The creator, Matt Ganucheau, explains his creation as such: "The process leading to a female orgasm is a uniquely delicate challenge for both sexes leaving it a mystery to most men and women. Moaning Lisa is an instillation that examines this complex process by simplifying it into an almost game-like state. With Lisa, as in life, there are no instructions on display. This leaves each participant to discover how Lisa's true sexual potential is unlocked."

And just how does Lisa "teach" her users how to give a woman an orgasm? She moans at them, of course, when her eye sensors pick up someone's presence. Because when a woman wants to have sex with you, she typically stands in front of you with ridiculously unrealistic boobs with sensor tabs attached and begins to moan as soon as you look at her. Realism FAIL!

The robot, according to Oddee, has the following sensors:

Lisa's sensors include: 2 Piezo Touch Sensors are located on the posterior for grabbing, one on each cheek
# 1 Piezo Touch Sensors is located on the back of her neck for grabbing
# 2 Potentiometer knobs located on each nipple for tweaking
# 1 ribbon controller located on her clitoris, measuring friction speed for rubbing

So the user is essentially urged to grab and tweak this robot until the sensors hit overload, which will "escalate her moans to a full scream but also apply additional audio effects such as delays, slicers and reverbs." The artist claims the machine is meant to help both men and women understand the "process" of female orgasms better, but in reality, it seems to just be another case of objectification for the user's personal satisfaction: the woman never says a word, she only moans, and of course, she has no control over what is happening to her body.

This is a one-way sexual encounter that encourages users to grope an object that can't grope back in order to feel a sense of self-satisfaction once her "sensors" go off. It's hard to argue that anything like this can truly be educational when it doesn't involve the realities of sex: namely, consent, physical interaction from both partners, and the notion that GASP! every woman doesn't respond to the same sexual stimuli. The robot, by the way, is labeled as an "instrument" that plays "orgasmic electronic music," cementing the notion that this body doesn't represent a woman as much as it represents a creepy objectification of women and their orgasmic noises.

So what say you, commenters? Educational, or just plain offensive?

10 Most Bizarre Musical Instruments [Oddee]

"In theory, yes it's capable of that and whether people want to use it like that, it's up to them," he says. In a video, Le shows what happens when he squeezes the robot's boobs. Aiko says, "I do not like it when you touch my breasts," and swats the inventor away with her right arm.

No matter what you think of Le Trung's fembot, the fact remains that we're obsessed with the idea of robots. From Rosie on The Jetsons to C3P0 in Star Wars, we're always trying to replicate the human experience with a machine. Or, as the BBC's Peter Leonard notes, we want "A metal servant to do the jobs we hate." Like make a hot cup of tea, get a beer out of the fridge, or have sex with us when no one else will.

Still, robots live among us: And some of them make great gifts! Slate's Daniel Engber has a rundown of animatronic pets, from Furby ("annoying") to the Alive White Tiger Cub by WowWee ("recommended for anyone, especially the simple-minded or bedridden") to FurReal Friends Biscuit My Lovin' Pup by Hasbro ("His incessant and pathetic squeals are guaranteed to make you feel uncomfortable before too long.")

But beyond the Roomba, robots truly worth having don't exist yet. And the BBC's Peter Leonard writes: "Robots are really slaves without the inconvenient ethical issues." When you put it that way, don't sexbots sorta make sense? Creepy, maybe, but ultimately logical: Le Trung may have created sex therapy for the socially awkward. And seriously: Who among us would turn down a better, more intelligent vibrator?

She's NOT A Sex Machine, Honest [The Sun]
What Became Of The Personal Robot? [BBC News]
Rrrrrrrobots! [Slate]
Earlier: Fembot: Going Through The Motions
If You Could, Would You Cobble Together Your Dream Man?

Sure, everyone gets involved with an emotionally unavailable guy once. They can be so charming! You know there's more to him! He'll realize that you're special! And so you putter around him, a perpetual motion machine of awesomeness in which you minimize your flaws and maximize your coolness factor, acting loving but aloof enough not to scare him at the same time, after which he inevitably fucks someone else or you get hurt by his actual aloofness or worn down by pretending to be some perfect version of yourself to convince him get emotionally invested. Then you learn not to do it again and go find someone that thinks it's funny or even endearing that you talk too loudly when you drink or sing really bad karaoke or have a weird bellybutton and hopefully you open up and let him get to know that person you are when you're not trying so hard to be liked.

On the other hand, some of us keep doing it. Your life becomes an endless string of dudes that don't allow you to get too close or bail before you can get too invested or force your hand into bailing because you're just not going to take that shit from some guy. And you get to feel the butterflies, and you get to know you can still feel by being in just enough pain when it ends that you notice and maybe it will wring some tears out of you, but, really, when he's not letting you get that close, you're actually not that close. Since you can't get close to him, since you're spending your time trying to be so cool or not being upset about the aloofness and the lack of emotional intimacy, you're not letting him in anymore than he's letting you in.

So, yeah, it's weird that some dudes would rather have an expensive doll than try to have a relationship with a person, or that a woman would love the Berlin Wall and not an actual man, but it's no weirder than convincing yourself that you're in love with some dude you don't really know and who doesn't know you. It's all just one of a myriad number of ways to protect your most fragile bits because if someone doesn't know you, then it isn't gonna hurt that bad when they don't love you back.

People In Love With Objects [BoingBoing]
Japan Makes Robot Girlfriend For Lonely Men [Reuters]

Related: Objectùm-Sexuality Internationale

• Apparently posting up photos of Britney Spears and labeling her "crazy" is illegal. Does this mean we're part of some sort of underground economy? [E!]
  
• In today's installment of what happens when we read too quickly, we thought this said, "Robot explores giant crayon." [BBC]
  
• Bush's budget director Rob Portman, the only member of the administration who could actually define the word "budget," resigned for "personal reasons." [CNN]
  
• Imagine a future without consensual sex...[Daily Mail]
  
• Per the Vatican, thou shalt not cut off another driver, flick him off, and scream, "I hope you die, motherfucker!" [CNN]
  
• The Rubik's cube gets a "facelift." [ABC News]
  
• Fire in South Carolina the deadliest for firefighters since September 11. [Guardian]
  
• 6 U.S. casualties identified. [DoD]

• Frigid female Woody Allen fans, take note! A North Carolina anesthesiologist says he's created the ultimate Orgasmatron: An implanted, remote-controlled device that stimulates a sweet spot on your spinal cord to help you get off. [Esquire]

• There's an obese, socially-retarded, Dan Aykroyd-looking, X-Files obsessed librarian in Gainesville, Florida looking for love on Esquire.com. He sounds like the ultimate "loser-in-dating" cliche, perhaps, but his name is Paul and he seems nice. [Esquire]

• Donuts are good for you! In Pennsylvania. [chron.com]

• Robotic beetles crawling under your skin are a good thing. [Daily Mail]

• Our out of body experiences while sleeping are purely biological. God is Dead. [The Telegraph]