For the “perfect sex toy” to be sufficient for me, it would also have to be capable of bearing and raising children. But if we’re going down that route, it’s a lot easier to have a partner who’s a human, not a “toy”. And if “toys” were so advanced that they could do all the things a human does, what’s to say they’re not human?
(the scare quotes around “toy” are there because any entity I found to be a satisfactory partner would be an entity which should not be considered a mere toy, but afforded respect and consideration)
I already have the ultimate sex toy. It vibrates and rotates and has 18 speed settings and an LED screen, among other things. If all I wanted was an incredible orgasm this particular toy will provide that. It does incredibly amazing things and makes you wonder how people functioned before batteries.
I haven’t taken it out of the box since the day I met my SO. Not only does he provide me with orgasms but he provides me with all of the emotional stuff as well. He looks in my eyes and tells me he loves me and he thinks I am fucking sexy. My ultimate sex toy, no matter how ultimate, can’t do either of those things. It would never provide the emotional side of sex and love no matter what celebrity face was plastered on it. A toy can’t love me and will never be a substitute for a human being who can. Even if you had a totally human android that could be programmed to express those emotions it wouldn’t mean anything because the android had no choice in the matter. I don’t want someone who loves me because they have no choice but to stay, I want someone who chooses to stay because they love me.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, although I’d substitute “Keira Knightley” for "John Krasinski, "whoever the hell he is.
Yet again, though, for what I suspect is a significant portion of humanity, I must quote Dennis Miller: “When Joe Sixpack can make love to Claudia Schiffer whenever he wants through the magic of virtual reality, it’s going to make crack look like Sanka.”
This question just does not make sense at all. A question that would actually be analogous to the situation would be, “If you had the ultimate sex toy, would you want a prostitute?” because that’s what prostitutes are for. They are essentially hired to be elaborate, human sex toys. And then you’d have a point, since I don’t see why anyone would want a prostitute if this ultimate sex toy were available.
I don’t know about you, though, but I think for most people, that’s not what significant others are for. If people just wanted to go out and randomly have sex, they would have a pretty easy time of it. People want an intimate bond of friendship that you can’t get from an android (okay, unless you made it identical to a human, and then the question is pointless). The sex is a secondary (or not present) thing, which is why “significant other” is not a synonym for “acquaintance-with-benefits”, at least for most people.
That’s it. I imagine the people who’d prefer this over the rel thing are the type who see sex as masturbating into an orifice rather than a give and take. And as I said, I don’t see the harm in letting them stay in their basements screwing robots. Though it may get a bit awkward at office parties or family reunions when they explain (or avoid) their particular set-up…
Is this device going to provide conversation while enjoying a good dinner? Will it marvel at the Grand Canyon or jump up and cheer when our team scores a touchdown?
That is sort of what I was thinking! If by ultimate you mean it can hold a job, help support my son and I, as well as do some chores around the house, well then I wouldn’t need the hubby would I!
As the old joke goes… A skanky-looking prostitute sidles up to a guy at a bar and says, “I’ll do anything you want for $50!” He hands her the money and says, “Paint my house.”
I get off sexually on giving as much as receiving. Giving to a machine would be empty and meaningless, so it could never satisfy me completely. I wouldn’t mind keeping one of these toys around for masturbatory purposes though.
However, such a device if marketed correctly could actually improve the status of relationships greatly. Men and women who are just looking for a sex partner might well stay home, and it would be a wonderful tool for those who are not the smoothest of people. Given that your sexual needs could be fulfilled completely at any given time, it would mean that my actual relationships would be much deeper knowing that I maintain them without being clouded by the sexual element.
I could see a huge market for these. An undoubtedly, there would be people on the line that would “settle” for such a device as opposed to putting the effort into finding a significant other. I might even have one in my closet. But when it comes down to it, I’d much rather have an SO.
There’s something very passion enducing about winning over the girl. Would sports fisherman go fishing if a fish bit as soon as they threw the line in the water…every time? The thrill is in knowing that what you’re doing is working. It’s the thrill of the chase. I’ve actually lost interest in girls who succumbed to my advances too easily, figuring they were either desperate and clingy or loose.
I’d also like to think that my significant other was reciprocating the feelings I had for her. A very part of loving is being loved back. This can not by synthesized.
So, yes, I would want a significant other. I would make good use of the toy inbetween relationships, though
The corollary question is, if you had a significant other, would you be O.K. with them having/using the Ultimate Sex Toy[sup]TM[/sup]? Guys, what if your wife had a Brad Pitt clone waiting in the closet for her? Ladies, what about Scarlett Johanssen perpetually standing in the corner of the bedroom?
I think people might get used to it - after all, playing with sex toys is as fun for two people as it is for one - but some will be put off by that and wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with a person who had the UST[sup]TM[/sup].
A robot virtually indistinguishable from a real person could not be a replacement for sex with a real person any more than masturbation can be a replacement for sex. Unless you’re positing an incredibly advanced AI that is basically sentient — in which case the machine should be considered to have the rights of a real person and cannot be considered a “sex toy” anymore — then there’s no comparison.
Women might have fun romping with Gigolo Joe, and men might use something like Lenore for a pronging, but the majority of men and women are not going to be satisfied with something that’s essentially high-tech masturbation.
I’m not going to get all mystical and say that there’s an indefinable “something” that would be missing. It’s actually quite definable. Human relationships are based on conflict and cooperation. Both of those are missing if you’re actually in control. Part of what makes relationships worth having is that you constantly have to adjust to the other person. We’re social animals and we want those semi-chaotic interactions with other hairless apes. Even most of the people who don’t “get” social behavior know what they’re missing, and wish they could understand it better.
Evil Captor, given what I know about your particular kinks, would you enjoy having a perfect slave? What’s the point in bondage or domination if training is a sham, she’s already bound by her programming, and there’s no will for you to dominate? Sure, you could stipulate that she put up a nice struggle or pretend to submit after a suitable time, but there’s no actual challenge, and that greatly diminishes the reward.
