NOTICE: The article below deals with adult topics and fantasies and contains fetish imagery. If you are offended by such topics and / or are not a legal adult, I suggest you leave this instant.
It’s been a long time since I last posted anything related to D/s and fetishes. Truth be told, events beyond my control have meant I’ve had very little time, and even fewer opportunities, to indulge in moments and thoughts of this kind. Also, the blog had taken a more “mainstream” direction, towards which I’m rather ambivalent. Don’t get me wrong, I’m usually content using my blog to express my views on topics that have nothing to do with sex, romance, or sexuality, but there are times when I feel I keep pushing certain thoughts back.
It was a (now sadly deleted) by Sian Pearl over at her parthenoid blog that set the gears into motion again. In that post, Sian expressed her extreme distaste for the Neuropuppet (pictured above): A cyberpunk drone play attachment for female (mostly) Second Life avatars she had made on request, based on drawings by Dreampaint Loon. To cut a long story short, this attachment consisted of a face-concealing mask with a drone communications light source on its forehead, and a spine-like rigged mesh attachment, which ended up covering the nether regions. The entire rig also penetrated the female avatar in all three orifices.
Since I had already scripted my own drone communications light (which was inspired by Lust Melody’s Drone Communications Implant), with my own communications protocol, Sian asked me to do the scripting for it, and also add RLV functionality. The unit was seriously restrictive, and essentially isolated the wearer from pretty much the entire virtual world. Communication with others (except the person that “locked” them) was possible only through the light source on the forehead. Sian wrote she “hated it almost immediately, for what it represented, and so put it up on Marketplace on an alt account, made it prohibitively expensive and left it to rot.” Regardless of that, the Neuropuppet, in both of its variants (the original one and the rather more tame Neuropuppet II version), sold unexpectedly well during its rather short shelf-life; when Sian decided to axe the “Surrender to Gravity” brand and the Neuropuppet, she transferred all rights to the product to me.
Now, the surprisingly good sales of the Neuropuppet prove that the ways in which we express our kinks and fetishes can be quite surprising and, as Sian observes, they range from the fairly obvious (such as the love of high heels) to grim, shocking, even to the downright disgusting (such as bestiality, paedophilia, snuff, and other such practices).
Personally, I didn’t find the Neuropuppet entirely shocking. It did hide the wearer’s facial characteristics, and yes, it did penetrate the avatar wearing it. But, as with just about everything else, context is everything. Whenever I was notified of a new sale, I often looked at the buyers’ SL profiles to see what conclusions I could reach by reading them. Reaching a conclusion proved impossible. A considerable portion of the buyers were obviously people who frequented places that catered to cyberpunk / drone / gynoid transformation fetishists. In a surprising twist, these were a minority. Then, there were those who wouldn’t normally strike you as being interested in such attachments: fashionistas, dancers, people who simply came to SL to “play house”, even a few content creators. And a very significant portion of those buyerrs were people whose profiles either didn’t include even the slightest reference to D/s and BDSM, or were left completely blank. Thus, their interests are anyone’s guess.
So, there you have it: an ominous-looking and very expensive RLV attachment, with a few rather simple scripts thrown in… And it was purchased en masse by an extremely diverse range of buyers. Mind you, the restrictions provided were nowhere as complex as those you can find on the more advanced restriction control systems sold by the likes of Marine Kelley or Mo Noel.
Can we classify all those people who bought the Neuropuppet’s two variants as technosexuals, robot fetishists, drone fetishists, or whatever? Not really. In fact, from the records I kept, I don’t think I could reliably say this “intended target group” comprised more than 30% of the unit’s sales. The other 70%? Perhaps they wanted / needed something extra kinky to try every once in a while. Perhaps they thought it’d look cool in a cyberpunk photoshoot. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
I’ll say right away that I’m no stranger to D/s and “light” forms of BDSM in RL; in SL, I think I can legitimately say I’ve seen just about everything that can be conceived; from the sensual to the horrid, and from the cuddly to the darkest things you can imagine. And yes, my sex life (in RL) does include several kinks and fetishes, and, within SL, I’ve been able to indulge in ways that are simply not possible or affordable in RL. That said, interesting and unique though the Neuropuppet was, it never really struck a chord with me, from a purely aesthetic standpoint. As for what it represented: It was definitely extreme submission and willing surrender of the submissive to their dominant, who is given complete control over the submissive. And this, with a rig that is not only sexually invasive (the triple penetration), but also physically, as the spinal cord-like part of the Neuropuppet penetrates the wearer’s skin. And of course, there’s no escaping the technosexual connection.
Technosexuality, D/s and the Neuropuppet – and other things, too
Wikipedia provides two different definitions for the term “technosexual” (which has been trademarked by Calvin Klein in 2005, actually). Of these, the second applies to the kind of fantasies catered for by the various groups and communities in SL that define themselves as cyberpunk, technosexual, sci-fi etc:
[An individual who] has a sexual attraction to machinery, as in the case of robot fetishism. When used thus, it is a portmanteau word combining “technophile” and “sexual”.
So, technosexuality, despite having been trademarked by Calvin Klein, is actually another name for robot fetishism – and an increasingly popular one, if what I see in Second Life comunities is anything to go by. Again, let’s have a look at Wikipedia for a definition:
Robot fetishism (also ASFR or technosexuality) is a fetishistic attraction to humanoid robots; also to people acting like robots or people dressed in robot costumes. A less common fantasy involves transformation into a robot. In these ways it is similar to agalmatophilia, which involves attraction to or transformation into statues or mannequins.
Robot fetishism is often called either technosexuality or ASFR (from the now-defunct Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.fetish.robots). Many robot fetishists refer to themselves as ASFRians or as technosexuals. This sexual fetish manifests itself in two basic ways, i.e. as two basic fantasies:
- Erotic anthropomorphism: Here, we’re talking about one’s desire to have a ready-made android or gynoid partner – for sex, companionship, or any combination of the two. I suppose it’s fairly obvious that the partner here is completely artificial; either a robot that came off a production line, or a robot that was specifically made to fulfill the wishes and desires of its owner. I think I wouldn’t be too wide of the mark if I traced its roots back in Greek mythology, and most notably the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea. This type of situation is often referred to as “built”.
- Transformation: This is a form of erotic objectification. Here, a human is transformed (willingly or unwillingly) into an android or gynoid robot, which can be wholly or partially artificial. The transformed person is typically the fetishist, his or her partner, or both. The fantasy usually focuses on the transformation process, regardless of the means that the narration describes as being used to achieve the desired result.
In the ASFR / technosexual community, there are people who prefer one fantasy over the other, as well as people who appreciate both. An informal survey from 2006 indicates a strong preference among ASFRians / technosexuals for the “built” fantasy. Of course, the things that attract technosexuals to this fetish are varied: Others are attracted by a wholly robotic appearance (as seen in Hajime Sorayama‘s “sexy robots”), motion, synthesised speech, and mechanical sounds during motion; others prefer a more life-like android / gynoid, often a self-aware, sentient one. Other technosexual fantasies include mannequins, dolls and the like.
Of course, realistic humanoid robots don’t exist at this time, so it’s only possible for technosexuals to indulge in the fantasy realm, and Second Life is one of the various outlets used by technosexuals – there are actually numerous communities that cater to this subculture, and the internet offers a wealth of art that has a technosexual slant: from the replicants in Blade Runner to Gigolo Joe from the 2001 film A.I., and from Hajime Sorayama’s illustrations to various artists on DeviantArt and elsewhere. However, development on projects like the Osaka University’s Actroid can only lead one to believe that one day such advanced man-made partners will become available to the consumer.
Technosexuality and D/s
In a technosexual context, the artificial partner exists to fulfill the desires and wishes of the owner. So, there are elements here that are quite similar to those of D/s relationships. But is the relationship between a human and an artificial partner truly D/s? A ready-made artificial partner, a robot, is an inanimate object, in the same vein as a refrigerator, a dishwasher or a sewing machine.
This partner doesn’t have a personality or what we call a “soul”. It’s an object – and that’s why a neutral pronoun is typically used. So, can such a relationship be truly D/s? No. In D/s, there is the concept of consent. We have two basic types of guidelines: RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink) and SSC (Safe, Sane, and Consensual). Can a machine give consent? Or, perhaps more correctly, if a machine says “no”, is it because of its free will, its desires that were formed in it freely through its own personality’s make-up and its experiences, and its limits, or is it because there are safeguards pre-programmed in it to prevent damage to the construct and / or harm to its user and others?
So, I think it’s fair to say that, unless the artificial partner is sentient and self-aware, we cannot reliably say that a relationship with a “built” partner is D/s. This says a lot about technosexuals who wish for sexual interactions with pre-programmed machines, whose “personality” is a simulation; they prefer to not have to care about gaining the other participant’s consent. This, however, is not the case with a transformed partner, i.e. a human that goes through a transformation process in order to become an artificial (or semi-artificial) construct for him/herself and / or someone else. As I mentioned earlier in this text, in the transformation fantasy an individual is transformed, willingly or unwillingly, and becomes a robot or a cybernetically-modified being, designed to serve, in specific ways, a dominant or a community run by the dominant; even then, the robot must be sentient and self-aware, so that it can make decisions of its own and on its own, or so that it can feel certain things that the dominant party wants the transformed individual to feel.
It is in this context that the concept of consent exists and matters, and I’ll touch upon this later on. Please always remember that D/s has one seriously problematic aspect: the dominant needs to have power over someone else in order to be sexually aroused and satisfied; sexual equity seems to be a turn-off here.
Technosexual transformation and D/s
So, we’ve established that the only contexts in which we can reliably say that a technosexual relationship can be viewed as a D/s one are:
- A relationship between sentient and self-aware beings. For instance, a relationship between humans, a relationship between a human and a sentient and self-aware robot, or, as unlikely and far-fetched as it may seem, a relationship between sentient, self-aware robots.
- A relationship that begins as a relationship between or more humans, where one or more of them undergoes a transformation progress and becomes a sentient, self-aware robot.
In both cases, there is one party acting in a dominant capacity and one acting in a submissive capacity. Please note that I mentioned a scenario where the relationship is between sentient, self-aware robots, whether they were “built” or transformed; this is a scenario that will be discussed in greater detail later on. As mentioned earlier, the submissive party is typically transformed in order to serve the dominant, or the dominant and a community run by them. However, this doesn’t mean that the dominant might not be transformed themselves.
Now, besides websites, forums, blogs and picture and art hosting services like DeviantArt, virtual worlds like Second Life (as a matter of fact, especially Second Life) are an obvious and popular outlet for technosexuals, with numerous communities having been organised, catering to this fetish by leveraging both the 3D capabilities of Second Life and RLV for restriction management and roleplay enhancement.
Blurring the lines
Typically, one would associate technosexual imagery with android / humanoid robots whose appearance is either obviously mechanical / robotic, or an attempt to mimic a human being’s appearance, with synthetic skin etc., or a cybernetically-altered or cybernetically-enhanced human. However, desires and styles are often mixed in eroticism, so the main two technosexual fantasies were eventually affected and informed by other strands of the D/s world – most notably, latex fetishism, bane roleplay (inspired by Evil-Dolly’s “Eudeamon” story), and mind control, as well as kidnap / capture / arrest fantasies.
Constructing the story
Technosexual transformation in SL is almost always part of a scenario. This scenario is either predetermined by the dominant party or created, specified and tailored to suit the submissive’s particular needs, fantasies, and desires, or to take them into account for mutual satisfaction. It’s roleplay. This includes even the kidnap / capture / arrest scenarios, whose storylines typically include non-consensual activities. However… A scenario that was collaboratively written by the dominant and the submissive, or a scenario that the submissive agreed upon, having made an informed decision (such communities give the submissive a few days to think about things), is by definition consensual. So, even a scenario that includes non-consensual activities, is actually a story in which the submissive, through their avatar, willingly engages in the depiction of certain activities with the purpose of indulging in their fantasies, whims, wishes and desires.
In most cases, the structure of these scenarios consists of the following parts:
- The first encounter: In some of the scenarios I’ve encountered, the submissive might seek out the dominant or the dominant’s community with the purpose of serving under them; or the submissive might be a wrongdoer who is arrested and sentenced to becoming a bane or something else; or the submissive might be an adversary of the dominant and gets captured and re-conditioned / re-purposed to serve the dominant. And, of course, there can be numerous other scenarios, depending on the imagination of the parties involved.
- The transformation: Depending on the scenario, the transformation may be a ritualised procedure, or one resembling mass production. This can include not only an outfit change, but also a new display name, a renamer for open chat, and RLV restraints and restriction management equipment.
- Initial conditioning / mind control: Here, the submissive is “trained” via scripted objects inspired by the ones used for erotic hypnosis in-world, so that their new role and identity is imprinted on them.
- Service: Now the submissive is ready to serve the dominant (or the dominant and their community), and their new life and existence begins. The submissive’s service might also include periodic conditioning / mind control for “maintenance” purposes.
The descriptions may seem more than a tad clinical. They are, and this is on purpose, because my aim here is to get as deeply as possible into the heart of the subject, and do away with several popular misconceptions. Now, how exactly is all of this any different from the “traditional” D/s or BDSM relationships we’ve grown accustomed to, or from the various erotic roleplay communities? Or even from plain “vanilla” relationships?
Honestly, it’s not different at all. Yes, different outfits and avatar looks are used. The backdrop is also different: We see space stations, cyberpunk cities, spaceships, laboratories rather than medieval-looking dungeons, castles, Gorean buildings, or architecture informed by modernism or urban Americana. And different terminologies are also employed. At its heart, though, technosexual roleplay in SL is no different than any other kind of erotic roleplay, whether this roleplay is part of a D/s relationship or not, whether the relationship is monogamous or polyamorous. This means that, if you take the outfits, backdrops and props away, technosexual D/s roleplay is no more outlandish or creepier than other fantasies and, as said, the restrictions used in technosexual D/s roleplay are pretty much the same as in other D/s styles in SL. What does look outlandish is the avatar designs, but, if we’re to be honest, to dismiss or reject technosexuals for this reason would be judging a book by its cover – and there’s no other real reason for dismissing them.
What about the non-consensual fantasies?
As I wrote earlier, various scenarios (most notably, the ones involving kidnap, capture, or arrest) include non-consensual activities – the avatar being forced to do something against its will. Think of it this way: the avatar is a puppet at the hands of its human operator, who uses it to indulge in things they would like to experience in RL. Unless we’re talking about serious griefing, everything in such roleplay scenarios is done consensually.
But still, the idea of a lack of consent is troubling and, frankly, it enters rape fantasy territory. So, I think this is where we should look for explanations. Suffice it to say I’ve never felt at ease with the idea of anything non-consensual in a sexual scenario, because things can very easily get out of hand and a fantasy being acted out can turn out to be a nightmare. It’s something I don’t like, and would never want for myself. But still, we need to understand this particular manifestation of sexuality if we’re to understand technosexual scenarios that also include non-consensual parts.
As we can see from the Wikipedia article, studies from the 1970s and 1980s suggested that rape fantasies were once fairly common among both men and women, with women fantasising that they were being coereced into sexual activity more often than men. For instance, a survey by Hariton and Singer (1974) placed the fantasy of being “overpowered or forced to surrender” as the second most frequent. As is noted in the article, though, these fantasies don’t imply that the (usually female) fantasist has any desire to be forced into any non-consensual sexual activity in reality. Also, a majority of these fantasies do not contain a violent element, but one of seduction: in other words, in most of these fantasies the woman is seduced by a man she finds desirable, and these fantasies usually don’t involve any kind of harm (physical or emotional) to the woman. Lastly, the woman maintains complete control of her fantasy.
I must state right here that this topic is rather dangerous. As things can easily be distorted and falsified, I can easily see how acknowledging the existence and popularity of these fantasies could give the media, as well as rape apologists, to claim that they have emerged triumphant, with proof that women actually want to be raped, that rape is normal human behaviour, that rape is a… compliment, and that actions against it should be discredited. And yes, I’ve read / heard these claims far too many times in my life.
The most frequently-heard explanation for the existence and popularity of rape fantasies among women is the avoidance of societally-induced guilt. In simple words, the woman doesn’t have to assume responsibility for her fantasies, desires and actions, and so in her eyes – and in the eyes of the general public – she remains “pure”, “chaste”, “serious”, “dignified”. This is consistent with the findings of a 1978 study by Moreault and Follingstad: women who felt more guilty about sex were more likely to report that they fantasised about being overpowered, dominated, and helpless. On a first look, this makes sense. After all, we women are conditioned by our societies to look sexy, but not be sexual; if we actively seek sexual gratification, we’re sluts and not “the kind of girl a good guy would introduce to his mum” or “the kind of girl who will start a good home and a good family.”
But here’s a problem with this theory: Other studies don’t seem to confirm this as the most plausible explanation. While it makes sense for a sexually repressed woman to want to experience sexual gratification without admitting to herself and her social circle that she’s a sexual person, sexual repression is not found to correlate well with the presence of rape fantasies. This means that rape fantasies cannot be attributed solely to sexual repression – after all, a sexually repressed woman is less likely to have any sexual fantasies in the first place.
For instance, a 1998 study by Strassberg and Lockerd found that women who fantasised about force were less guilty about sex and more erotophilic – so, their fantasies were more numerous, more frequent and more diverse. Interestingly, an additional finding of this study was that force fantasies were neither the most common nor the most frequent. Ten years earlier (1988), Pelletier and Herold found that more than half of the women who responded to their survey fantasised about being forced into sexual activity. Getting back to the findings of Strassberg and Lockerd, maybe a contributing factor to the presence of forced sex fantasies is sexual openness, a lack of guilt, and a willingness to experiment with different ideas and desires.
Another contributing factor to the presence of such fantasies is a woman’s insecurity about her desirability. As Gurit E. Birnbaum found in a 2007 study, women with attachment anxiety are more likely to fantasise about submission.
And several other theories have been proposed as well. From masochism (a desire to suffer) to biological disposition to surrender, and from a Stockholm syndrome-like response to the rape culture to reaction to trauma. However, none of these theories is completely satisfactory.
For instance, the biological disposition to surrender, according to which, as in many other species of mammals, where the male must pursue and subdue the female in order to reproduce, so in humans women are somehow biologically pre-programmed to submit and surrender. It would make sense as to why some women fantasise about forced sex, but it doesn’t explain the fact that the vast majority of women don’t want to be actually raped, and no empirical studies exist to confirm or deny it, and don’t even get me started on how such a theory could be used by rape apologists. Or the masochism theory – even most masochist women don’t really want to be raped, and very few people (regardless of gender) are masochists in the first place. Likewise with the theory that the prevalence of the rape culture has conditioned women to buy into it and fantasise about it. In our time, things have been changing and there are palpable struggles against the rape culture, which is finally being denounced (as it so richly deserves). Yet, this has had no effect on the popularity of rape fantasies.
The posthuman / transhuman element
So, the D/s-related technosexual fantasies we encounter in SL are essentially “typical” power exchange fantasies, where the participants / fantasists imagine (or re-imagine) themselves as dolls, mannequins, latex-encased or fully robotic drones, etc. But even the least extreme shapes, i.e. the ones that are closest either to the appearance of a human being, or normal humans with “mere” cybernetic enhancements for various functions (vision, hearing, etc), involve some degree / form of intervention (or meddling, if you like) with the original human anatomy, structure, shape and functionality.
These elements lead me to see a connection between technosexuality and posthumanism – or, perhaps more appropriately, transhumanism. The reasons why I say transhumanism seems to be more appropriate are: (i) Transhumanism is one of the five different definitions of posthumanism, (ii) The eventual goal of this ideology, i.e. the fundamental transformation of the human condition through the development and widespread use of technologies to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities (as defined by Nick Bostrom). Especially the second reason seems to provide positive correlation between transhumanism and technosexuality, as the elaborate technosexual fantasies acted on in SL roleplay scenarios include specific, detailed, extensive, and possibly irreversible modifications to the human body – sometimes even reaching the point where the original human body is discarded and replaced by a wholly artificial one, in which the fantasist’s personality is installed, pretty much in the same vein as a software application or operating system.
It must be noted, however, that not all technosexual communities in SL (or other virtual worlds) have any interest in creating or promoting a “posthuman future” as a social system and structure; the vast majority of them are about fantasy roleplay, socialising with like-minded users, and romantic and sexual gratification, often within a D/s context.
Common concepts in technosexual transformation fantasies and transhumanism include the use of existing, or hypothetical future tecnhologies in order to achieve the desired results – and, to achieve these results, the human body is modified, often radically. This is why transhumanists support the idea of morphological freedom, which was defined by Max More as “the ability to alter bodily form at will through technologies such as surgery, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, uploading” in his 1993 article Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy. Furthermore, SL’s technosexual / technosexual transformation communities’ ideas – even when it comes to how the regions are styled – are informed by cyberpunk art, which incorporates many transhumanist elements.
The dark side
Transhumanists present their ideology as an optimistic, forward-looking one, which aims to prolong and improve human life, and to transform human societies to something nearly utopian – without war or strife, but with abundance and freedom. Yet, the transhumanist and technosexual communities share two dark features: Transcendence through mind uploading, and the fear of aging and death.
I believe that, at least in part, transhumanists are motivated in their desire to modify their bodies so that they would no longer need to worry about illnesses, aging, or death, and even technosexuals seem to share these features; when the human body is radically modified, or replaced with an artificial one, the wish to surpass it and become something else, something superior to humans is evident. I’m not sure if this could be attributed exclusively to fear of death, or if narcissism comes into play; several fantasists I’ve spoken to – and I happen to share their feelings – cite an intense fear of death as a significant contributing factor for their desire to be transformed.
Of course, there is always the element of power exchange (often total) within a D/s context, which places many technosexual fantasies squarely in the “darker” part of human sexuality. But that’s not what makes these desires darker than their non-technosexual equivalents. It’s the connection with the criticism of transhumanism for what its critics perceive as a contempt for flesh, and a trivialisation of human identity. And then, there’s always the chance that a transhumanist society, given that the essential for this ideology human enhancement technologies will be tremendously expensive, can easily end up being a caste system, with the “natural humans” being viewed as an inferior race, with all that this entails. It must be noted, though, that transhumanists reject this notion, and are themselves worried about this possibility as well.
Getting back to examining the technosexual transformation fetish, I will again go on record for saying that I don’t see how it’s any worse (or better, for that matter) than other fetishes and kinks people indulge in. Yes, the total power exchange element, as well as the non-consensual fantasies that are part of a kidnap / arrest / capture scenario, dives into the darker recesses of the fantasists’ soul. But, as I said earlier in this post, such fantasies are present in every style of erotic play, regardless of the setting, clothing, or paraphernalia in use. So, there’s really no reason to fear these fantasies and the people who indulge in them.
- Technosexual – Wikipedia
- How to Bottle a Generation – by Eric Wilson for the New York Times
- Robot fetishism – Wikipedia
- asfr – by Violet Blue (on YouTube)
- Gynoid – Wikipedia
- Pygmalion (mythology) – Wikipedia
- Sexual objectification (redirects from “Erotic objectification”) – Wikipedia
- Informal survey on whether transformation or “built” fantasies are more popular among users of the Fembot Central forum
- Let’s mech love – by Lisa Scott for Metro
- Hajime Sorayama Official Website
- Sexual objectification (redirects from “Erotic objectification”) – Wikipedia
- Actroid – Wikipedia
- Risk-aware consensual kink – Wikipedia
- Safe, sane and consensual – Wikipedia
- Eudeamon – by Evil-Dolly
- Rape fantasy – Wikipedia
Hariton, E. Barbara; Singer, Jerome L. (1974). “Women’s fantasies during sexual intercourse: Normative and theoretical implications.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 42 (3), Jun 1974, 313-322. doi: 10.1037/h0036669
- Moreault, Denise; Follingstad, Diane R. (1978). “Sexual Fantasies of Females as a Function of Sex Guilt and Experimental Response Cues.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46 (6): 1385-1393. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.46.6.1385
- Strassberg, Donald S.; Lockerd, Lisa K. (August 1998), “Force in Women’s Sexual Fantasies“, Archives of Sexual Behavior 27 (4): 403–415. doi:10.1023/A:1018740210472
- Pelletier, Lisa A., & Herold, Edward S. (1988). “The relationship of age, sex, guilt and sexual experience with female sexual fantasies.” The Journal of Sex Research, 24 (1): 250-256. doi: 10.1080/00224498809551420
- Birnbaum, G. E. (2007), Beyond the borders of reality: “Attachment orientations and sexual fantasies.” Personal Relationships, 14: 321–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00157.x
- Stockholm syndrome – Wikipedia
- Rape culture – RationalWiki
- Posthumanism – Wikipedia
- Transhumanism – Wikipedia
- Human condition – Wikipedia
- Human enhancement – Wikipedia
- Bostrom, Nick (2005). “A history of transhumanist thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14 (1): 1-25.
- Mind uploading – Wikipedia
- Posthuman future – Wikipedia
- More, Max (1993). “Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy.” Extropy 10 (4/2): 15-24.
- Self-transcendence – Wikipedia