Artificial

I was a little bit surprised to read about this product — a sex robot.  (Somewhat reminiscent of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?  I guess. )  My initial reaction:  Really?  Guys would really pay thousands of dollars for that?  Essentially a plastic doll, except that it can be programmed to move and converse?

Of course, there may be some guys who don’t really feel the need for interacting with a real woman.  I can understand that a sex robot/doll may be more cost-effective than P4P , but is it that sufficiently better than masturbation to justify the cost?  (And see here for commentary on the difference between those three alternatives.)  Maybe there’s some part of the psychology I don’t completely understand.  Maybe the idea of total and complete control, something that you don’t have with P4P, is a significant attraction to some guys.  (This Newsweek story, though, suggests that control/domination is a large part of the attraction for many P4P clients, so maybe a robot/doll isn’t necessary.  Not that I consider the article very reliable.   Hint: any study promulgated by the activist Melissa Farley is widely considered to be too biased to rely on or trust; this one has several obvious flaws. )

There was a recent thread on ECCIE commenting/complaining about being treated like robots.  I’m not sure that the ladies who commented in that thread got it completely right.  Sometimes it’s just a limited personal interaction, such as with the dentist or waitress or bank teller or (non-P4P) masseuse.  We’re polite and friendly, but it’s a business transaction rather than a very personal transaction.  But a somewhat impersonal transaction is still different from dealing with a machine.  Our interaction with a bank teller is still different from dealing from an ATM.  (Sorry, I know that referring to an ATM has certain negative connotations within the P4P community, but it was the best example I could come up with at the moment.)  Some guys, I assume, reduce P4P to a relatively impersonal transaction, particularly if they’re introverts.  I have occasionally, and I suppose some ladies do as well.

But maybe the complaints got it right, and some clients really do treat P4P like interacting with a machine rather than just a relatively impersonal transaction — the main difference being that you don’t even truly have to recognize the other as an autonomous individual.  I suspect most people prefer using an ATM, even at the bank when they have the option of a bank teller, simply because of the convenience.  But there are probably some for whom it’s just easier to deal with a machine than with people.  You don’t have to worry about whether you’re being polite or hurting his/her feelings or even chatting about the weather.  For some introverts, that might be a plus in itself.  (The basic definition of introvert is not equivalent to a shy person, it’s more a matter of personal interactions expending rather than generating energy.  I’m an extreme introvert myself, although not to the point of deliberately avoiding a bank teller for any reason other than convenience.)  And maybe there are some P4P clients who just don’t like women.  OK, I shouldn’t have qualified that statement with “maybe.”  Misogyny is not that rare on a SJMB. There may be some misandry as well, but the ladies are usually too smart to show it.

I still think, after re-reading the ECCIE thread, that’s it’s really more about what is posted online rather than how people interact face-to-face.  I don’t consider P4P always and inevitably exploitive as the Newsweek story does.  (Yes, there is some exploitation and abuse, but — I hope — not as widespread as the anti-P4P activists paint it to be.)  I think most interactions in person are probably fine, sufficiently respectful and polite that the ladies don’t feel abused.  An SJMB, however, exacerbates the feeling of distance between the two parties and allows less respectful behavior.  But that’s largely inevitable when the site is primarily intended for (hopefully objective) evaluations of the service provided, although it could be ameliorated.  Almost any SJMB is really Consumer Review for P4P.  An SJMB is just one of the few online communities that mingles the businesses and clients.  There would be similar feelings of alienation in any industry that had a similar online community.  I can imagine what Lawyer and Client Community Information Exchange would sound like and how I would feel about it.

——————–

“But P4P is more intimate than other businesses!” you say.  Why, yes, it is or at least can be.  But not necessarily.  Some may tend to think of it as more personal than other business interactions, say, with a (non P4P) masseuse or a doctor.  But others may not.  In some respects, it may depend on how you view sex.  It reminds me a bit of the distinction that Temporarily Yours  (great book, by the way) draws between a relational model of sex and a recreational model of sex.  If you think of sex primarily as a fun way to express affection or love, yes, it will be a more intimate relationship than with the masseuse or doctor — but in that case, paying for it would seem odd.  If you think of sex primarily as a form of recreation divorced from any emotional entanglements, it may or may not be intimate.

One part of the confusion is that P4P can be a simulation of what most of us would agree is an intimate, very personal relationship — dating, or a similar long-term relationship.  (It can also simulate a one-night stand from a casual hook-up at a bar, of course.)  And of course very few people in a dating relationship would want his or her partner to provide an objective evaluation to others of their sex life.  That probably accounts for some of the “this board makes me feel like a robot” sentiment; we expect those with whom we share an intimate relationship to keep some things private and to be particularly sensitive to our partner’s feelings when we discuss anything publicly.  But once you place a price on the time together, alas, those expectations will have to change to some degree.

I think the ladies’ complaint is probably ultimately more about ”relatively impersonal transaction” rather than “robot”; more about online posting rather than interacting in person; and created by the actions of a minority of the client community — even a minority of the clients who post.  But I’m not standing in their shoes, so it may not be entirely unfair to evaluate their perception.

———————

I’ve mostly gotten over the “we shouldn’t have to pay for it” paradigm (and also here).  I recognize and accept that in most cases the interaction may not venture much beyond the level I may have with a masseuse or doctor.  (If it doesn’t appear likely to, though, I may not continue seeing the lady more than a few times.)  I enjoy those cases where there is more of a connection.  Sometimes it truly feels, for a moment, like a date or an affair.  But there always will be barriers between us.  Even though we may not be completely open with a civilian date either, particularly early in the relationship, that’s even more the case in P4P.  Even with my “regulars.”  For the most part, the topics of conversation will exclude much about her personal life, hopes, dreams, aspirations, frustrations, etc.  Her P4P persona may not exactly be fake — I think usually it isn’t fake — but it’s not exactly the same as the underlying person either, and the P4P persona doesn’t exist after the client walks out the door.  She’s not “Sweet Mary” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  That’s a necessary aspect of P4P and I don’t/wouldn’t advocate changing it.

But it affects how I perceive P4P, not while I’m with a lady but at other times when I’m not caught up in the moment.   Sometimes I experience a reaction to that aspect.  Essentially it’s a recognition that P4P, if it is not reduced to a relatively impersonal transaction, feels . . . artificial and inauthentic, a pale version of the real thing.  Sometimes it’s an almost physical jolt or a slap of the face.  I’ll be thinking about spending time with a ladyfriend, and suddenly it seems odd and strange and peculiar, something that wouldn’t occur in the real world even if I were single.  Sometimes I may even think to myself “What was I thinking?  Why am I doing this?”  To be clear, that’s not a perception of anything wrong with the ladies; it’s more a perception about the artificiality of the interaction.  It’s not a strong negative reaction, nothing like disgust or shame, more a relatively mild and temporary sense of alienation.  I guess I suddenly feel separate and apart from the P4P community, or perhaps separate from that guy who sees escorts, and don’t entirely understand it/him.  It’s a strange feeling and I don’t really know how best to describe it.

I don’t think about it, and get that feeling, often.  But sometimes — including this week — yes, I do, although not (yet) to the point that would lead me to quit. 

I imagine some of the ladies experience that feeling as well.  And maybe that’s really the underlying meaning and essence of Reese’s thread; the dissatisfaction with something artificial, that is less than what it mimics. 

But more likely that thread was just a general wish for more civility and less misogyny.