I feel the same way about most elaborate technical attempts to capture “realism” of the commonplace. Like wasting CGI to achieve photo-realism in movies, down to tacky pink sex toys with hair which resemble disembodied organs. The technology is usually interesting because it has other capabilities which didn’t exist before. Like how the TB303 was a dismal failure at replicating the sound and feel of a human playing a bass guitar, but a brilliant success once people figured out that they could explore its own artefacts and idiosyncrasies instead.
For instance, I was in a discussion a few years back about Fleshlights, and I said that I was disappointed that they had retired their neutral-orifice toy. But the others disagreed, and insisted that the vagina, mouth, or butt ones were all better. Why? “Because I like vagina.” Yes, that’s cool, but this isn’t a vagina, is it? It’s a rubber sleeve in a tube. “But I like vagina…” To me the obviously superior choice would be the one that isn’t trying to be something else. Somebody using and enjoying the toy is not sad, but clinging to that illusion that it is part of a fantasy disembodied body I think is a bit sad. Likewise an insertable toy such a Lelo or Bad Dragon benefits from modern technology and materials and great design without the burden of being anything ersatz.
One person’s imagination aid is another’s incredibly tacky turnoff.
