[QUOTE=Chronos]
Wouldn’t work, at least not without some radically new technology (as in, we don’t even know yet what the physics of such a technology might be, never mind the engineering). You can put the image anywhere you want, with its location being defined by where the light rays would intersect. But if you have something between your eyes and the screen (which would be rather essential for the use you’re thinking of), that object is still going to obstruct your view. The result is a very disorienting view of a “background” object obstructing a “foreground” object, which is not something our brains are wired to handle. At a rough approximation, if you tried to make a 3-d image of a woman fellate you, what you would see would be a penis-shaped cleft through her head, with the halves of her head protruding up above your penis. Except it’d be even freakier than that, because each of your eyes would see a different cleft, each lining up exactly with your penis, giving the cleft itself a sort of bizarre three-dimensionality.
About the only way you could get the effect you’re thinking of would be to put an actual, physical mannequin there (a technology we already have, as I’m sure you know well), or to put the screens right at your eyes, so nothing could get in the way, which would mean wearing a bulky, uncomfortable headset (a technology we also already have, but which has caught on even less than Realdolls).
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that would be a problem for all but a small, deeply disturbed minority of folk. And what you want is a very large market. But this strikes me as a technical issue for which there may be a fix of some sort, though I have no idea what that fix might be (I will concede it is possible that no reasonably effective fix might exist, as well, in which case the concept won’t work.)
But here’s the thing. I’m not thinking of “a woman.” I’m thinking of particular women. Celebrities. Of course, the first women to colonize such a tech would be porn stars. But in fairly short order you’d have ex-Playmates and B-movie stars doing it, and you’d have minor celebrities desperate for any sort of notoriety doing it, and you’d have look-alikes for celebrities doing it. And since you wouldn’t necessarily have to pose naked for the oral sex scene, it might be more acceptable than doing nude stuff (though I doubt it). And there’s just some wild-ass actresses out there who’d do it for whatever reason: do de name Chloe Sevigny ring any bells?
In short, name your hottie in 3D.
There’s a ton of potential money for the person who can solve that technical issue, if it is in fact solvable. I can see that it would be tough, but 3D projection itself is quite an achievement.
Then, to feel better about himself, maybe the inventor would develop a cure for cancer.
