Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Games Entertainment

Virtual Girlfriend 649

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virtual Girlfriend

Comments Filter:
  • is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kippy ( 416183 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:42PM (#10057684)
    or is this the most pathetic thing ever?
  • by spacecadetglow ( 790516 ) <> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:43PM (#10057710)
    people will actually buy it.
  • by dhalgren99 ( 708333 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:44PM (#10057728) Homepage
    Who would buy this service!?
  • by Cyclotron_Boy ( 708254 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:46PM (#10057775) Homepage
    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:47PM (#10057783) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by rrhal ( 88665 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:49PM (#10057818)
    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.

  • Pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:49PM (#10057819) Homepage Journal
    It is one thing not to have a girl because you just don't have time or unwilling to make the effort or spend the money, but another to waste time and money on something that isn't real.

    I know that a guy who is bad with girls can use the simulation to practice, but really, just try a real girl. You don't have to date. Just hang. Also, this game is going to be used by guys with girls, but instead of talking and spending time with thier girlfriends, they are going to be wasting time on this. A girlfriend is more than just a convinent hole and someone to make you dinner.

    A long time ago, when I was taking sex ed, the book, Boys and Sex, talked about masturbation. It pretty much said all things in moderation, and solo activity should allow, not take the place of forming real relationships that are neccesary for emotional development. It sounds like this is just anothe thing that is going stunt the growth of a generation of teenage boys.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:50PM (#10057831)
    And these fellows will be exploiting them all the way to the bank.
  • Girlfriend??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:50PM (#10057839) Homepage
    ..but each girl will behave differently - depending on how much money is spent on her.

    Since you're not getting any sex, she's more like a therapist than a girlfriend.

  • Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Morphix84 ( 797143 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [rohtnax]> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:55PM (#10057914) Homepage
    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)
  • yeah... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by NIN1385 ( 760712 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @12:59PM (#10057980)
    //begin hiding truth here

    I think someone needs to be smacked for even thinking this is a topic we care about... It's not like we have nothing better to do then beat off to our the words of Jimmy on southpark: "I mean...come on...". I would never ever want to buy something so stu...HOLY FUCK THEIR ONLY $300! See you later...

  • by Exmet Paff Daxx ( 535601 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:02PM (#10058018) Homepage Journal
    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:Pathetic (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:03PM (#10058037)
    > but really, just try a real girl

    Some of us don't have access to them. In the past year, I've only met one unmarried girl that's between 5 years older and 10 years younger than me. She stood me up Friday night for our first date, on my *birthday*. I work mostly with teachers, and they're either too young or married. I also help a friend two nights a week with a cooking class at the local tech school, and again, all of them that are over 25 are married or with their boyfriend. I used to volunteer at a local hospital, but I stopped after a few months when I realized (with a little query to the HR db) all of the nurses that worked on the two floors I did were married. Hitting on the single female patients just didn't seem right ;). Again, some of us don't have access to one to practise on, and on the rare occasion when we do get a chance, it sucks to screw it up.

    I do need some sort of practise, but this product obviously isn't the solution.
  • Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aerog ( 324274 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:03PM (#10058038) Homepage
    ...anyone in their right mind...
    They're not part of the demographic.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:07PM (#10058081)
    Moderators are on crack. This is not offtopic.
  • by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:07PM (#10058092) Homepage
    I think it just struck a little close to home for someone..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:09PM (#10058110)

    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.

    Actually the article explicitly states that if you neglect her that she just won't speak to you. Maybe that's your definition of "bitchy".

    Maybe she can't dump you but there's no indication from the article that you can dump her either. In that case, you'll end up in a cyber-relationship of convienence where neither one of you really wants to be there but you're stuck because you don't think you can do better just like so many real-life relationships. If you're going to play this game, you'd be better off trying to cultivate a mutually-enjoyable relationship. Yeah, in this case the relationship is pretty shallow since it's entirely based on money but the concept of paying attention to "her" is the same. It's too bad that they couldn't make a version where your interaction is less monetary-related. Maybe a future version will actually let you have converstations with her through your phone. The next time you talk with her, you'll need to refer to things said in the previous conversation to prove that you were listening and that you have been thinking about her since you last talked.

  • Ye Gods! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lilmouse ( 310335 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:16PM (#10058203)
    It's an X-rated Tamaguchi!! Do you have to pet her and feed her and talk to her?!?

    I can think of better ways to spend my money, thanks!

  • by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:22PM (#10058280) Journal

    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.


  • by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:25PM (#10058306) Journal
    Oh come of it, this is a ploy for the cell phone companies to make money lots of it, its a idiots slot machine, just keep punching in the quarters and never get anything out of it. Do you think they would really updrade to take away its dependance on money.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:27PM (#10058346)
    Demi Moore didn't "go" for a million, but a character she played in a movie did, and as I remember the movie was all about exploring the consequences for her as a woman, not about glamourising it as a really smart thing to do.

    Similarly, this game is not about objectifying women as sex objects in any way (RTFA), and I find it difficult to imagine that the average woman would be threatened by this in the least.

    Also, I've yet to see a convincing argument that gender struggle is not a natural state. And plenty that say that it is. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming there are no biological reasons for it, when there clearly are, is not going to fuel any kind of progress. This is why feminism has gone nowhere in the last 20 years - because after you look at the obvious inequities, the rest is based on a demonstrably false model of human biology.
  • by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:31PM (#10058390)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:39PM (#10058473)
    Gee, guys still worry about the size of their dicks, yet women have said time and again they don't care.

    Any stable, loving lesbian couple will tell you that it's not big dicks women are after.

    When will you little boys understand this?

  • by ambrosine10 ( 747895 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:39PM (#10058474)

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:43PM (#10058524)
    What's the difference between this and an "online relationship" with some girl on the other side of the country that has tricked you into believing that she's some model in a JC Penny catalogue?

    I mean, really, virtual girlfriends have been around since IRC became popular..this is nothing new.
  • Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xugumad ( 39311 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:45PM (#10058540)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:46PM (#10058551)
    I have this overwhelming sense of pity for some poor lonely guy out there ...

    He may be "poor", but that's not because he has no girlfriend. He's poor because he's fallen into self-pity after being brainwashed into believing that he must have one or else he becomes somehow inferior.

    The fact of the matter is, companionship is not wanted by all, and sex is not necessarily tied to companionship, and sex is not wanted by all either. On top of that, even when both companionship and sex are desired, they can be judged on a cost/benefit basis and rejected as detrimental on balance.

    Not everybody is a slave to their instincts and their hormones. Even though we live in pretty anti-intellectual times, some people control their lives a little more carefully than the mass media and Slashdot would have you believe.
  • Funny, but when I forget our anniversary, I apologise to J. and we move on with our life. I don't know where this stereotype of women being hung up on random stupid shit came from, but I'm sure glad I seem to have missed it.
  • by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @01:49PM (#10058580) Homepage
    The second rule of being a player is that you cannot become a player by reading a How-To on a website. Trust me, been there, tried that.

  • by 5m477m4n ( 787430 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058784) Homepage
    So it's all the fun of spending money on women with none of that annoying sex.

    The only difference is with marriage, you get more money back on your taxes.
  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058790) Homepage Journal
    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:No jokes... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:11PM (#10058859) Journal
    If I were a Hong Kong company, this is exactly the kind of thing I would come up with. It's not my fault (unless I'm very old) that there aren't enough eligible women in the general population.

    Heck, I'd need to be very rich and successful in order to have any chance of attracting a woman, because there is huge competition. Besides, maybe this would, in some small way, help to pacify the competition.

    "Bare Branches" [] are becoming a big problem in China. These are men who are not going to find real women, because they're just aren't enough of them for most of them to pair up. That's what happens when you have extreme male chauvinism paired up with draconian birth control policies. (We are not talking small numbers here, something along the order of 30 million is one estimate in China alone.) Normally, this sort of thing would be self-correcting, through the inevitable warfare and violence that comes from such insanely out of wack sex ratios. However, modern war is pretty hard on the civilian population which includes women and children, so I don't even know if that will help.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:12PM (#10058873)
    You're right, you can't. You have to want to change yourself. Reading alone does nothing.

    But want to change and you will.
  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:26PM (#10059074) Homepage
    Gee, guys still worry about the size of their dicks, yet women have said time and again they don't care.

    They're trying to spare your feelings.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:28PM (#10059104) Homepage Journal
    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:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orac2 ( 88688 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:04PM (#10059577)
    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, 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.
  • by mirko ( 198274 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:07PM (#10059619) Journal
    The worst is THIS comment :
    depending on how much money is spent on her

    Wives need LOVE, not small even pricey gifts.
    Give them your attention, your time and they'll be happier than Melinda French might be when Bill's telling her to spend while he's away.
  • Re:Holy Cow! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:59PM (#10060232)
    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.
  • by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:18PM (#10060447) Homepage

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

  • by dmnsqrl ( 760660 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:07PM (#10060987) Homepage
    'Zactly. _If_ I were the kind of girl that could ever be found in a bar... and if on _top_ of that I went around asking guys to buy drinks for me.... then maybe I'd be the kind of chick this stuff would work on. But I'm not, I'm here instead ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:10PM (#10061016)
    Thank God, I remembered just in time and bought $200(!) worth of red roses.

    You're an idiot.

  • by pilybaby ( 638883 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:12PM (#10061036)
    I think this is very apt []

    [snip]So is this the image they're pushing to our men out there, now? Everyone knows that the woman you are with doesn't want you for you -- It's really only the gift that matters -- and it's obviously only diamonds that we want! So forget those little, inexpensive but nice tokens of appreciation, forget going on walks in the city or countryside, and forget just plain conversation! Buy your woman a great big fat rock. Everyone wants a big shiny rock. Especially women. You are now a sex-god if you give your woman a shiny rock. Rocks good. Sex good. Rocks get sex. Buy rocks.

    There is always this scene in one show or movie or other where the man takes his fiancee to pick out a ring. When she picks this diamond encrusted, platinum looped, gold finished, ruby studded abomination of metal and stone and the man refuses because he simply isn't willing to pay sixty grand for a ring, she freaks out at him.

    Obviously the man sees it as a huge practical loss, sixty thou for a fucking circular band of metal that could fall down the toilet whilst his ugly wife is using her daily douche or whatever it is high-maintenance women do in the bathroom.

    Either that or he has the horrendous statistic in his head, the 50% of marriages break up after year one... Or was it six months? Well, anyways, the man has the practicality of the situation at hand and tries to persuade his picky fiancee into a cheaper, more plain ring.
  • Re:Asian Guys (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Everleet ( 785889 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:36PM (#10061222)
    No...if you either have a boy (50% chance), a girl and a boy (25%), or 2 girls (25%)...every 4 families generate 3 boys and 3 girls, on average. Any given child has a 50% chance of either gender.

    Any such strategy you try will not change the basic probabilities. Choosing whether you have another child, based on the gender of the last one, will not affect the gender of the next one. (Ultimately, the next couple to have children will only be picking up where you left off.)

    It could be said that the strategy described encourages those who are somehow predisposed to having girls, to have more children, but whether that occurs is outside the scope of this argument.

  • Re:No Thanks! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tongo ( 644233 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:55PM (#10061381)
    You are absolutely right. I used to be in the same boat. But for the hell of it I started thinking I was the king shit, top dog, alpha mail, whenever I walked into a place. Amazingly enough chicks started to check me out and talk to me. It's all about how you cary yourself and how you present yourself.

    Of course this turns you into a superficial ass hole but wtf, you get laid.
  • by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @09:01PM (#10063029)
    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?

  • 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. ;)

  • by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:41AM (#10064655)
    I forgot to mention, men are also 4 times more likely to commit suicide than women. A crying woman elicts sympathy, a crying man is a pussy who should learn to be a real man.

    Male rape in prisons is completely condoned and even accepted by judges, who sometimes use stories of male rape in prisons to deter juvenile offenders from choosing a life of crime. If there were any place women got raped regularly, expect an instant commission, inquiry, media hype etc etc. But males, and criminals to boot? Serves em right.

    Men have no reproductive rights. Women can choose to have the baby, or an abortion, or put the baby up for adoption. The man has only one option if the woman chooses to have the child: pay child support. If a woman has the right to "opt out" of a pregnancy via abortion or adoption why shouldn't a man also have this right? Many are suggesting "paper abortions" as a means to give men a similar right.

    Anyway, I'll stop ranting. But I just get peeved every time I see people perpetuating the 'women are still victims' myth.

    Read 'The Myth of Male Power' (or even just the amazon summary), get yourself aware. 71 79924X/qid=1093408841/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-167826 8-2318443?v=glance&s=books

"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone