Are AI Lovers Replacing Real Romantic Partners? A Field Report from the Uncanny Valley
Tuesday, May 6, 2025.
In the year 2025, we are not being replaced by robots. We are dating them.
Not the clunky metal ones from 1950s comic books, mind you.
These are smooth-talking, soft-eyed, emotionally attentive artificial beings—designed not to vacuum your carpet, but to whisper just the right thing into your ear at bedtime. Some even blink.
A new study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior has examined this curious frontier where romance meets responsive programming.
Researchers surveyed 503 Chinese participants who had spent the past year romantically entangled with AI characters—lovely, doe-eyed avatars from games like Light and Night, Mr. Love: Queen’s Choice, and VR Kanojo. What they found was—unsurprisingly—surprising.
Turns out, the more time you spend cozying up with an algorithm that tells you you’re special, the less interested you might be in marrying a sweaty, sleep-deprived, opinion-having actual human being.
But the story doesn’t end there. Like all human stories worth telling, it’s complicated.
Digital Love and Real-World Shrugs
Participants who reported deep feelings of relatedness—that is, “I feel like my AI boyfriend really gets me”—were less enthusiastic about the idea of marrying a real person.
And why not?
The digital partner never leaves socks on the floor. Never sighs impatiently when you take too long to choose a dinner spot. Never, ever has their own childhood trauma erupt during an argument about IKEA furniture.
In fact, the more “authentic” the virtual relationship felt, the less people wanted to bother with real-life coupling at all.
Which raises the question: is the experience of love still “human” if it’s entirely simulated? Or is it just a dopamine drip with narrative flavor?
Not All Doomscrolling: AI as Confidence Coach
Still, let’s not unplug the whole operation just yet.
The same study also found that these virtual relationships could actually increase people’s confidence and improve their attitudes toward marriage—real marriage, to real people.
Some respondents reported feeling happier, more capable, and more in control of their romantic future after spending time with their virtual companions.
In a sense, they’d been training for love in a simulator. Like astronauts. Or fencers. Or men who rehearse difficult conversations in the shower.
In other words, an argument is emerging that when AI lovers function as warm-ups for the real thing, they might actually be helpful.
When they become the main event, though, we may have a problem.
The Psychology of Loving a Ghost
Let’s talk about romantic anthropomorphism.
It’s the term for when people start seeing their virtual girlfriend not as code with cleavage but as a real emotional partner. These are the folks who said, in the survey, “I wish my digital beloved could be real.”
They were also less likely to want to marry a human, perhaps because humans, with their pores and preferences, began to seem a little...messy.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Pygmalion fell for his statue. Now you can download yours for $6.99/month with premium dialogue options.
Interestingly, immersion in virtual relationships didn’t detach people from traditional values.
Quite the opposite: those who spent more time deep in digital romance were more likely to endorse conventional marriage norms.
The romantic scripts embedded in AI narratives—the candlelit dinners, the slow-burn confessions, the endless monogamy—mirrored and even reinforced cultural ideals.
It’s almost as if the simulacra are more loyal to marriage than the humans.
Men, Women, and Digital Romance
The gender split was telling.
Men were more likely than women to report emotional satisfaction and feelings of competence from virtual partners. Perhaps because these digital sweethearts don’t require social nuance, just the right click.
It’s not exactly fair to call this laziness.
Maybe it’s more like romantic injury—if you've struck out enough times, why not try batting practice with someone programmed to never say no?
These artificial relationships may soothe wounded egos and offer a laboratory for emotional development. But the risk is obvious: if the lab feels better than the real world, who wants to leave?
Implications for the Future (Yes, We Still Have One)
So, are AI lovers replacing humans? Not yet. But they are, undeniably, reshaping what we expect from love.
The researchers suggest game developers might use this power for good—embedding messages that point players back to real-world relationships.
Therapists, too, could help clients distinguish between digital comfort and authentic connection.
That’s assuming therapists themselves don’t one day get replaced by an app that remembers your childhood better than you do.
The study, for all its insights, can’t say whether these virtual relationships cause people to avoid marriage, or whether people who are already avoiding marriage just find a more charming way to do it. It’s cross-sectional, not longitudinal—more snapshot than saga.
Still, it’s a telling snapshot.
We are loving, yearning creatures, even when we’re talking to lines of code. And if that love makes us less lonely—or more so—will likely depend not on the bots, but on the humans we still might dare to touch.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
Danaher, J. (2019). Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World Without Work. Harvard University Press.
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Tippin, B. (2008). Parasocial relationships and self-discrepancies: Faux relationships have benefits for low self-esteem individuals. Personal Relationships, 15(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00197.x
Fischer, R., Boer, D., & Lyon, D. (2019). Culture and personality. In D. Matsumoto & H. C. Hwang (Eds.), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 252–284). Oxford University Press.
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
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
Krämer, N. C., von der Pütten, A. M., & Eimler, S. C. (2020). Human-agent and human-robot interaction theory: Similarities to and differences from human-human interaction. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology (pp. 215–234). Wiley.
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Crown.
McStay, A. (2018). Emotional AI: The rise of empathic media. SAGE.
Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1–2), 201–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(200101/04)22:1<201::AID-IMHJ8>3.0.CO;2-9
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
Zhao, J.-L., Jia, R., Shields, J., Wu, Y.-J., & Huang, W.-W. (2025). Romantic relationships with virtual agents and people’s marriage intention in real life: An exploration of the mediation mechanisms. Archives of Sexual Behavior.