I’m still a little worked up about an article that I read yesterday on the new robot technology to hit the sexual scene. Now, don’t get me wrong; this isn’t an issue of prudery. It’s not so much the mechanics (pardon the pun) of humanoid sensuality that I find unsettling. So there’s a robot that can get a human off—fine. It’s more the implications about men and women, separately and together, that’s got my panties all in a bunch (again, pardon it).
Let’s start with the fact that Truecompanion.com customers can request “a robot that looks and acts like an ideal mate.” Isn’t there something wrong with this sentence? (Did anyone see Lars and the Real Girl?) Isn’t this just what women have been worried about for centuries--that what men really want in a mate is a sex robot?
Perhaps foreseeing this concern, the article’s author, Ki Mae Heussner, assures us that, “Even though Roxxxy is ‘always on,’ her attraction isn't supposed to be about only sex.” Come again? (again, pardon the pun.) Have I missed something? Is Roxxxy also a lawyer who practices yoga and helps rear the kids? No, but according to the Truecompanion website, she "Can carry on a discussion and expresses her love to you and be your loving friend. She can talk to you, listen to you and feel your touch."
Okay, I see where this is going. She can talk, but she can’t nag you about the house or challenge your ideals. Of course she doesn’t mind if the seat’s up because, oh that’s right, when it comes to her nether regions, things can go in, but nothing comes out. Now, that’s the perfect woman. It certainly rules out “that time of the month” complications.
Also, why is there no mention of a sex robot for women? Do the makers of the robot honestly think that it’s only men who have needs that aren’t being met? Do they really think that wives are the only ones with headaches and deadlines when it’s time to do the marital deed? Do they know what percentage of women own vibrators?
In order to correct stupidity and raise profit, the industry that serves carnal needs should stop overlooking women’s sexuality. Am I saying that I’m positive that women would run out and buy a sex robot? No. In fact, I’m not sure what percentage of the men that I know would either; but I do know that it’s being offered to them exclusively. It would just be nice to live in a world that recognized realistic female sexual desire. And no, I’m not referring to Roxxxy the Sex Robot’s perennially being “up for it.” Sheesh.
In the same vein, I find the arguments for the RealTouch (a contraption that provides "the authentic sexual experience they desire when a partner, for whatever reason, isn't available,” read: the wife won’t put out) more than a little unsettling. AEBN (Adult Entertainment Broadcasting Network) CEO Scott Coffman touts the device as a "relationship saver,” maintaining that, “if guys like Tiger Woods, Mark Sanford and Eliot Spitzer had a RealTouch, their marriages might not be in such turmoil today." I find the whole Woods, Sanford, and Sptizer wouldn’t have cheated if they had just had them a RealTouch yarn to be a little obtuse because it overlooks the many psychological reasons why men cheat.
Finally, the RealTouch comes complete with the the cheeky tagline: "Will a New Gadget for Men Make Women Obsolete?" Am I offended by this? Yes. It's not because I am afraid of being rendered obsolete by sex technology; but the belief that women are only "useful" in so far as they please men sexually has caused a lot of damage over the years.
Now, if haptic penis zaps can replace multidimensional relationships with women, I might have to just leave the human race right now. I've clearly gotten it all wrong with all this striving to become a more intellectually and emotionally whole person. If I had known this all along, I could have just worked on my night moves and called the whole thing off.