Can't call them prostitutes

[Plane]

http://start.toshiba.com/news/recommended/read.php?vaid=108900b7122173d3c4d39331d536ded7


Prostitute literally means useing something contrary to its proper use for profit.

What if they are built for it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They could be called sex robots. I imagine that they would be designed to be far more diverse in their capabilities than human beings, since they would have to start off by competing with them. As a result, they would eventually change the expectations of recreational sex that people have traditionally had, and would be safer sex, since clearly the owner/operator could be sued for injuries or diseases contracted from them, as humans cannot be. They could easily be made to flex and bend in ways that humans cannot, and one could write several volumes more to the Kama Sutra to show all the new positions.

Like birth control pills, it will change the nature of recreational sex for everyone.

The Holy Mother Church would clearly oppose sex robots, because of the sin of Onanism and such, but just as most people ignore the Church on BC pills, they will ignore the Church on this.

[Plane]

Good or bad that they can't say no?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They would surely be programmed to say no if it were absolutely necessary. But most likely they would be programmed to do something more fun than what was proposed.

Anyone can be a prostitute, just like anyone can sort of cook.

Most are not worth bothering with, even without the threat of nasty infections.

But just as there are a few gourmet cooks, there are a few gourmet sex workers. A robo sex worker would ideally be programmed to outperform any common hooker, and would be programmed with the lore and all the tricks of the trade.

[Plane]

So you think this is a positive development ?


I have a qualm.

People get trained , if it really is possible to make robots very satisfying , and this satisfaction is availible at reasonable cost , will people still want people?

Right now a man needs to learn to be at least a little accomadating to women , how many would just rather pay the rent on an entertainment machine?

I suppose women can rent a robot too.
Companionship?

There will be an app for that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suppose it could easily be a positive thing.  People who now get married for poon will invest in a robo sex android, and will have no children. Only people who want children will have them.

There are way too many people for this planet to support sustainably as it is.

I am sure that there could be some disadvantages as well.

People who need just companionship can get a dog, a cat or a ferret, depending. Perhaps there will be companion robots as well.

[kimba1]

People get trained , if it really is possible to make robots very satisfying , and this satisfaction is availible at reasonable cost , will people still want people?

Right now a man needs to learn to be at least a little accomadating to women , how many would just rather pay the rent on an entertainment machine?

-----------------------------------------

LOL

I believe this was also the feminist arguement about pornography, but they unwittingly stated real women can`t compete with porn portrayal of women. it`s abit of a catch 22. complaint about mens behaivour but still want thier attention. but it`ll be years before a sexbot would be available. machines are just not that durable. those japanese fembots lose thier looks after a few years so we don`t even have the materials developed yet to make them work right. those real dolls cost thousands of dollars and they wearout real fast. i learn that from howard stern a former owner of one. but the bigger threat for mens attention is actually the internet . I`ve read studies that men who are heavy netsurfers has lesser sexdrive due too much attention to the net. it`s true I know way too many guys who vacation and spend most of it on the hotel wifi.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Durability and cost always improve as demand and research into how to improve any mechanical product progress. Those who oppose porn claim that it degrades women, but it degrades men in the same way, and the people degraded are the actors themselves, who are quite willing to put up with a bit of degrading in return for money and perhaps fame or noteriaty,in the same way that the people appearing on Maury Povich and Judge Judy are willing to put up with looking like fools and imbeciles.

As I said, this clearly has its pluses and minuses, and seems to me to be inevitable. 

[Plane]

Pavolove?

    People are just as trainable as Pavlov's dogs ever were, we could learn to get turned on by Alodined Aluminum, stainless steel and bright paint, sports car enthusiasts are halfway there.
    So we learn to turn on for the high tech and there is a new normal.
    What will society be like if most men do not even try to mate with a woman?
     There is half the reason to be social gone. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot

Fry downloads the personality of Lucy Liu into a blank robot, which begins projecting an image of her.
 
Fry and the Lucy Liu robot begin dating, aided by her being programmed to like Fry. The other Planet Express employees, concerned about his relationship, show him the standard middle-school film (similar to Boys Beware) that predicts the destruction of civilization if humans date robots. Unfortunately, Fry ignores the movie and keeps making out with his Lucy Liubot.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I tried to post and got a"forbidden" message.

[kimba1]

It'll likely messup the genepool even more. The more economically disavantage will keepon muliplying and the richer folks will keeping using the sexbot. Remember it's not just genetics but upbringing. People with no ability to be a productive member society like living on SSI and welfare will teach those valuable skills to thier kids. While the richer more responsible perverts will dwindle as time goes on

[Plane]

That presumes that wealth is connected to productivity , and that a desire to procreate is not.

Don't the wealthy have large familys too?

Seems to me as if it is the middle class that Europe and North America are loosing to a low reproduction .

[kimba1]

Sort of
It takes time to produce a child and raise a child . Being employed cuts alot of mating/dating time. So people who working tend to not have large broods. I don't recall too many large wealthy families but i would imagine more than the middleclass. The non-working class woud have the maximum production and don't even have to raise them.

I went to school with somebody who never had a job and had at least four that he's sure is his. Likely more. Born on governme nt assistance and will die on it. He would literally die if cut off . Not kidding.