Oculus Rift Turned Into A Working Sex Simulator

It was only a matter of time before someone harnessed the power of immersive virtual reality and focussed it into getting our rocks off: sex toy company Tenga looks to have created the first sex simulator using the Oculus Rift and a series of questionable aids.

Editor's note: Before you all complain in the comments, these videos are Not Safe For Work. That probably goes for the links too. You were warned.

As creepy as this first video looks, it's actually a fairly genius contraption. It's essentially a futuristic male sex toy in three parts.

First, there's the Oculus Rift. That goes over the eyes of the wearer and provides visual stimulation in the form of a manga character performing virtual sex acts on your avatar. To create an immersive sexual experience, however, you need more than just visual stimuli.

That's where Tenga's masturbation sleeve comes in. It provides feedback to your gentleman vegetables, but it doesn't respond to the output coming from the actual sex simulator.

To add immersion, the devs hooked the Tenga sleeve up to a Novint Falcon 3D feedback peripheral, which takes the actions of the character and reflects them on the sleeve.

The Novint Falcon is intended to be hooked up to something like a pistol peripheral and used in action and first-person shooter titles to give gamers the real feeling of shooting a gun or being shot themselves. The theory is the same here, but the application is radically different.

In the second video, however, things get a little darker. The Novint and the Tenga are used as an input device by the "player", and a scenario plays out where the virtual character is having sex with you. I don't know why, but that crosses a line for me. The words 'rape simulator' come to mind when I see the second video.

Being jerked off by a virtual robot is weird, but if that's how someone gets their rocks off then cool. Simulating a forced sex act isn't on, and developers should seriously think hard about building said scenarios.

Some of you will watch this and want one, and some of you will watch it and be unsettled. Others just won't watch it at all. Whatever the outcome, this was only a matter of time.


Comments

    We have the technology to render pretty realistic 3D human characters, why would you go with an anime character?

    Realistically rendered version of or a cartoon...

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/09/watch-a-guy-stare-at-realistic-naked-bodies-thanks-virtual-reality/

      I think you'll find that the Japanese and others have a penchant for anime over reality...! :)

        And that doesn't make any sense!

          You obviously haven't seen Japanese porn. (Warning: You'll need ear plugs and a hedge trimmer)

            I am well aware of the existence of hentai and anime porn, I just don't get it. At all.

            Give me the choice between humans (or realistic looking 3D renders) or cartoons and I am going pick humans every single time.

            I am all for people having their own sexual interests, but anime is just one that I have never understood.

            Edit: On second reading I think I get your comment better. But this 2013 - Japanese men don't just have to watch Japanese human porn.

            Last edited 12/11/13 1:44 pm

              I'll admit that this has crossed my mind quite a few times. And I knew that if I had thought of it, many others must have as well.

          I believe for some there is the attitude that the "2D" world is preferable to the "3D" world because the 2D world is one of pure fantasy without the limitations or the reality of the 3D world. Content can be animated that probably isn't just physically possible in the real world.

          Or at the very least, sexual preference is a wholly subjective experience. Some people can't figure out why one would have a preference towards the same gender, or something like BDSM and others can't figure out why most people only have sex with one partner of the opposite sex.

          As they say, different strokes for different folks

            2D is 3D as far as the brain is concerned. The infinitely-variable brain can find anything attractive. Anything.

              Rule 34 being evidence of that ;)

          There is a certain sterility with animation that the Japanese love. They love all things clean, humans are messy by nature.

        actually I'm not jap and anime girls are better than the pigs that live in our world.

      Most agreed! While I wouldn't mind going through the simulator with a hentai character, I'd much rather go with a virtual version of Christina Ricci.

    Future porn addicts will be in heaven... ;)
    As for the in game feedback of weapons etc.... Gimmee gimmee gimmeeeee..! :)

      The Novint Falcon has been out for years. It was even natively supported in BF2 back in the day.

    If a simulator allows them to experience rape fantasy without actual rape (or even a female), let them.

    I'm not against untold horrors of brutality against CGI animations.

      Tiberath you have way to much faith in humanity.

      People who use race car simulators aren't satisfied to just drive in games. They take it in real life as this would too. People are assholes. A rape simulator can and will lead to rape for someone who has the desire to gain confidence to do the act.

        Race car simulators aren't the oculus rift (yes, I have one). There's immersion yes, but you can easily tell the difference between sitting in a stationary car and sitting in a non-stationary car. Rev heads want the speed, they want to feel that pressure on their body and the tension in the steering wheel.

        You might as well have just looked me in the eyes and said "video games cause violence".

        Just like how FPS games drive people to go out on shooting sprees?

          Video games do not create violence but they are a gate way drug.
          I can watch and do anything in a virtual world as "at least I hope" so can you without being warped.

          Watching a gladiator gut another in the area could inspire a young boy to re-enact that on one of the house slaves where normally that little bastard wouldn't of thought to.

          What I'm saying is there is that sort of person who is a coward but gets turned on by rape. Exploring that dark fantasy feeds it.

          Your right in that any rev head could tell the difference which is why they wouldn't be satisfied. They'd need more.

            I have a firearms license and own several firearms. Are you suggesting that by playing Battlefield I'm going develop a tendency to want to go out and shoot people for real? That is just arrogant and narrow-minded.
            I know you think you're saying the "right" thing but you're just being offensive.

            Last edited 12/11/13 4:44 pm

              Wow, worst example ever.

              There are so many cases of people being inspired by video games shooting people in the US.

              Here is a novel idea. Take your head out of your ass and realize not everyone is the same. There are mentally unhinged people do this sort of shit. People get inspired by this stuff and act it out.

              I'm not saying we should ban it.
              What I'm saying is, that if you think, some mentally unhinged character who played a video game about raping and torturing girls then goes out and does that isn't inspired by that game you are being as closed minded and stupid as the religious morons who thinks all games are sin.

                Though how many of those cases are genuinely as a result of people being inspired by video games as opposed to other factors such as say, mental illness, bullying or some sort of vendetta? Yes, more often than not, a link to violent video games is established (which the media are then more than happy to pounce on) but I think it would be a stretch to say that the absence of said violent video games would have prevented the shooting.

                Going to your original contention about "rape simulators" causing someone predisposed to it to reach a threshold and rape someone, I have two thoughts:
                a) there is an assumption that the absence of "rape simulators" will ensure that these individuals definitely will not escalate their actions
                b) what we should be more worried about is the underlying causes for rape be it mental health on the extreme end of the spectrum to simply just attitudes and beliefs held in society (ie. "Look at how she was dressed. She was just asking for it." or "It's not rape if she gets off on it").
                Similarly, if we're so worried about mass shootings, perhaps it's not so much violent video games we should be scrutinising but say, access to weapons.

                And because it's getting late and I have a tendency to ramble on when I should have left things well enough alone when I'm about to go to bed, I contend that the number of violent acts directly "inspired" by religion far outweighs the number of violent acts directly "inspired" by violent video games (I suppose in fairness, religion *has* been around much longer). And yet it does a great injustice to religion to say that we should restrict how it is practised because of these acts.

                  of course, what people experience conditions their brain. People who are around violence tend to become violent. Even something innocuous like an infant learning a language. If they are around people who speak English, they will most likely learn to speak english.
                  A violent video game will condition an individual towards violence. There is no doubt of that and it is ridiculous that people even debate it still. It is down to the plasticity of the brain, the same mechanism that lets people learn to play the piano and other acquired behaviours.
                  However, that does not guarantee that an individual will act out violence, as most people consider morals, ethics and punishment before acting upon most things. You have a small subset of humans who do not have this ethical "gateway" for their behaviour and these are the nuts who go shooting up schools.

                "What I'm saying is, that if you think, some mentally unhinged character who played a video game about raping and torturing girls then goes out and does that isn't inspired by that game you are being as closed minded"

                So what's the difference between movies and games then, because movies have been doing the whole violent, sex, rape thing for much longer than video games have, in fact i am unaware of any mainstream games that have rape in them or that rape is even hinted at in the game.

                The problem is not movies, games or guns, it's unfortunately people who are unhinged, have mental illnesses (undiagnosed or otherwise) and the fact that a lot of people live really shitty broken lives, it's such a deep and complicated issue that needs to be addressed and the fact that you label "games as a gate way drug" is doing this whole problem a giant disservice.

                Don't take the easy way out and lay blame on the inanimate objects.

                Last edited 13/11/13 12:11 am

                  Games are interactive - Where movies are not.
                  (despite what those annoying people think who yell at cinema screens)

                  You make the decision to save the little sister or absorb her.
                  I prefer games which give the choose of morality and consequences.

                  Addressing those people who have these problems would be ideal rather than deny they exist.

                  I'm just sick of the black and white when it comes to this argument.

                  There is a middle ground and people are ignoring it trying to defend their love of violent video games or acting out of fear and ignorance trying to shut them down.

            fathermiso, I hate to say this but you are the classic idiot. Rape and murder has been around long before video games, movies, and porn. Look at the statistics and you'll see that rape and murder has actually decreased since the invention of video games and porn. If you want to ban hentai, you might as well ban other media such as movies and books. And while you're on it, you should ban the bible too because it depicts mass genocide and rape.

      At least until the hardware gets so sophisticated that the characters become self aware ;)

        If that's the case, you're fucked. I'm fucked. Machine is fucked. Errybody fucked. Literally

        Last edited 12/11/13 1:58 pm

          Well I was thinking self aware in the "why are you doing this to me?" sense rather than the "Bwa ha ha I control the hardware now bitches."

          If technology was so sophisticated that it could realistically simulate pain, emotions, thoughts, etc. would there be a moral imperative to ensure the well being of virtual characters if they are sophisticated enough to be considered sentient?

            sentient only means being able to process sensory information. An xbox Kinect is technically sentient, but it does not have the qualities of intelligence (ie. creativity, fear of death, altruism, sense of time etc).
            There will come a time where a virtual character is identical to a real person. there are many roads to true intelligence, and not all of them are biological.

              I was thinking more in the definition of sentience as the ability to experience stimuli, often in relation to the ethics of using/eating animals. In that sense, a kinect can process data, but it doesn't in itself experience the data and is therefore not sentient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

              In the context of virtual constructs, I find this interesting in the question of whether they should be programmed to "experience" pain or negative stimuli. On the one hand, the ethical application of sentience sets out that it is unethical to cause or allow a sentient being to experience negative stimuli; but on the other hand, if we want virtual constructs to "be more human" it could be argued that the ability to experience negative stimuli is essential for this (although admittedly it is a rather anthrocentric approach that virtual constructs should necessarily aim to be human-like).

      That's the ethical dilemma. Some people think that, ethically, virtual depictions of horror or extreme sexual perversion is the same as if it has literally happened. Humans tend to empathize with anything that has human characteristics, even if it is not human.

      This is a question for philosophers and ethicists: Should there be a limit on what can be done to a virtual creation, even when there is no enduring effect?
      Is there harm in allowing anything, virtually?

        I think it comes down to what would be considered "no enduring effect". I assume the original interpretation behind that was referring to the recipient of harm. Assuming the virtual creation hasn't reached true sentience (ie. the harm experienced isn't just merely a simulated response to a virtual stimulus) I would probably go with no (or at least I can't think of a particularly sophisticated argument one way or the other at this point in time).

        I think the other consideration though is the possibility of an "enduring effect' on the perpetrator (ie. what fathermiso has been posting above). Now let's sidestep the debate of whether this occurs or not and for the sake of argument, assume that it does. So for all intents and purposes I've just redirected this into a debate on the ethics of self harm and whether we condone it or not.

        As to what I think, I may have to quite literally sleep on it. My initial contention would be that it should be condoned in as much as it is an expression of self-determination but I have the feeling that there is a lot more to it than that.

    Finally someone is taking population control seriously. They need to make these devices cheap enough to stop all the breeders.

      If anything I suspect devices like this would push us closer to idiocracy

    I find it hilarious that the world being simulated on the computer is still just a woman using the very cock-sleeve you are using in real life; rather than say, a simulation of the woman with a functioning vagina.

      maybe if the software came with a 3d model of a functioning vagina that I could print on my 3d printer...

    This is really just the beginning. Once the Oculus is launched to the public they'll demand this type of virtual stimulation.

    Can't wait to see what developers come up with next....

    Where i can buy this!!??

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now