Vol. 17 No. 1 (2026): MEDIA EDUCATION – Studi, ricerche e buone pratiche
Articles

Synthetic lovers: A framework for understanding artificial intimacy

Davide Bennato
University of Catania, Italy

Published 2026-05-30

Keywords

  • artificial intimacy,
  • digital sociology,
  • Eliza effect,
  • male gaze,
  • parasocial interaction,
  • Proteus effect
  • ...More
    Less

Abstract

This paper explores the evolving landscape of artificial intimacy through the ‘Synthetic Lovers’ framework, a tripartite sociological model comprising digital, synthetic, and virtual intimacy. By analyzing contemporary case studies – ranging from emotional entanglement with large language models to ceremonial weddings with AI personas – I argue that these relationships are not mere technological anomalies but symptoms of a broader transformation in the social organization of intimacy. The framework integrates theoretical pillars such as parasocial interaction, the anthropological theory of animism, and the political economy of platformization. Key cultural mechanisms, including the ‘male gaze’, the ‘Eliza effect’, and the ‘Proteus effect’, are examined to understand how desire and personhood are remediated in digital environments. The study suggests that the affective bonds formed with AI systems may represent what we tentatively term a historically situated ‘anthropological mutation’, suggesting the need for a rigorous sociological engagement that moves beyond traditional hierarchies of authenticity to address how digital reconfiguration transforms human subjectivity and social bonds in the twenty-first century.

References

  1. Adam, A., & Sizemore, B. (2013). Parasocial romance: A social exchange perspective. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 7(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.106
  2. Andrejevic, M., & Volcic, Z. (2024). Automated parasociality: From personalization to personification. Television & New Media, 26(4), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764241300436
  3. Bennato, D. (2024). La società del XXI secolo. Persone, dati, tecnologie. Laterza.
  4. Bennato, D. (2025). Amanti sintetici. Sesso, relazioni e intimità nell’epoca dell’intelligenza artificiale. Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore.
  5. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press.
  6. Bryan, N. (2026, January 29). Exploring the world of empathetic bots. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62njv82n0wo
  7. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Polity Press.
  8. Chess, S., & Shaw, A. (2015). A conspiracy of fishes, or, how we learned to stop worrying about #GamerGate and embrace hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.999917
  9. Demopoulos, A. (2026, February 13). OpenAI retired its most seductive chatbot – leaving users angry and grieving: ‘I can’t live like this’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng-interactive/2026/feb/13/openai-chatbot-gpt4o-valentines-day
  10. Dibbell, J. (1994). A rape in cyberspace: Or how an evil clown, Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. Annual Survey of American Law, 3, 471–490.
  11. Dillon, S. (2020). The Eliza effect and its dangers: From demystification to gender critique. Journal for Cultural Research, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2020.1754642
  12. Eisenmann, C., Mlynář, J., Turowetz, J., & Rawls, A. W. (2024). ‘Machine down’: Making sense of human–computer interaction – Garfinkel’s research on ELIZA and LYRIC from 1967 to 1969 and its contemporary relevance. AI & Society, 39, 2715–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01793-z
  13. Ekbia, H. R. (2008). Artificial dreams: The quest for non-biological intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Frude, N., & Jandric, P. (2015). The intimate machine – 30 years on. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(3–4), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753015571830
  15. Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
  16. Hofstadter, D. R. (1995). Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic Books.
  17. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
  18. Karhulahti, V.-M., & Välisalo, T. (2021). Fictosexuality, fictoromance, and fictophilia: A qualitative study of love and desire for fictional characters. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 575427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575427
  19. Kim, K.-H., & Sugiyama, S. (2025, December 18). AI romance blooms as Japanese woman weds virtual partner. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/japan-ai-wedding
  20. Lee, D., Wan, C., Ng, P. M. L., Fung, Y.-N., & Wu, N. (2026). Effects of AI companions’ sycophancy and emotional mimicry on consumers’ continuance intention and social wellbeing. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2626809
  21. Liu, Y. (2025). The Proteus effect: Overview, reflection, and recommendations. Games and Culture, 20(3), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231202175
  22. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6
  23. Mulvey, L. (2001). Unmasking the gaze: Some thoughts on new feminist film theory and history. Lectora, 7, 5–19.
  24. Rambukkana, N. (2023). Platform intimacies. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Platform intimacies: Digital culture, sexuality, and connection in Canada. University of Regina Press.
  25. Rivoltella, P. C. (2020). Nuovi alfabeti. Educazione e culture nell’epoca dei media digitali. Scholé-Morcelliana.
  26. Szolin, K., Kuss, D. J., Nuyens, F. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2023). Exploring the user-avatar relationship in videogames: A systematic review of the Proteus effect. Human-Computer Interaction, 38(5–6), 374–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2022.2103419
  27. Thorneycroft, R., Nicholas, L., & Smith, E. K. (2024). Young people’s perspectives of the ‘male gaze’ and matters of representation in online pornography. Australian Feminist Studies, 39(122), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2025.2498648
  28. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
  29. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
  30. Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press.
  31. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman.
  32. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x