COMMENTS: 17
Moaning Lisa: A Blow-Up Doll, Upgraded
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
I was standing in front of a naked mannequin with the proportions of a porn star, her eyes replaced with fat lenses to detect motion, her nipples transformed into knobs, her ass and pussy and neck covered in thin sheets of metal that could detect pressure. Jutting from her left ankle was a USB connector, and through a hole in her back I could see the wires that had helped her respond to my attentions. Her voice had come from two small speakers at her feet. I had just jacked off a USB device.
Her name is Moaning Lisa, and I fondled her at Arse Elektronika, a conference in San Francisco last week devoted to pornography and technological innovation. Her creator, Matt Ganucheau, is a local artist and musician who likes to work with what he calls "novel interfaces." He designed Moaning Lisa specifically for Arse Elektronika, with help from conference organizer Kyle Machulis, to demonstrate the videogame-like properties of the human body. Ganucheau used neural network processing in her programming, and the result is that her responses are randomized. Each time you try to give Moaning Lisa an orgasm, your sensor stroking has to follow a slightly different pattern.
That's what keeps me hovering around Moaning Lisa in fascination. Her interface, though attached to a strangely distorted female body, seems human. She's a reminder that every woman has different physical sensitivities, and that sexual stimulation varies from person to person -- indeed, varies from encounter to encounter with the same person. She suggests we shouldn't mystify sex, because after all it's just like a game you play with piezoelectric sensors and potentiometers. Our bodies are a technology. Arousal is a program triggered by specific inputs.
Moaning Lisa is also a poignant conversation piece, inciting discussions you'd never imagine having with strangers. I got to chatting with Ganucheau about why he doesn't plan to build a male version, and we immediately start talking about how men experience sexual pleasure, though in an oddly technical way. "Male sex sensors are biased, and not as spread out" over the body, Ganucheau said. "Sure, there are deviances in distribution, but overall it's not as dynamic as a female. I find that if you go straight for male genitalia, the norm is that you're guaranteed to get someone off." This situation, he asserted, would make for a pretty boring game. You grab the genitals and you win every time. I countered that men have sexual sensors and patterns as varied as women's. Neither of us had any proof other than our own experiences.
Aside from some pretty graphic discussions of sexual sensors, Moaning Lisa inspired a lot of admiration from the women at Arse Elektronika. Many of us had suggestions for Ganucheau, especially what one could learn from people's interactions with her. If he were to continue working on Moaning Lisa, Ganucheau said, he would want to track how women respond to men playing with her. "It would be interesting to have a study where you had one male in a room alone with Lisa, and five women behind a one-way mirror watching, commenting on the interaction."
I have less complicated ideas. I think Moaning Lisa would be a good educational toy for women who are shy about telling their partners what they like in bed. She would provide a lesson in how hard it is to arouse somebody who gives you no verbal feedback until you randomly "score" with an orgasm.
"I see the female body as an instructionless, interactive puzzle," Ganucheau explained. Moaning Lisa is like a Rubik's Cube, a puzzle that you have to solve with your hands and your innate pattern-recognition ability. But with her exaggerated Barbie doll body shape -- giant breasts, tiny waist -- she's also a parody of female sexuality. She meets our expectations for what a sex doll would be, then frustrates those expectations by responding to salacious touches in a chaotic and peculiarly human way. That's what makes her a truly great piece of art. You cannot pin her down. You cannot forget her.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BigGuy5000 on Oct 16, 2007 4:54 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of the Alternet reader who was defending white women going out with black men but considered it terrible that black women went out with white men. Sexism and racism are bad, no matter who they are directed against.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Objectifying Women
Posted by: luzmejor
» Who's objectifying? Who's a lesbian? I read Alternet, and I only like straight Christian Porn.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pgw on Oct 16, 2007 7:43 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, I for one, think the whole concept of "objectification" is hugely misunderstood. I don't think there's any inherent problem with objectification – in fact, there are a lot of things that simply couldn't be done without a certain degree of objectification, including interacting with strangers or making art. Nor do I see sexual objectification as inherently wrong – its a big part of what otherwise might be called sexual attraction. The problem comes when objectification becomes total, failing to acknowledge the subjectivity of the other or crossing the line into stereotyping or dehumanization. Some people think porn inherently does this – I disagree.
Finally, I think there's a certain degree of truth to what you say about liberal double standards. There do seem to be a lot of people who view female sexual self-expression positively (such as that of sex-positive women like Annalee Newitz or Susie Bright), but bring up the topic of male sexual desire and its strictly Robert Jensen-style self-flagellation. To put it simply – FUCK THAT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Objectification and double-standards
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aislinnluv on Oct 17, 2007 5:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: huh
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 17, 2007 11:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 18, 2007 10:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A lot of times you can't find a partner.
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melissazumsteg on Oct 20, 2007 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So seductive women are just a myth?
Posted by: Sojourner
» How about instead of a video game to do it...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: juno1957 on Oct 21, 2007 2:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» just cause...:)
Posted by: mjglow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 31, 2007 2:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm... would they also make child androids for pedophiles? Would it be a crime to have sex with one of them? After all, it's already a crime to attempt to arrange to have sex with a minor who doesn't exist (chat room-based sting operations with cops posing as minors). So it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to criminalize actual sex with something that is far more child-like than a cop in a chat room.... and then what do you have? Thought Crime!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shamus on Nov 3, 2007 12:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BigGuy5000 on Oct 16, 2007 4:54 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of the Alternet reader who was defending white women going out with black men but considered it terrible that black women went out with white men. Sexism and racism are bad, no matter who they are directed against.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Objectifying Women
Posted by: luzmejor
» Who's objectifying? Who's a lesbian? I read Alternet, and I only like straight Christian Porn.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pgw on Oct 16, 2007 7:43 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, I for one, think the whole concept of "objectification" is hugely misunderstood. I don't think there's any inherent problem with objectification – in fact, there are a lot of things that simply couldn't be done without a certain degree of objectification, including interacting with strangers or making art. Nor do I see sexual objectification as inherently wrong – its a big part of what otherwise might be called sexual attraction. The problem comes when objectification becomes total, failing to acknowledge the subjectivity of the other or crossing the line into stereotyping or dehumanization. Some people think porn inherently does this – I disagree.
Finally, I think there's a certain degree of truth to what you say about liberal double standards. There do seem to be a lot of people who view female sexual self-expression positively (such as that of sex-positive women like Annalee Newitz or Susie Bright), but bring up the topic of male sexual desire and its strictly Robert Jensen-style self-flagellation. To put it simply – FUCK THAT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Objectification and double-standards
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aislinnluv on Oct 17, 2007 5:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: huh
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 17, 2007 11:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 18, 2007 10:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A lot of times you can't find a partner.
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melissazumsteg on Oct 20, 2007 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So seductive women are just a myth?
Posted by: Sojourner
» How about instead of a video game to do it...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: juno1957 on Oct 21, 2007 2:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» just cause...:)
Posted by: mjglow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 31, 2007 2:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm... would they also make child androids for pedophiles? Would it be a crime to have sex with one of them? After all, it's already a crime to attempt to arrange to have sex with a minor who doesn't exist (chat room-based sting operations with cops posing as minors). So it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to criminalize actual sex with something that is far more child-like than a cop in a chat room.... and then what do you have? Thought Crime!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shamus on Nov 3, 2007 12:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
'Reality' Show Lets You Decide If Women Get Abortions?
Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking
Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in 'Avatar'?




