The OP article mentions a male doll by the name of Rocky and RealDoll has their own version as well. There’s no sales numbers to know how many have been purchased or the gender of the buyers.
We all seem to be in general agreement that people buying realistic sex dolls at the very least are socially challenged but whatever, let them get their jollies where they can. What about the ones that want Lolita or something modeled younger? Not technically illegal because no actual children are involved. There is also the argument that by allowing them a doll to alleviate their desires can help keep real children safe. And the counter-argument that it would increase the likelihood that they would prey on a real child when the doll no longer satisfies. Or how about the bestiality group? Men and women with labrador or stallion fetishes?
You might be right, I certainly don’t have any data on this and I only skimmed the paper. But which gender the sexbots mimic or are used by is really immaterial. People of all types are capable of dehumanizing large groups of people, especially those who provide sex.
I think realistic ones could be very dangerous, but I can’t quite verbalize why - too early, and too little coffee.
Ah yes, Resusci Anne. I think the idea is to make her as realistic as possible, but certainly without being sexual in any way - no nipples, for a start (yes, I checked! ). One trainer I had said she was female so that people could get over the idea of having to get right between boobies when doing CPR - I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it does make some kind of sense.
I had a typo. an extra O. robotshop dot com is one of the biggest internet retailers. They have just about any robotics or UAV gear a hobbyist could want. I bought a couple robot kits as Christmas presents last year.
the one thing they don’t sell is anything for sex bots. I guess to keep the site family friendly.
How about - a sexbot will only become a true object of lust for more than a tiny number of fetishists when it is realistic enough, in look and also in acts, to successfully imitate a human and so avoid the instictive “uncanny valley” revulsion towards the almost-human.
However, part of being able to pass for human is to pass the Turing test - meaning such a bot would be able to learn and adapt.
Therefore, a sexbot truly capable of successfully imitating a human would also, presumably, be capable of resenting being a sexbot … !
Well yes, if the AI gets to the point of emergent consciousness, wouldn’t “it” become “s/he” and gain autonomous agency?
Before that point, you are right, it will be just a very very fancy sexdoll, for a small core of fetishists who actually dig “I-am-programmed-to-obey-my-huge-penised-master” type reactions. The usual “slave/master” fetishists IRL get off on that the “slave” is *consciously accepting *his/her role.
No, no. Nine inches down her throat. Didn’t you ever see that 1970s documentary?
John D. MacDonald makes passing reference to Japanese inflatables with voiceboxes and vibrators ca 1972, popular with sailors, and the mildly unPC/racist comment “Ah… crever people.” He’d be so thrilled with RealDolls and their descendants.
In the novel 2001, Clarke mentions mechanical sex-relief devices in the infirmary, assuming such relief would be needed by long-term astronauts, but that the crew rarely used them. I have heard that the devices appear - completely unremarked - in the film but I’ve never been able to spot anything that might represent this in-joke.
Yeah really, come on we did not get our jetpacks, our flying cars, our orbital Hiltons or our PanAm flights to the Moon. Not even our death rays (at least not in a convenient CCW format). Leave us something to hope for!
). One trainer I had said she was female so that people could get over the idea of having to get right between boobies when doing CPR - I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it does make some kind of sense.