyway, both the Web Cam Whores and Virtual Girlfriends seem to have the same intelligence anyway, and the same low intelligence audience that cannot get a date even if they were the last man in town, with $1 million USD in a suitcase, a 2004 BMW, and used phermones to attract women.

The whole business idea of Virtual Girlfriend is to get the sad lonely loser hooked, until he is paying more money than a crack addict for a fix.

I hope that someone like Maddox writes a sarcastic review on it, besides me. ;)