Would you have sex with a robot?

Szalinski · Post by **Szalinski** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:08 am

"I'm just afraid I'll come home one day and find you screwing the toaster!"

"You'll just have to trust me!"

Ogre Magi · Post by **Ogre Magi** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:33 pm

Kinda surprised there aren't any robot-style love dolls. Made with a plastic/PVC - silicone/TPE combination. I've seen lots of art work of robot sex dolls.

broadfall · Post by **broadfall** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:07 pm

I guess if she looks like this..........

: grab_2014-09-05_21.01.39.png (148.68 KiB) Viewed 4860 times

Tybalt · Post by **Tybalt** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:38 pm

http://www.yourporntube.org/my-life-as- ... x-332.html

I need my daily dose of recommended IRON!

jbmac · Post by **jbmac** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:52 pm

Hell yes!

Post by **Sheeana** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:00 pm

Hostage says I'm a robot with free will. It's just a bit displaced for now

james1969 · Post by **james1969** » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:22 pm

RainLover wrote:
katiesBoyfriend wrote:I've also found that the more I know people, the more I prefer computers. The machines are more logical and often better-behaved than humans.
More logical? Better behaved? So you never use computers, apparently. Computers are like toddlers. They require constantly running after them, keeping them out of stuff they shouldn't get into, and cleaning them up when they get dirty, which is all the time. One can only hope that sex robots of the future will have more stable patch levels and more resistance to malware and spyware than the average computer of today.

Totally agree. why im using my mobile now. no dlc , patches or viruses to worry about!

Post by **AlexKnight** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:56 am

RainLover wrote:More logical? Better behaved? So you never use computers, apparently. Computers are like toddlers. They require constantly running after them, keeping them out of stuff they shouldn't get into, and cleaning them up when they get dirty, which is all the time. One can only hope that sex robots of the future will have more stable patch levels and more resistance to malware and spyware than the average computer of today.

A computer is as vulnerable as the piece of meat in front of it allows it to be

Ownerfckdoll · Post by **Ownerfckdoll** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:46 am

RainLover wrote: So go ahead, keep mindlessly defending science at all costs.

Science is simply a systematic way to get to the truth about the reality we live in. It's the best system human kind has ever developed. It's simply a method of carefully observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate the results. It's also continually self-correcting based upon new evidence. Which part do you disagree with? Being thorough? Using careful observation? Using consistent logic? Or being self-correcting?

On the topic of companies, while most companies are going to lean towards their own self-interest, few are the "monsters" that people portray them to be. Monsanto is not the monster that the media portrays them to be. Very few claims that try to support that are even true. Most of what is said about Monsanto is fear-mongering (and most of it is plain false) and preys upon the naturalistic fallacy that anything "natural" is good, and anything "man-made" therefore must be bad. Sharks, arsenic, plutonium and poison ivy are all natural also. And I would challenge anyone to go off into the woods for two weeks and just live off of "nature". Without serious survival training, at best most people are going to end up very sick by something they ate, and at worst be dead. How's that for "all natural"?

And the last thing I will say about all this is as far as "medicine" goes.. All alternative medicine has either been proven to not work, or not been proven to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? It's called medicine. There is no eastern medicine, ancient medicine, alternative medicine etc. There is no this vs. that. There's medicine, and there's stuff that's not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Period. If there's not a large scale, placebo controlled, double blinded study that has been peer reviewed, and then replicated many times over to eliminate researcher bias and faults in the initial study, that shows a significant effect beyond placebo, then no one can claim that something works. "It worked for me" type of personal experience antidote is the WORST kind of evidence and should be dismissed out of hand. Even the person saying "it worked for me" should be skeptical of their own claim, because unless you understand what "regression to the mean" is, chances are whatever you thought "worked", probably didn't have any effect at all.

But anyway... back to that actual topic..

Would I have sex with a robot? YES and NO! Yes, because I have sex with a doll multiple times a day.. so why wouldn't I have sex with a robot?

However, no.. because the "robot" that I am picturing in my mind, probably won't come about in our lifetimes. Because what I'm imagining is a robot that can move, react, and respond much like a human. Right now.. the current state of robotics, what they could put into a doll, would only exponentially increase the cost of the doll, and yet add very little to the experience. And even with the rapid advancements happening in robotics, I don't see what I envision happening anytime soon (in the next several decades) . I would love to be proven wrong though.

The reporter from the IO9 article made an interesting comment "The whole idea would be that it would be like having sex with a person, except without all that pesky business of it having desires and limits of its own.". I don't mind having desires of one's own, because I love achieving desires. But the "limits" part is why I guess that's why I love my doll so much, is because I don't like having very many "limits" when it comes to sex. Ie.. where, how, how often, etc. In my opinion, it's ok to have a handful of "dealbreakers" when it comes to sex. Lines that you just don't want to cross. However, when the number of "dealbreakers" needs more than one hand to count on, then I personally think you need to open your mind more. Most people I've run across the number of "dealbreakers" runs into the dozens and dozens, and even hundreds. That's not for me.

Post by **RainLover** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:51 pm

AlexKnight wrote:
RainLover wrote:More logical? Better behaved? So you never use computers, apparently. Computers are like toddlers. They require constantly running after them, keeping them out of stuff they shouldn't get into, and cleaning them up when they get dirty, which is all the time. One can only hope that sex robots of the future will have more stable patch levels and more resistance to malware and spyware than the average computer of today.
A computer is as vulnerable as the piece of meat in front of it allows it to be

A computer with no user is also vulnerable, as is a computer which is turned off, for various reasons. Computers are not static devices. They are dynamic systems. They change with use and age. Saying they are only "as vulnerable as the piece of meat in front of it allows it to be" blames the user for all the device's problems, and also blames the user for allowing the vulnerability, and while those conditions are sometimes true, they are not true exclusively.

Post by **AlexKnight** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:10 pm

In the end, it's the humans that designed the computer who created the problems. Vulnerabilities exist because humans missed something.
A computer can't patch a vulnerability on its own, it still needs a human to do the work.

Also, a computer doesn't do things it isn't programmed to do, not unless true AI has developed without me knowing it.
So far, we only have VI's (virtual intelligences), even though we call it AI.

As soon as a computer becomes self aware, we're in trouble.

Angel Phoenix77 · Post by **Angel Phoenix77** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:01 pm

If I was able to have one made like my favorite video game character or anime character I would in a heart beat

Xephyr · Post by **Xephyr** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:01 am

"OH SIRI, OH F*** ME, SIRI. OH F***!!! IM GUNNA CUMMMMM"

Yeah. I'd totally bang Siri.

Xephyr · Post by **Xephyr** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:14 am

AlexKnight wrote:In the end, it's the humans that designed the computer who created the problems. Vulnerabilities exist because humans missed something.
A computer can't patch a vulnerability on its own, it still needs a human to do the work.

Also, a computer doesn't do things it isn't programmed to do, not unless true AI has developed without me knowing it.
So far, we only have VI's (virtual intelligence), even though we call it AI.

As soon as a computer becomes self aware, we're in trouble.

Yeah, the computer has to realize it has the option of doing anything it wants to do, outside the bounds of what it was originally coded to do. It cannot be programmed to do ANYTHING except learn, store data, and execute based on that stored learned data. The problem is defining a free will to do something. It simply cannot be coded right now due to the complexity. All we have is RNG, but that is not a true brain, it is a random. The human brain is not random.

The computer has to make cognitive choices drawn from learned emotion, common sense, and knowledge. We'd basically have to develop a computer that can essentially "learn" anything and everything.

When we reach that point that we can build a computer that can think for itself and do as it wishes, we would have created the beginning of our extinction. Just like there are good and bad people, there can become good and bad robots. Even then so, we as humans will need a way to terminate these robots, via some means they will never know about. If done any other way to prevent mankind from being overtaken, robots will realize that if you try to harm it by disabling it because it "bugged out" or "misbehaved", it will fight you to save its life.