Would you let your significant other have a sexbot?

[Spectral]

I don't have to let my SO have anything, they're not mine. You can ask whether I approve or not, though.

How progressive

- - - Updated - - -

The level of sensitivity it takes to feel "emotionally abused", especially for something as inane as relationships and their dependence on intimacy, is batshit. No adult has time for that kind of stupid.

This sounds like something that a literal psychopath would say. Are you sure you're phrasing this correctly? If it is phrased correctly, your empathy levels for intimate partners are definitely unusually low.

[Mistame]

Well... aren't relationship the thing you're going to have the longest in your whole life? (so... is in some cases, more relevant than a job -They are in many cases the reason why people still have X job)

A job is more important than an intimate relationship. You can't buy food with "love". The last part sounds like something Tennisace would say. "Most successful people are married", as if marriage is the reason they're successful when more often or not, the reason they're married is because they're successful.

But if you think about it, we are nothing more than biological computers, everything we feel are nothing more than different electro-quemical processes in our minds.

Sure, if you want to argue semantics. But I specifically stated my stance was limited to living beings. The "biological computer" equivalence is irrelevant.

You're right, at least for now, but its a possibility that robots will eventually get their own "sentient", but by that time they won't be robots, they will be something else (completely different than what we have now)

Luckily I'll be long gone by then. The amount of people with the "androids are people too" mindset gives me black eyes from all the face-palming.

If it is phrased correctly, your empathy levels for intimate partners are definitely unusually low.

Empathy only has intrinsic value in valid scenarios. Leaving someone for their failure to provide an adequate amount and/or quality of intimacy is not one those scenarios where "emotional abuse" is valid or "empathy" plays a role. Certainly, one can be intentionally "emotionally abusive", but intent is the determining factor. As far as the rest goes, meh. Excessive emotional sensitivity is batshit.

[Mistame]

It did tho.

I've already explained this. Being programmed to know what it is and to "like" it is not sentience.

P.S. Forgot to mention: The doll pictured in the OP is fugly.

[Skroe]

OT just jumped the shark.

[Mistame]

Apparently you didn't do your job, suck at sex and don't know where the sweet spot is....(if you are a guy)

Or maybe their performance isn't up to snuff or they don't perform at all (though to be fair, either of those cases is justification for leaving anyhow).

[Mistame]

Honestly...I think sex is a mind thing. I need to be emotionally involved with the person I have sex with - so a sex bot won't work.

I'm sure for some people it is. But not everyone needs the emotional involvement. Many people, myself included, find the emotional aspect to be inane. At the same time, there are some people who are just bad it or their "equipment" isn't that great.

Unless it is my right hand and youporn.com...

No one knows you like you.

[Maxilian]

A job is more important than an intimate relationship. You can't buy food with "love". The last part sounds like something Tennisace would say. "Most successful people are married", as if marriage is the reason they're successful when more often or not, the reason they're married is because they're successful.

You got it all wrong, there are many people that have X job, not because they love their job or what they are doing, but because they have a family to maintain and they love them, its not always the case but it happens.

Sure, if you want to argue semantics. But I specifically stated my stance was limited to living beings. The "biological computer" equivalence is irrelevant.

I'm just saying that what you said may apply now, but in the future? we don't know, i mean... we even have a robot that looks like a Octopus and its made mostly with biological material, so you could say that that is a biological computer...

Luckily I'll be long gone by then. The amount of people with the "androids are people too" mindset gives me black eyes from all the face-palming.

Well... we don't know if they are even going to be androids, they may be something completely different and be, in the end, alive.

Empathy only has intrinsic value in valid scenarios. Leaving someone for their failure to provide an adequate amount and/or quality of intimacy is not one those scenarios where "emotional abuse" is valid or "empathy" plays a role. Certainly, one can be intentionally "emotionally abusive", but intent is the determining factor. As far as the rest goes, meh. Excessive emotional sensitivity is batshit.

Actually... no, you're wrong, not all abuse is done with intent, intent only change the form of way its is judged (and how sever it may be seen)

[Auxora]

It's kind of 2 distinct questions really at the core, and I think that throws people off. The sex part is pretty simple, since it's really just the next evolution in male or female toys that exist now that are both very very close to the real thing. They may only be the 1 sex organ, but female toys are getting nearly indistinguishable from the male organ in both look and feel, and the *****lights are incredibly similar as well in look and feel. In fact most of them are molded from porn stars. So the sex part essentially has existed for a while now, even if the rest of the body isn't attached quite yet. That's almost more out of convenience since it's far easier to stick one of those toys in a dresser to hide it, vs. a full sized sexbot sitting in a chair with a blanket over it (lol), or in luggage, etc. The kids might ask questions about the bot.

The second part is the AI and whether you consider a "relationship" with an AI bot to be cheating. AI has a long way to go to get there really before people start developing feelings towards AI. And even when it gets there, I'd think/hope most well-adjusted people would keep in mind that it's just an artificial computer program. If my significant other was truly developing feelings towards an AI robot I'd have larger concerns about their mental state I think.

[Valstorm Warsong]

Sure, as long as it doesn't produce any bodily fluids, and is just exclusively designed just for the physical parts of sex.

[Mistame]

You got it all wrong, there are many people that have X job, not because they love their job or what they are doing, but because they have a family to maintain and they love them, its not always the case but it happens.

My statement is wrong, but only because it was made to counter the absurdity that someone is successful because they're married. Being married might help them on their path to success, but there is no dependency on marriage to be successful. Nor is there a dependency on success to be married. The two are mutually exclusive.

Well... we don't know if they are even going to be androids, they may be something completely different and be, in the end, alive.

I mean, if mankind evolves into something else or a new species naturally arises, sure. I don't support the creation of a supposed "sentient" entity.

Actually... no, you're wrong, not all abuse is done with intent, intent only change the form of way its is judged (and how sever it may be seen)

Abuse is inherently intentional. If there's no intent, it's not abuse. It's no more "abuse" to inadvertently hurt someone's "feelings" than it is to accidentally knock someone down when you're not paying attention to where you're going. Don't get me wrong, it is possible to inadvertently hurt someone, emotionally as well as physically, but if you're classifying it as "abuse", you're doing it wrong.

Fair enough. But then I wouldn't need a "significant other" and this whole thread is futile

Fair point.

[Jinpachi]

Why the hostility, dude? Do what you want, and so will I.

Anyway

Kids: not gonna happen, had a vsec when I was 20

women at 65: At that age, I imagine I wont be trying to anymore. More likely getting ready to enjoy my retirement ( yay for fully matched 401K and whole market mutual funds on the side).

By "won't mean much then" , I presume you mean it wouldn't mean much to someone like yourself. I'm assuming from your post you're a marriage and family kind of person.

You know what? That's fine. To each their own. I find myself having to defend my choice to remain unmarried and childfree quite a lot. I'm not entirely sure why. It's almost as if people with families feel challenged in their beliefs on some level by someone who just laughs that stuff off. I know ( as i said before) that my parents were giving me crap for awhile about it until I told them to knock it off or I'd have to distance myself from them. I just got so tired of their preaching (metaphorical and literal).

You're contributing nothing long term to society. Probably best that way, now that i think about it. By your own admission you aren't someone to be considered for anything long term. Enjoy that 401k

[Mistame]

You're contributing nothing long term to society.

And he has no obligation to contribute anything. Life is not about what you do for everyone else. It's about you enjoying your life.

[Asiwassaying]

If I wanted a sex bot, and I was worried about my SO "ALLOWING" me to have one.

We would break up that day cause clearly that relationship is fucked beyond repair.

[jeanericuser001]

Sure why not as long as I can get one too preferably one that looks like Charlotte Mckinney. Sweet!

[Berengil]

You're contributing nothing long term to society. Probably best that way, now that i think about it. By your own admission you aren't someone to be considered for anything long term. Enjoy that 401k

I have the obligation to contribute exactly one thing to society: my taxes.

And I suppose my obedience to the law. So two things.

That's it. Otherwise, I'm only here to enjoy myself while not bothering anyone I don't have to.

[May90]

How progressive

Not sure why you are rolling eyes... You think that one's SO belongs to them?

[breadisfunny]

Only in your mind.

that is the definition of hypocritical because if your partner is not allowed to have sex toys then why should you be allowed one?

[Maxilian]

My statement is wrong, but only because it was made to counter the absurdity that someone is successful because they're married. Being married might help them on their path to success, but there is no dependency on marriage to be successful. Nor is there a dependency on success to be married. The two are mutually exclusive.

what are you talking about, i 'm not saying anything of success or anything, having a partner have nothing to do with that

I mean, if mankind evolves into something else or a new species naturally arises, sure. I don't support the creation of a supposed "sentient" entity.

Not saying that we will evolve into something else (well i guess we will eventually or die out but that's not the point), and the idea of sentient may be nothing more than a vi-product of the advance on that technology

Abuse is inherently intentional. If there's no intent, it's not abuse. It's no more "abuse" to inadvertently hurt someone's "feelings" than it is to accidentally knock someone down when you're not paying attention to where you're going. Don't get me wrong, it is possible to inadvertently hurt someone, emotionally as well as physically, but if you're classifying it as "abuse", you're doing it wrong.

There is non intentional abuse, though i'm not saying that just because you hurt someone is abuse (not all form of harm is abuse -intentional or not-)

[Deletedaccount1]

Well getting one pretty much would mean you think your partner is sexually inadequate.

Not to mention it's a pretty weird thing that I can't imagine a normal person would want.

[Kraenen]

Not sure why you are rolling eyes... You think that one's SO belongs to them?

Don't you ever listen to love songs?