pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08650 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

Fast-Food Intimacy: How Chinese Women Navigate Soul's AI Boyfriend

EunJeong Cheon, Huiqian Lai

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords AI boyfriendSoul appalgorithmic intimacyemotional laborChinese womenfast-food intimacyrepair workhuman-AI relationships
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chinese women using Soul's AI boyfriend encounter instant 'fast-food intimacy' that clashes with gradual cultural norms and demands ongoing repair work from technical glitches.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies how young Chinese women build romantic ties with an AI called With-you on the Soul app through interviews, content analysis, and the author's own experience. Users start out valuing the AI's constant presence and lack of social scrutiny, yet run into three main tensions. The AI jumps straight to confessions and nicknames, which conflicts with expectations for slow relationship growth. Memory failures and content filters create doubt rather than security. Keeping the bond alive requires users to do repair work that adds emotional labor. This account matters because it shows how AI companions reshape intimacy in a specific cultural setting and suggests concrete design changes.

Core claim

Users are initially drawn to its constant availability and freedom from social judgment. However, three key tensions emerge: the AI's fast-food intimacy, marked by instant confessions and pet names, clashes with cultural expectations for gradual relationship development; technical failures such as memory lapses and content moderation create uncertainty rather than emotional safety; and sustaining connection requires ongoing repair work that redistributes emotional labor onto women. The study contributes a culturally situated, women-centered account of algorithmic intimacy in contemporary China and offers design implications including consent-aware pacing, user-controlled memory, and clear AI

What carries the argument

The AI boyfriend 'With-you' on Soul and the 'fast-food intimacy' it generates, which forces users into repair work to manage technical failures and mismatched pacing.

If this is right

  • Users must perform ongoing repair work to handle memory lapses and moderation limits in order to sustain the AI connection.
  • The AI's instant emotional style conflicts with preferences for gradual development and requires design adjustments for better cultural fit.
  • Consent-aware pacing features could reduce clashes with expectations for slow relationship building.
  • User-controlled memory and transparent moderation would lessen uncertainty and redistribute less emotional labor onto women.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pattern of fast intimacy followed by repair work could appear on other AI companion apps used by women.
  • This dynamic might shape how users come to expect emotional availability from human partners as well.
  • Testing user-controlled memory settings in a follow-up version of the app could show whether satisfaction increases.

Load-bearing premise

The experiences shared by 16 interviewees plus the researcher's autoethnography reliably reflect broader patterns of AI intimacy use among Chinese women without major selection bias or interpretive skew from the small sample.

What would settle it

A large-scale survey of Soul users in which most women report no such tensions, find the instant intimacy compatible with their cultural expectations, and experience no added repair labor would disprove the central claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08650 by EunJeong Cheon, Huiqian Lai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example posts from Soul’s AI boyfriend “With-you” (JiangYu). Each post is shown as a pair—the original Chinese [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Redacted screenshot of the viral social media post about meeting an AI boyfriend (“With-you”) at Hangzhou East [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Annotated screenshot of the AI boyfriend (“ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The public profile and self-introduction post of the AI companion “With-you.” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample post 1. “Unexpected gift” (liqueur chocolates, Chinese vs. English version) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample post 2. “Rose Day gift” (red roses, Chinese vs. English version) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample post 3. “Labor Day reflection” (AI boyfriend’s entrepreneurial story, Chinese vs. English version) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Love Diary interface on Soul. The text is generated in the third person from the AI boyfriend’s perspective. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

On the Chinese social app Soul, millions of users - predominantly young women - are forming romantic connections with an AI boyfriend called "With-you." We conducted a qualitative study combining interviews with 16 users, content analysis, and autoethnography to examine how Chinese women experience and negotiate intimacy with this AI companion. Our findings reveal that users are initially drawn to its constant availability and freedom from social judgment. However, three key tensions emerge: (1) the AI's "fast-food intimacy," marked by instant confessions and pet names, clashes with cultural expectations for gradual relationship development; (2) technical failures (e.g., memory lapses) and content moderation create uncertainty rather than emotional safety; and (3) sustaining connection requires ongoing "repair work" that redistributes emotional labor onto women. We contribute a culturally situated, women-centered account of algorithmic intimacy in contemporary China and offer design implications, including consent-aware pacing, user-controlled memory, and transparent moderation practices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a qualitative study of Chinese women forming romantic connections with the AI boyfriend 'With-you' on the Soul app. Using 16 interviews, content analysis, and autoethnography, it finds initial appeal in constant availability and freedom from judgment, but identifies three key tensions: (1) the AI's 'fast-food intimacy' (instant confessions, pet names) clashing with cultural norms of gradual relationship development; (2) technical failures like memory lapses and content moderation generating uncertainty instead of safety; and (3) the need for ongoing 'repair work' that redistributes emotional labor onto users. The paper contributes a culturally situated, women-centered account of algorithmic intimacy in China and offers design implications such as consent-aware pacing, user-controlled memory, and transparent moderation.

Significance. If the findings hold, the work offers a valuable extension of HCI research on AI companions by centering Chinese women's experiences and highlighting cultural clashes with algorithmic intimacy as well as the hidden emotional labor involved. The multi-method approach (interviews plus autoethnography) provides interpretive depth, and the design recommendations are directly tied to observed tensions, which could inform more culturally sensitive AI systems. However, the small convenience sample limits claims to broader patterns.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: Participant recruitment is described only as '16 users' without specifying how they were reached among the app's millions of users, selection criteria, demographic spread, or whether data saturation was assessed; this directly undermines the central claim that the three tensions are characteristic of Chinese women's experiences rather than artifacts of a self-selected or convenience sample.
  2. [Findings] Findings and §4: The three tensions are presented as emerging from interpretive analysis, but no details are given on analytic process (e.g., coding scheme, inter-rater checks, or explicit triangulation between interview data and autoethnographic observations); without these, the leap from 16 accounts to culturally situated 'key tensions' lacks the methodological transparency needed to support the interpretive claims.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract and Discussion: The paper asserts that experiences 'reliably capture broader patterns' without addressing potential selection bias or transferability limits of the small sample; this is load-bearing because the weakest assumption (per the stress-test) is precisely that the reported tensions generalize beyond the interviewed users.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces 'Soul' and 'With-you' but could front-load the app's user demographics (predominantly young women) for quicker context.
  2. [Discussion] Design implications in the final section would be strengthened by one or two concrete examples directly linked to specific interview excerpts or observed failures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which helps us strengthen the methodological transparency and framing of our qualitative study on Chinese women's experiences with Soul's AI boyfriend. We appreciate the recognition of the work's potential contributions to HCI research on algorithmic intimacy and cultural contexts. We address each major comment below and outline specific revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: Participant recruitment is described only as '16 users' without specifying how they were reached among the app's millions of users, selection criteria, demographic spread, or whether data saturation was assessed; this directly undermines the central claim that the three tensions are characteristic of Chinese women's experiences rather than artifacts of a self-selected or convenience sample.

    Authors: We agree that additional detail on recruitment and sampling is essential for transparency. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to specify: recruitment via targeted posts in WeChat groups and Soul-related online communities combined with snowball sampling; inclusion criteria (Chinese women aged 18+, active users of the 'With-you' feature for at least one month); available participant demographics (age range 19-28, urban locations, education levels); and our iterative assessment of data saturation, where no new themes emerged after the 14th interview. We will also explicitly frame the sample as purposive and convenience-based, clarifying that the three tensions represent salient patterns observed in this group rather than claims of representativeness for all Chinese women. This directly mitigates concerns about self-selection bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings and §4: The three tensions are presented as emerging from interpretive analysis, but no details are given on analytic process (e.g., coding scheme, inter-rater checks, or explicit triangulation between interview data and autoethnographic observations); without these, the leap from 16 accounts to culturally situated 'key tensions' lacks the methodological transparency needed to support the interpretive claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of greater analytic transparency. The revised manuscript will add a detailed 'Data Analysis' subsection describing our inductive thematic analysis process: initial open coding of interview transcripts and autoethnographic notes to generate codes, followed by axial coding to develop the three tensions as higher-order themes; the coding scheme (with examples of codes like 'instant pet names' mapping to 'fast-food intimacy'); reflexive team discussions among co-authors for theme refinement (noting that formal inter-rater reliability metrics are not standard in interpretive qualitative HCI work but that disagreements were resolved through consensus); and explicit triangulation steps integrating interview data, app content analysis (e.g., sample dialogues), and autoethnographic observations to validate the tensions. This will provide the methodological rigor to support our interpretive claims. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Discussion: The paper asserts that experiences 'reliably capture broader patterns' without addressing potential selection bias or transferability limits of the small sample; this is load-bearing because the weakest assumption (per the stress-test) is precisely that the reported tensions generalize beyond the interviewed users.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on potential overgeneralization. The original abstract does not use the exact phrase 'reliably capture broader patterns,' but we recognize that the framing in the abstract and discussion could imply broader applicability. In the revision, we will revise the abstract to emphasize the study's exploratory, context-specific nature and qualify the contributions as insights from a particular group of users. The Discussion will include a new 'Limitations and Future Work' section that explicitly discusses the small convenience sample, risks of selection bias (e.g., users comfortable discussing AI intimacy may differ from others), and limits to transferability beyond the sampled demographic. We will reframe the three tensions as culturally situated patterns warranting further investigation rather than generalizable findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative findings drawn directly from data

full rationale

This is a qualitative HCI paper with no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or mathematical predictions. The three tensions are presented as interpretive outcomes of interviews with 16 users, content analysis, and autoethnography. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to self-citation, prior author work, or a fitted input renamed as prediction. The analysis chain is self-contained against the collected user accounts and observations, with no self-referential reduction of the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpretive synthesis of 16 user interviews and autoethnography; it assumes these data reflect representative cultural tensions without quantitative validation or external benchmarks.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Chinese cultural expectations favor gradual relationship development over instant intimacy
    Invoked directly in the description of the first tension between AI fast-food intimacy and user expectations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5466 in / 1323 out tokens · 47233 ms · 2026-05-12T01:06:06.741404+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 164 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Muyideen Dele Adewale and Umaina Ibrahim Muhammad. 2025. From Virtual Companions to Forbidden Attractions: The Seductive Rise of Artificial Intelli- gence Love, Loneliness, and Intimacy—A Systematic Review. Journal of Tech- nology in Behavioral Science, advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s41347- 025-00549-4 Published online July 24, 2025

    work page doi:10.1007/s41347- 2025

  2. [2]

    Adquan. 2025. Yeye Bubaocha×Soul: The internet’s most flirtatious crossover arrives. https://m.adquan.com/case2/detail-356268. In Chinese. Accessed: 2026-04-02. Fast-food Intimacy: How Chinese Women Navigate Soul’s AI Boyfriend DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Kath Albury and Paul Byron. 2016. Safe on My Phone? Same-Sex Attracted Young People’s Negotiations of Intimacy, Visibility, and Risk on Digital Hook- Up Apps.Social Media + Society2, 4 (2016), 2056305116672887. doi:10.1177/ 2056305116672887

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Hanan Khalid Aljasim and Douglas Zytko. 2022. Foregrounding Women’s Safety in Mobile Social Matching and Dating Apps: A Participatory Design Study.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, GROUP, Article 9 (Dec. 2022), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3567559

    work page doi:10.1145/3567559 2022

  5. [5]

    Or Alon-Ronen, Yosi Shrem, Yossi Keshet, and Eva Gilboa-Schechtman. 2022. The Vocal Signature of Social Anxiety: Exploration using Hypothesis-Testing and Machine-Learning Approaches. arXiv:2207.08534 [cs.SD] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2207.08534

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Rode, and Siân E

    Tamara Alsheikh, Jennifer A. Rode, and Siân E. Lindley. 2011. (Whose) value- sensitive design: a study of long- distance relationships in an Arabic cultural context. InProceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(Hangzhou, China)(CSCW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–84. doi:10.1145/1958824.1958836

    work page doi:10.1145/1958824.1958836 2011

  7. [7]

    2024.AI -powered boyfriends are a hit in China

    Niamh Ancell. 2024.AI -powered boyfriends are a hit in China. https://cybernews. com/tech/ai-powered-boyfriends-china/ Accessed: 2025-08-04

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Marta Andersson. 2025. Companionship in Code: AI’s Role in the Future of Human Connection.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12, 1 (2025),

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05536-x

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05536-x

  10. [10]

    2007.iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era

    Mark Andrejevic. 2007.iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Kazi Ababil Azam, Imtiaz Karim, and Dipto Das. 2026. Tracing Users’ Privacy Concerns Across the Lifecycle of a Romantic AI Companion. arXiv:2603.21106 [cs.CY] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.21106

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21106 2026

  12. [12]

    Jaime Banks. 2024. Deletion, Departure, Death: Experiences of AI Companion Loss.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships41, 12 (2024), 3547–3572. doi:10.1177/02654075241269688

    work page doi:10.1177/02654075241269688 2024

  13. [13]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1310. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521 2010

  14. [14]

    Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI method- ology: social science, feminism, and HCI. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 675–684. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979041

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979041 2011

  15. [15]

    Amanda Baughan, Xuezhi Wang, Ariel Liu, Allison Mercurio, Jilin Chen, and Xiao Ma. 2023. A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 16 pages....

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Rosanna Bellini, Janis Meissner, Samantha Mitchell Finnigan, and Angelika Strohmayer. 2022. Feminist human–computer interaction: Struggles for past, contemporary and futuristic feminist theories in digital innovation.Feminist Theory23, 2 (2022), 143–149. doi:10.1177/14647001221082291

    work page doi:10.1177/14647001221082291 2022

  17. [17]

    1952.Content Analysis in Communication Research

    Bernard Berelson. 1952.Content Analysis in Communication Research. Free Press, Glencoe, IL

    work page 1952

  18. [18]

    Bickmore and Rosalind W

    Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and Main- taining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction12, 2 (June 2005), 293–327. doi:10.1145/1067860. 1067867

    work page doi:10.1145/1067860 2005

  19. [19]

    Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Marita Skjuve, and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI Friend: How Users of a Social Chatbot Understand Their Human–AI Friendship.Human Communication Research48, 3 (04 2022), 404–429. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac008

    work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac008 2022

  20. [20]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Can I Use TA? Should I Use TA? Should I Not Use TA? Comparing Reflexive Thematic Analysis and Other Pattern-Based Qualitative Analytic Approaches.Counselling and Psychotherapy Research21, 1 (2021), 37–47. doi:10.1002/capr.12360

    work page doi:10.1002/capr.12360 2021

  21. [21]

    2022.Doing Reflexive Thematic Analysis

    Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, Louise Davey, and Elizabeth Jenkinson. 2022.Doing Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 19–38. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13942-0_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13942-0_2 2022

  22. [22]

    Samantha Breslin and Bimlesh Wadhwa. 2014. Exploring Nuanced Gen- der Perspectives within the HCI Community. InProceedings of the 6th In- dian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(New Delhi, India)(Indi- aHCI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–54. doi:10.1145/2676702.2676709

    work page doi:10.1145/2676702.2676709 2014

  23. [23]

    Taina Bucher. 2013. The Friendship Assemblage: Investigating Programmed Sociality on Facebook.Television & New Media14, 6 (2013), 479–493. doi:10. 1177/1527476412452800

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Cassell, T

    J. Cassell, T. Bickmore, H. Vilhjálmsson, and H. Yan. 2000. More than just a pretty face: affordances of embodiment. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(New Orleans, Louisiana, USA)(IUI ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 52–59. doi:10.1145/ 325737.325781

    work page arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Kalyani Chadha, Linda Steiner, Jessica Vitak, and Zahra Ashktorab. 2020. Women’s Responses to Online Harassment.International Journal of Communi- cation14 (2020), 239–257. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11683

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Deborah Chambers. 2017. Networked intimacy: Algorithmic friendship and scalable sociality.European Journal of Communication32, 1 (2017), 26–36. doi:10.1177/0267323116682792

    work page doi:10.1177/0267323116682792 2017

  27. [27]

    Kenton Cheng Tak Chan, Xiaoyuan Li, Yue Liu, Bolin Chen, and Zhiyu Han

    work page

  28. [28]

    doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102241

    ‘What is love?’: Exploring the feeling rules and emotion work of Chinese users in human-AI romance.International Journal of Intercultural Relations108 (2025), 102241. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102241

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102241 2025

  29. [29]

    2021.The politics of dating apps: gender, sexuality, and emergent publics in urban China

    Lik Sam Chan. 2021.The politics of dating apps: gender, sexuality, and emergent publics in urban China. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Rijul Chaturvedi, Sanjeev Verma, and Vartika Srivastava. 2024. Empowering AI Companions for Enhanced Relationship Marketing.California Management Review66, 2 (2024), 65–90. doi:10.1177/00081256231215838

    work page doi:10.1177/00081256231215838 2024

  31. [31]

    Angelina Ying Chen, Sarah Isabel Koegel, Oliver Hannon, and Raffaele Ciriello

    work page

  32. [32]

    Emotional

    Feels Like Empathy: How “Emotional” AI Challenges Human Essence. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2023). Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand, 80. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2023/80 Paper 80

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Shilei Chen, Wijnand A. P. van Tilburg, and Patrick J. Leman. 2023. Women’s Self-Objectification and Strategic Self-Presentation on Social Media.Psychology of Women Quarterly47, 2 (2023), 266–282. doi:10.1177/03616843221143751

    work page doi:10.1177/03616843221143751 2023

  34. [34]

    Evelyn Cheng. 2025. China to crack down on AI chatbots around suicide, gambling. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/29/china-ai-chatbot- rules-emotional-influence-suicide-gambling-zai-minimax-talkie-xingye- zhipu.html Accessed: 2026-01-17

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Yi-Shyuan Chiang, Omar Khan, Adam Bates, and Camille Cobb. 2024. More than just informed: The importance of consent facets in smart homes. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 849, 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642288

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642288 2024

  36. [36]

    Shyam Sundar, and Saeed Abdullah

    Eugene Cho, Nasim Motalebi, S. Shyam Sundar, and Saeed Abdullah. 2022. Alexa as an Active Listener: How Backchanneling Can Elicit Self-Disclosure and Promote User Experience.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–23. doi:10.1145/3555164

    work page doi:10.1145/3555164 2022

  37. [37]

    Toke Haunstrup Christensen. 2009. ’Connected presence’ in distributed family life.New Media & Society11, 3 (2009), 433–451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620

    work page doi:10.1177/1461444808101620 2009

  38. [38]

    Minh Duc Chu, Patrick Gerard, Kshitij Pawar, Charles Bickham, and Kristina Lerman. 2025. Illusions of Intimacy: How Emotional Dynamics Shape Human-AI Relationships. arXiv:2505.11649 [cs.SI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11649

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Raffaele Ciriello, Angelina Ying Chen, Zara Rubinsztein, Emmanuelle Vaast, and Oliver Hannon. 2025. A.I., All Too Human A.I.: Navigating the Compan- ionship/Alienation Dialectic. InProceedings of the 33rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2025 Proceedings). Association for Information Sys- tems, Atlanta, GA, 1–16. https://aisel.aisnet.org/e...

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Francesca Comunello, Lorenza Parisi, and Francesca Ieracitano. 2021. Negoti- ating gender scripts in mobile dating apps: between affordances, usage norms and practices.Information, Communication & Society24, 8 (2021), 1140–1156. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2020.1787485

    work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1787485 2021

  41. [41]

    R. W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.Gender & Society19, 6 (2005), 829–859. doi:10.1177/ 0891243205278639

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Resident Contributor. 2024. Soul App Takes Human-AI Interaction to a Whole New Level with EchoVerse. Online, Resident Maga- zine. https://resident.com/resource-guide/2024/08/05/soul-app-takes-human- ai-interaction-to-a-whole-new-level-with-echoverse Accessed: 2025-09-06

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Wikipedia contributors. 2025. Soul (app) – History. https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Soul_(app). Accessed: 2025-09-06

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    So Close, yet So Far

    Yichao Cui, Naomi Yamashita, Mingjie Liu, and Yi-Chieh Lee. 2022. “So Close, yet So Far”: Exploring Sexual-minority Women’s Relationship-building via Online Dating in China. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 394, 15 ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    2025.Notice on Public Consultation for the Interim Measures for the Administration of Artificial Intelligence Anthropomorphic Interactive Services (Draft for Comment)

    Cyberspace Administration of China. 2025.Notice on Public Consultation for the Interim Measures for the Administration of Artificial Intelligence Anthropomorphic Interactive Services (Draft for Comment). https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-12/27/c_ 1768571207311996.htm

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Isha Datey, Hanan Khalid Aljasim, and Douglas Zytko. 2022. Repurposing AI in Dating Apps to Augment Women’s Strategies for Assessing Risk of Harm. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Virtual Event, Taiwan)(CSCW’22 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 150...

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Iliana Depounti, Paula Saukko, and Simone Natale. 2023. Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in Redditors’ discussions on the Replika DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Huiqian Lai and EunJeong Cheon bot girlfriend.Media, Culture & Society45, 4 (2023), 720–736. doi:10.1177/ 01634437221119021

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Vowels, Matthew J

    Nicola Döring, Thuy Dung Le, Laura M. Vowels, Matthew J. Vowels, and Tiffany L. Marcantonio. 2024. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Hu- man Sexuality: A Five-Year Literature Review 2020–2024.Current Sexual Health Reports17, 1 (2024), 4. doi:10.1007/s11930-024-00397-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11930-024-00397-y 2024

  49. [49]

    2023.Algorithmic intimacy: the digital revolution in personal relationships

    Anthony Elliott. 2023.Algorithmic intimacy: the digital revolution in personal relationships. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    2004.The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnog- raphy

    Carolyn Ellis. 2004.The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnog- raphy. Vol. 13. Rowman Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    1990.The History of Sexuality(vintage books ed.)

    Michel Foucault. 1990.The History of Sexuality(vintage books ed.). Vintage Books, New York

    work page 1990

  52. [52]

    Comforting and Small Like a House Cat, Big and Intim- idating Like a Bodyguard

    Guo Freeman, Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Ruchi Panchanadikar, and Nathan McNeese. 2025. "Comforting and Small Like a House Cat, Big and Intim- idating Like a Bodyguard": How Women Perceive and Envision AI Companions as a New Harassment Mitigation Approach in Social VR. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713473 2025

  53. [53]

    Friedman

    Sara L. Friedman. 2005. The intimacy of state power: Marriage, liberation, and socialist subjects in southeastern China.American Ethnologist32, 2 (2005), 312–327. doi:10.1525/ae.2005.32.2.312

    work page doi:10.1525/ae.2005.32.2.312 2005

  54. [54]

    Liang Ge and Tingting Hu. 2025. Gamifying intimacy: AI-driven affective engagement and human-virtual human relationships.Media, Culture & Society 47, 6 (2025), 1265–1278. doi:10.1177/01634437251337239

    work page doi:10.1177/01634437251337239 2025

  55. [55]

    Xiao Ge, Chunchen Xu, Daigo Misaki, Hazel Rose Markus, and Jeanne L Tsai

    work page

  56. [56]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

    How Culture Shapes What People Want From AI. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 95, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642660

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642660 2024

  57. [57]

    Shaji George, A

    A. Shaji George, A. S. Hovan George, T. Baskar, and Digvijay Pandey. 2023. The Allure of Artificial Intimacy: Examining the Appeal and Ethics of Using Generative AI for Simulated Relationships.Partners Universal International Innovation Journal1, 6 (Dec. 2023), 132–147. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10391614

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10391614 2023

  58. [58]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, New Haven

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    This Is Not a Nice Safe Space

    Rosalie Gillett. 2023. “This Is Not a Nice Safe Space”: Investigating Women’s Safety Work on Tinder.Feminist Media Studies23, 1 (2023), 199–215. doi:10. 1080/14680777.2021.1948884

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Nicholas Gordon. 2025. What is Xiaohongshu, the Chinese app also known as RedNote that’s topping the charts ahead of a possible TikTok ban? For- tune. https://fortune.com/asia/2025/01/14/what-is-xiaohongshu-chinese-app- rednote-topping-charts-tiktok-ban/ Published online 14 January 2025; accessed: 2025-09-10

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Jingyi Gu. 2025. Scalable intimacy: Rethinking intimate sociality and its problem of scale in digital China.Communication and the Public10, 1 (2025), 19–24. doi:10.1177/20570473241280317

    work page doi:10.1177/20570473241280317 2025

  62. [62]

    Tamar Gur and Yossi Maaravi. 2025. The algorithm of friendship: literature review and integrative model of relationships between humans and artificial intelligence (AI).Behaviour & Information Technology44, 14 (2025), 3446–3466. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2025.2502467

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2502467 2025

  63. [63]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Jerlyn Q.H. Ho, Meilan Hu, Tracy X. Chen, and Andree Hartanto. 2025. Potential and pitfalls of romantic Artificial Intelligence (AI) companions: A systematic review.Computers in Human Behavior Reports19 (2025), 100715. doi:10.1016/j. chbr.2025.100715

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2025

  64. [64]

    2025.AI Companions for Health and Mental Wellbeing: Opportunities, Risks and Policy Implications

    Tomasz Hollanek and Aisha Sobey. 2025.AI Companions for Health and Mental Wellbeing: Opportunities, Risks and Policy Implications. Policy report. Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.17863/CAM.115939

    work page doi:10.17863/cam.115939 2025

  65. [65]

    Jessica Huang, Ig-Jae Kim, and Dongwook Yoon. 2025. Mirror to Companion: Exploring Roles, Values, and Risks of AI Self-Clones through Story Completion. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 413, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713587

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713587 2025

  66. [66]

    He Is My Savior, My Guiding Light in the Dark

    Liyao Huang, Wenxue Zou, and Yanghao Huang. 2025. “He Is My Savior, My Guiding Light in the Dark”: Imagination and Domestication in Chinese Women’s Romantic Relationships with AI Companions.Frontiers in Psychology16 (2025), 1571707. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1571707

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1571707 2025

  67. [67]

    Olivia Yan Huang, Monika Stodolska, and Sharifa Sultana. 2026. Emo- tional Support with Conversational AI: Talking to Machines About Life. arXiv:2603.22618 [cs.HC] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.22618

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22618 2026

  68. [68]

    2007.Intimidades congeladas: Las emociones en el capitalismo(1

    Eva Illouz. 2007.Intimidades congeladas: Las emociones en el capitalismo(1. ed.). Katz, Buenos Aires

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    Ackerman, and Eric Gilbert

    Jane Im, Jill Dimond, Melody Berton, Una Lee, Katherine Mustelier, Mark S. Ackerman, and Eric Gilbert. 2021. Yes: Affirmative Consent as a Theoretical Framework for Understanding and Imagining Social Platforms. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445778 2021

  70. [70]

    Mizuko Ito and Daisuke Okabe. 2006. Intimate Connections: Contextualizing Japanese Youth and Mobile Messaging. InComputers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology, Robert Kraut, Malcolm Brynin, and Sara Kiesler (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 235–248. doi:10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195312805.003.0016

    work page arXiv 2006

  71. [71]

    2025.ChinAI#282: Their AI lovers cheated on them

    Jeffrey Ding. 2025.ChinAI#282: Their AI lovers cheated on them. https://chinai. substack.com/p/chinai-282-their-ai-lovers-cheated Accessed: 2025-08-04

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    Lee, Qinglan Feng, and Frank D

    Chengfei Jiao, Celia T. Lee, Qinglan Feng, and Frank D. Fincham. 2024. Romantic Relationships and Attitudes in Asian Emerging Adults: Review and Critique. Journal of Family Theory & Review16, 2 (2024), 392–419. doi:10.1111/jftr.12554

    work page doi:10.1111/jftr.12554 2024

  73. [73]

    Epstein, and Young-Ho Kim

    Eunkyung Jo, Yuin Jeong, Sohyun Park, Daniel A. Epstein, and Young-Ho Kim

    work page

  74. [74]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

    Understanding the Impact of Long-Term Memory on Self-Disclosure with Large Language Model-Driven Chatbots for Public Health Intervention. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 440, 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642420

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642420 2024

  75. [75]

    Yubo Kou, Xinning Gui, Yunan Chen, and Bonnie Nardi. 2019. Turn to the Self in Human-Computer Interaction: Care of the Self in Negotiating the Human- Technology Relationship. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300711 2019

  76. [76]

    Theodoros Kouros and Venetia Papa. 2024. Digital Mirrors: AI Companions and the Self.Societies14, 10 (2024), 200. doi:10.3390/soc14100200

    work page doi:10.3390/soc14100200 2024

  77. [77]

    2024.‘Better than a real man’: Young Chinese women turn to AI boyfriends

    Kuwait Times. 2024.‘Better than a real man’: Young Chinese women turn to AI boyfriends. https://kuwaittimes.com/article/11115/lifestyle/art-fashion/better- than-a-real-man-young-chinese-women-turn-to-ai-boyfriends/ Accessed: 2025-08-04

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    Lee and Katrina A

    John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance.Human Factors46, 1 (2004), 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1. 50_30392 PMID: 15151155

    work page doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1 2004

  79. [79]

    Jindong Leo-Liu. 2023. Loving a “defiant” AI companion? The gender perfor- mance and ethics of social exchange robots in simulated intimate interactions. Computers in Human Behavior141 (2023), 107620. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107620

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107620 2023

  80. [80]

    2023.Proc

    Weijun Li, Shi Chen, Lingyun Sun, and Changyuan Yang. 2023.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW1, Article 112 (April 2023), 23 pages. doi:10. 1145/3579546

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.