buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) (05/15/91)
A recent posting dismissed an earlier question about expectations for virtual-world sex rather cavalierly, with what I take to be the derisory term "teledildonics". I think the question deserves a more considered response, for at least two reasons. One is that people will pay a great deal of money for the kind of sexual experience they want, or can be induced to want. The other is that, like games in ordinary computing, sex would be demanding enough to be constantly stretching the state of the art. I think the first question has to be, "what do you mean by sex?" If the answer is, "the computer and its sensing and feedback devices have to behave convincingly like a sexual partner in at least all tactile senses," I agree that it's an awfully long way off; you'd have to end up with the equivalent of a very advanced Audioanimatronic figure including yielding fleshlike covering, warmth, and moisture. That's big bucks for just I/O, without considering the computing. But a more reasonable answer might be, "the computer and its sensing and feedback devices have to provide a good orgasm." The sex toy trade already has reasonable artificial genitalia, and devices, vibratory usually, for inducing pleasure in erogenous zones. These are mass-produced and cheap. What is missing that a computer could provide is sensing of the state of arousal of the user, together with appropriate fine control of the devices to respond to that state. Without this, which is provided in partner sex by the attention and imagination of the partner, or in solitary sex by constant control by the user, the user can't relax and let things happen. The virtual reality aspect to add is creation of a scene to supplement control of the stimulators with images, presumably of an ideal partner, and possibly of very limited simulation of tactile contact (resistance to the hands corresponding to key anatomical features, say). Sound would be nice, too. [MODERATOR'S NOTE: It's said that when what you do (or talk about) becomes cliche', you've arrived. I appreciate Tony Buckland's finally posting the inevitable speculation on virtual sex, or "teledildonics," to the newsgroup. On the other hand, this topic has pretty much been talked to death on both alt.cyberspace and The WELL's vr conference, so unless the Group Mind thinks otherwise, I suggest we move on to more tangible manifestations of our work. [However, I remain open to comments on sensuality as a general issue for the design of virtual worlds. Shall we, or shall we not? Your comments are welcome. -- Bob Jacobson]
hersh@exhume.lcs.mit.edu (05/15/91)
Personally I prefer mine human, thanks. There is a lot more to sex than
just the physical act. Speaking from personal experience sex is a lot
more than just orgasm, and the emotional state involved in sharing the
act with another person makes a significant difference in the experience.
I don't want to launch a long discussion here about sexuality, or to to
imply that the poster referenced has an inadequate sex life, just wanted
to point out that I think there are some things computers SHOULD never
be made to attempt.
JH
--
Disclaimer: Programmers may be able to control computers,
but no one has learned how to control programmers.entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.162601.8311@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> hersh@exhume.lcs. mit.edu writes: [stuff deleted] >I don't want to launch a long discussion here about sexuality, or to to >imply that the poster referenced has an inadequate sex life, just wanted >to point out that I think there are some things computers SHOULD never >be made to attempt. I assume the idea isn't to have sex with a computer, but rather to have sex with another person far away, using virtual reality to simulate there physical presence. Tinysex (mud sex) is fairly popular, while there is no physical or visual stimulation, its certainly beats reading a romance novel. The difference being that there is a real but often anonymous person on the other end. For those unfamiliar with muds, they are basically text based multi user virtual realitys. They require some imagination but can be quite addictive, and seem much more real than books, or even movies. From the experiences I have had with muds, I think real virtual reality will have fairly extreme effects on society. If you want to see what muds or all about: try telnet grape.ecs.clarkson.edu 6250 or read rec.games.mud, there is a list of muds periodically posted. -- Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true. ------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- |Republicans understand the importance | Thats One way to keep the| |of bondage between a mother and child. -Quayle | family together.... |
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (05/17/91)
hersh@exhume.lcs.mit.edu writes: > Personally I prefer mine human, thanks. There is a lot more to sex than > just the physical act... > ... just wanted > to point out that I think there are some things computers SHOULD never > be made to attempt. Although the newsgroup name "virtual worlds" suggests the idea of replacing "the real thing", that's not the only direction the technology could take. Consider instead the use of computer and peripherals (and networking) as an intermediary, as a communications device for the case where two people can't be in the same physical location. Multi-media teleconferencing at its best? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
trebor@uunet.UU.NET (Robert J Woodhead) (05/17/91)
buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes: > A recent posting dismissed an earlier question about expectations > for virtual-world sex rather cavalierly, with what I take to be > the derisory term "teledildonics". Just as a humorous anecdote, back in the '70s at the U of I, Urbana (home of PLATO), a grad student apparently designed a microprocessor controlled dildo. As it was described to me, said device had temperature, pressure, moisture and for all I know accellerometers in it, the whole idea being to allow it to provide an interactive experience. However, the feature that most impressed me was the concept of using "plug in (ahem) ROMPAKS" to allow the user to modify the behavior of the dildo. So a user could choose between "Lazy Summer Afternoons" and "Ride 'Em Cowboy", for example. Such a device, if it was ever built, would bring new meaning to the term "User Interface." The developer's toolkit would be positively pornographic. And I've always wondered who did the Beta testing.... ;^> -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp | | "The Force. It surrounds us; It enfolds us; It gets us dates on Saturday | | Nights." -- Obi Wan Kenobi, Famous Jedi Knight and Party Animal. | [MODERATOR'S NOTE: I relent. :-) -- Bob Jacobson]
jal@pandora.cs.wayne.edu (Jason Leigh) (05/18/91)
Is this Virtual Sex or really Computer enhanced masturbation? -- :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) ;^) O^: (^: (^: (^: (^: (^: (^: (^: :^) Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. (^: :v) Which of the two has the grander view? - Victor Hugo (v: :v) :v) :v) :v) :v) :v) :v) :v) :v( $v: (v: (v: (v: (v: (v: (v: (v:
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May18.161337.23897@cs.wayne.edu> jal@pandora.cs.wayne.edu (Jason Leigh) writes: > >Is this Virtual Sex or really Computer enhanced masturbation? Is this virtual reality or really computer-enhanced reality? Again, there is no agreement on that.