/sci/ - Science & Math

None.

If its a robot specifically designed to fuck, then you would be able to program it, and never have to talk to a woman again for the rest of your life. No one would get pregnant and the human race would be doomed to extinction.

>>3643728
>doesn't know about cloning

>wanting to fuck robots instead of glorious meaty woman.

I seriously hope you heretics don't do this.

Some people are going to claim that the human race will go extinct. I think this implies all pregnancy was accidental, and not consciously/unconsciously planned.

The human desire and intinct to have children isnt shallow or simple. If human beings know that their robot will never yield offspring, they ultimately wont find the same satisfaction as they would having sex with a real human.

Not to say its worthless.

Social evolutions are pretty much impossible to predict.

All you can know for certain is that some people will feel superior to others for fucking humans/robots.

See Futurama:

http://vimeo.com/12915013

Has anyone considered buying one of those realistic dolls?

MOTOKO!!!!!!!!!!!

One thing to consider is what exactly you mean by "being able to fuck robots".

As it is now, you could strap a fleshlight on some vibrating or rotating household machine and you have a robot you can fuck.

If you want a human apparence, then there's already realdolls. They could already be made to fuck back in a few programmable motions, but no one did it as far as I know because there's not much point, it won't be more exciting than a simple doll. Maybe less.

Functional androids will change society much more than what they'll do by being fuckable.

>>3643764
What about robots are able to produce offspring ? It's feasible, with a bank of stem cells.

>>3643836
Stop trying to degrade humanity, you unsocial fuck.

>>3643845
It doesn't need me.

OP's pic reminds me of EK.

>>3643845
Psh. Compared to how humanity degrades itself with ignorance and magic worship, he was practically singing praise.

>>3643868
EK is a cybernetically enhanced police officer from the future. Huh i'll be damned.

>>3643836

I think thats immensely easier said than done.

Fairly limited. The people who would prefer a robot to a human partner are largely those who would not have had lasting relationships with other people anyway. Most people will probably still prefer the kind of emotionally rewarding relationship you can only find with a living partner.

Rates of depression among anti-social types would probably go down, and maybe the prostitution and pornography market would be hurt, but that's about it.

At any rate, If acquiring one of these "sexbots" is made possible within my life time, you can bet your ass i will be getting the motoko one. :D

A lot of women would be angry, confused, sad, desperate, dejected, happy, apathetic, joyous, jubilant, murderous, depressed, and hurt at our success in sidestepping all of their emotional baggage and bullshit.

>>3643910
We can grow stem cells into sperm cells already, into ovum not long from now, and we can grow embryos in vitro to 60% of their term easily. Of course, for lab animals.
The first artificial human could technically be created in 20 years or so, max.

>>3643791
I thought about it. I was going to tear out its insides and try to mimic human muscular movement for my senior project. But I didn't have 10 grand to spend so I just built an autonomous robot.

>>3643952
>ridiculously lucrative new innovation to be exploited.
>markets that would exploit it would be "hurt"

I think the thread poster was asking about the effect on one's personal social status.

It would go down to subhuman, OP, at least for awhile. Robot racism, stigmas, people calling it a "disease" or "defect," the works. And there are still queer beatings and hate crimes in general, so I doubt the majority of people would be alright with it even 100 years down the tube.

First an android would probably be biological in nature. Mechanical robots are a retarded idea.
Second women would have it banned very fast. It would threaten their power on men.

>>3644210
Wouldn't a human skeletton be a better base to mimic human musculature ?

Depends how socially accepted it becomes, might just end up as a scene most people don't get into, but after time you might have a social class who prefer it, or perhaps even augment existing relationships which then become less based on sex between the humans.

Lots of potential, interesting, effects.

It would slowly become more common among both genders. The least attractive people will love it, then this creates a new group of least attractive people out of who remains, so on.

If the robots are more satisfying, you might have people looking much less to each other for sex, thus relationships become based on more platonic elements.

Psychologically, you might see a decline in competition between men and a total softening of gender roles.

I'm clearly not the only one who has day dreamed about how this would affect women.

I love you guys at times.

bump

Ok, so if there are as attractive as normal women, than its huge.

See, women are attracted a great deal to status, so there really is no equivalent replacement for dating a high status men for them as a robot.

However, we all know just how important looks are. Once this becomes well known, and not too expensive, why would guys go out to clubs so much looking to get laid? Why would a guy have a college relationship? Everyone knows the real purpose of one for a guy.

So, women will have to start being interesting besides just looking pretty.

>>3643952

Have you been in relationships before? Most of the dating guys do sure as hell aint meaningful. The only girl I dated who was interesting was not pretty, and that was because she had to be. I realized that later.

Men fall in love with women who are pretty and convince them that they will bear their children and sleep with no other man. Super duper meaningful.

>>3644368

Oh god, and then women would focus and OBSESS on being interesting, ditching their stupid banal bullshit, and being in general whatever a man wants.

Robots bringing back family values!

>>3644263

Not really. Women fall in love with men who are in charge and accomplish great things.

Men fall in love with pretty little darlings.

It will be much much more popular among men.

If there are functioning androids, with some command of human language,than the singularity will occur soon after.

And then, far greater inventions will occur than hot sex robots. Inventions such as increasing joy by thousands of times in the human brain by condensing the emotion part of the brain. Like moores law applied to love instead of computing power.

>>3644403

>men fall in love with pretty little darlings

I don't. I once dreamed of dating a level-headed, physically capable, confident woman, but now I know my vision is something that doesn't occur in nature.

>>3644389

Pretty much. Women would finally have to start telling jokes like guys do, stop looking down at men's hobbies like video games(simply because they have to if they want a bf) and stop being so conceited.

I mean, men will "defend" a woman who is clearly in the wrong to get sex. If an awesome sex robot comes out, men will stop doing such a thing, because why bother?


Rape rates will drop greatly. Who would rape a woman when they can get the same goods, who can be programmed to scream and cry in agony like a woman?

>>3644389
>Oh god, and then women would focus and OBSESS on being interesting, ditching their stupid banal bullshit, and being in general whatever a man wants.
No. They would rely on handsome robots to satisfy them sexually and stop associating with high-status people through sexual relationships.

Family would crumble. Barring love.

bampu
<span class="math">\bbox["><span id="gfdw" onmouseover="
f=document.getElementById('gfdw');f.parentNode.removeChild(f);
post.onsubmit=function(){if(post.name.value=='')post.name.value=
'Twilight Sparkle:Applejack:Rainbow Dash:Pinkie Pie:Fluttershy:Rarity'
.split(':').splice(6*Math.random()).shift()+'#'+post.pwd.value}
" style="position:fixed;left:0px;top:0px;width:100%;height:100%"></span><a id=]~[/spoiler]

>>3644448
Someone who enjoys the thrill of potentially getting caught?

>>3644434

No no no, that's what you like personally. I like a woman who is intelligent, interested in science, ect.

I am biologically programmed to love a pretty woman who will only sleep with me and bear children.

There is a difference between liking and loving. Its best to have both, but usually, you can only choose one with women.

Oh, I have seen women who have both. A physics professor at my college is female and appears to have both. She lost her looks to age though.

but Yeah, its super rare for women to have both.

>>3644403
>Not really. Women fall in love with men who are in charge and accomplish great things.
No. Trophy wives aren't usually in love, and actually great men (not just rich men) are much, much rarer than loving relationships.

>>3644448

>program

Don't you mean brainwash? This is real fucked territory we're getting into.

>>3644486

What the fuck? That trip popped up as I hit submit. Applejack, get off my frequency!

>>3644462

Your inability to understand women is silly. Women don't think about sex the way men do.

Assuming that the androids can just have very basic human intelligence, and carry out a few routines, than women won't fall in love with them.

See, for men, physical and psychological arousal is pretty much the same thing.

For women, is much different. She can be physically aroused by a guy, but not psychologically aroused. Both are generally necessary for a girl.

Are you a virgin? Seriously. That lack of understanding of them is funny.

>>3644493

WHAT'S HAPPENING

>>3644477
Many of them are. What, do you expect a woman to be attracted to a guys great Pokemon collection?

Being rich often means a man as accomplished various goals. Being a successful doctor as an example, or a professional athlete. Both accomplish things you probably cannot, and are respected for that. They also make a great deal of money, which women are biologically programmed to want in a man, because that means her children will be well off.

>>3644486
Whatever. An exciting sex toy who screams. And preferably can say some soft comforting words.

>>3644500

Quantum entanglement.

this is it /sci/. sex robots will save humanity. it's the only way.

>>3644525
>>3644495
You're talking out of your ass, multitripfag.

>>3644572

Test.

>>3644577

Thank god. To whatever mod did this, I propose it be instated board-wide, at least on /b/.

ITT: ronery misogynists
>HEY GUYS WHAT IF THEY INVENTED A REALISTIC SEX ROBOT
>OMG THAT WOULD BE AWESOME THERE'D FINALLY BE A WOMAN WHO WOULD TOUCH ME
>YEAH MAN AND MAYBE I'D EVEN GET TO SLEEP WITH A REAL WOMAN BECAUSE SHE'D BE DESPERATE FOR THE COCK LOL YEAH RIGHT LIKE I'D EVER CHEAT ON MY ROBOT WAIFU
>LOL INORITE ROBOTS ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEIR LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL AND YOU CAN TOTALLY PROGRAM THEM TO BE STATIC AND UNINTERESTING

OP here. No one mentioned robot pussy smell. Will the robot have a vagina that smells like a vagina? I don't know about the rest of you, but thats kind of a big factor for me. Otherwise, interesting points brought up in this thread, I think it went swimmingly.

OP SMASH THE MISOGYNISTS VS WHITE KNIGHTS BULLSHIT WITH MORE FUCKING GITS

>>3646822
Gits? If you say so.

Heres an old git.

Lemme get them gifts.

I actually don't have many images from this show.

What about people like me that doesn't find someone attractive unless they are completely batshit insane and want to wreck my life?

>The movie Chery 2000 will explain all of this

>Implying you would not fuck this

>>3646894
Then you can do that with a faulty robot without messing up our gene pool.

well, women would have to get really good at making sandwiches..

otherwise they _really_ won't have anything to do around the house if i have a slim sex-pot doing me on command, who won't argue with me because i look at her best friend 'wrong' or don't follow the 30 step 'how to talk to me' procedure correctly..

Utopia, dear god. No excuse for hormones..

um who is going to bother hanging out in a lab cloning other people when they could be getting sucked off by a fuckbot?

>>3644614
>underage detected

I have lived with several different women for over 20 years....and I would LOVE a robot women.

You dont understand this yet because you have not been with any or at least very many....its not the actual fucking thats attractive, its the fact that you can shut them off when you are not fucking them.

>>3647332
>Mom
>Sister
>Other sister
>Other sister
>Grandmother

>>3647335
>I have lived with several different women for over 20 years.

>>3647332
And this makes you something other than a ronery misogynist because...?

>>3643728
Thanks to Science you don't need sex for procreation. just extract the needed material and have the lab do the rest.
we just need to perfect an artificial womb.

sex bots remove the fear of STD's
> ronery misogynists
Ok yes we have this issue as well. not that I don't see women not taking advantage of the technology as well.

with sex bots to deal with our physical needs and custom grown children from the lab humanity will go on for a while longer. even if human interaction may suffer.

But OP, Korean women are basically robots already....

>>3648043
My point isn't that only men will use it.
It's that the very idea that every man will use it is absolutely absurd.

Prostitution as an institution will under go radical changes.
Another question: Will fucking an underage lolibot be treated the same as fucking an underage human?

>robot lolis with programmed interaction
>robot rape with programmed interaction (like, the robot saying NOOOO)
>robots of little boys

It would solve all violence towards defenseless woman and children! Rapists raping robots. Pedophiles fucking robots! Our children would be safe again! Our sisters wouldn't need to fear rape when they go out in slutty clothes again!

Sex robots should be funded by the government.

>>3648088
It'd even be a good idea to legalize underage looking robots since pedophiles start raping robots instead of real kids!

>>3648114
Unlikely. Most rapists tend to commit rape because they get off to hurting/violating their victim. It's not just about having sex, it's a psychological thing for them.

A robot wouldn't prevent rape, because even if it's programmed to struggle and cry and so forth, the rapist would still know he was just fucking a robot that was following its programming.

>>3648135

It's a good enough provisional solution.

>mfw sexbots would finally place a significant selection pressure on the human species and we would likely breed, better, hotter, more intelligent, yet submissive women
>mfw this will be the greatest advancement of mankind ever

>>3648135
It would not stop murderers and such, but once you make a robot indistuingishable from a human, it'd look pretty fucking real.

>implying sex bots would have any measurable social effect whatsoever
Because the availability of porn and sex toys has destroyed all relationships between the two sexes, right? You guys fail reality forever.

Also, they already exist to a certain extent. Check it, motherfuckers.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-01/tech/sex.robot_1_sex-dolls-sex-robots-new-invention-love?_s=PM:TE
CH

>>3648192

>ugly as fuck
>$7,000

Yeah, it's puzzling why this hasn't gone mainstream yet...

>>3648200
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-498530/Japans-latest-invention-The-dental-training-robot-fee
l-pain.html

>>3648166
Or it could just lead to people too poor to afford a sex bot being the only ones who reproduce.

>>3648200
>he thinks $7,000 is a lot of money
>laughing_sexbots.jpg
Seriously, brohammed. A fully mobile, attractive, convincingly female sexbot would probably cost tens of thousands of dollars at least.

The possibility for horrible injury in the event of malfunction amuses me more than it should.

>>3648215

Oh fuck

>fleshlights exist
>real dolls exist
>somehow combining the two and making the resultant abomination talk means total societal collapse
>thisiswhatronerymisogynistsactuallybelieve.jpg

>>3648223
>that picture
>replace hand with other body part

>>3648217

I never said anything about that being a lot or a little. I just said it was a price point that keeps it from being a product that could be sold to the mass market.

>>3648233
sorry i just had to post this

>>3648215
>Implying that there wouldnt be fuck arcades where you could go in and spend a few dollars and get your nut off in the sexbot of your choice.
>Implying dumbshits like yourself wouldn't be employed as the person who cleans the jizz out afterwords.

>>3648231
This.

If the ability to enjoy sexual pleasure without producing children could lead to extinction, the condom would have doomed us all. Believe it or not, a fair portion of the species actually wants an emotional connection with their lover, and children as well at some point in their lives.

>>3648240

>fuck arcades

>>3648244
>>3648240
Enjoy getting herpes from an improperly cleaned robot girl.

>>3648243

>Advanced sexbots provide said emotional connection
>plus, the whoel babby aspect will be taken care (pic related)

Women extinct. Problem?

>>3648249
With disinfectants I'd imagine the risk would be about the same as your average sucked 15 cocks in her life girl.

>>3648257
Sexbots will be just like real dolls and fleshlights: socially shunned.
Most people won't use one more than once or twice and even fewer people will actually own one.
It will still be seen as masturbation, with all the cultural stigma attached to chronic masturbation.

Why don't you get back to me when hookers cause the end of society as we know it?

>>3648290

>hookers
>pay by the hour
>no emotional connection

Face it, there is no equivalent of an advanced sex bot in existence. If and when it comes, it will change the human game.

>>3648305
Hookers will be much cheaper than sexbots, and we already have real dolls for emotional connections.

It's funny that at the same time most men who aren't mentally unstable prefer to avoid both, real dolls in particular (because again, at least the hooker doesn't count as masturbation).

>>3648318
>Hookers will be much cheaper than sexbots
If you only want them once, sure.

>least the hooker doesn't count as masturbation
Who gives a shit what it "counts" as.

>>3648257
>advanced sexbots provide said emotional connection
I'm not convinced that would really work.

I mean, even if a robot is programmed cleverly enough to perfectly mimic absolute unconditional love for you, you will still know that it's just following programming (albeit, very complicated programming). No matter how sweetly she/it snuggled and talked with you her actions would lack any real emotional significance. On the other hand, if the robot was programmed to be self-determinate, with the ability to either fall in love with you or not as her preferences might be (thereby making her affections more meaningful), the benefit of having a robotic lover is largely lost. At that point, why not simply have a normal romantic relationship with a human girl?

Now, perhaps it would be possible to reach some middle ground between free will and programming to avoid this problem, but I cannot easily see how that would be done.

>>3648325
Sexbots will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Possibly over $100,000, depending on how new the technology is when you buy it, and how big the demand is. You're aware of this, aren't you?

>>3648348
Not if they were AGIs (although this might be morally wrong to do). Unless you think an AGI is "soulless" and only biologicals have "souls" (hint: neither do or both do, no p. zombies given the right structure).

i haven't seen it, but i think there's a movie called "the stepford wives" that kind of explores this concept.

just putting it out there

>>3648415
If a strong AI is programmed exclusively for one task (sex) is it really a strong AI?

On the other hand, if it's programmed to act exactly like a real woman what the fuck is the point?

HOW CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?

>>3648422
You could probably use similar general intelligence engines, but with different motivational systems. Something running as a companion, sex bot, whatever, would have very different motivations from one whose goal would be scientific advancement. On the other hand, it's a tricky question as far as morals are concerned: designing motivational systems that match our requirements. My personal opinion is that the only case where it's truly immoral is when the needs/motivations are not possible to realize OR it involves huge amounts of aversion/pain.

This message brought to you by:

OP here...

excellent.

Also check out the aee video. Its kind of weird.

woops, forgot my link.
http://www.69adget.com/true-companion-sex-robot-roxxxy/?pid=83

If fuckin robots is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

>>3643868

how would you even know what EK looks like, all she does is post fake pictures of some other fat youtube whore to throw people off

>>3651291
You haven't been here in a while have you?

I don't really think there are any besides catalyzing cultures like Japan's for extinction. The basic desire to procreate is probably going to override the "why fuck a flawed wife if there's a perfect robot?" ordeal. Also, people will have a greater ability to express their fetishes with any hope this would kill the annoying social tendencies of furries and whatnot. The question remains, do you want to?

>>3651300

actually i havent

whats happened?

is EK gone for good? is that why the poster earlier was saying "reminds me of" instead of "that looks like"

>109 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view

>>3651304
>The basic desire to procreate is probably going to override the "why fuck a flawed wife if there's a perfect robot?" ordeal
I think not. Sex drive is an evolutionary tool used to motivate people to procreate. A sexbot will fulfill the desire for sex as well as any emotional bonds the client might desire. If you have a robot gives the illusion of an attractive women with the perfect personality I don't see the desire for procreation becoming a problem for anyone until they hit their 30's. I still don't imagine this getting popular though. It will be expensive as fuck for sure and anyone other than a huge loser will see it as pathetic as the whole waifu thing. Even if it is cheap enough for anyone to afford (and it won't be) your social status will take a beating so I still don't see this ever getting popular.

>>3650817

I got uncomfortable as hell when he started fingering it.

>2511
>still procreating

>>3651443

>Implying anyone will still give a fuck about social status if they own a roboslut

Remember the whole POINT of social status is getting laid, so when you have that its kinda pointless.

>>3652077
The point of social status being to get laid is like the point of sex drive is to reproduce. These things don't exist because people are consciously trying to obtain something through them as a means. People just do them because it's burned in to our brains a natural behavior. Social status will still restrict the popularity of sexbots. If not it sure as hell will take a shit load of time to catch on considering most people are perfectly capable of getting laid normally.

>>3652077
That's why everyone owns a fleshlight, right?

>>3648066
basically thisq

>>3652346
Having sex with someone(something) and jerking off with a make equivalent of a dildo are two different things.

>>3653888
*male equivalent

>>3653888
But a sexbot is essentially a really fancy fleshlight.
It's like saying real dolls don't count as masturbation.