May 08, 2012
Robot-human marriage is in our future
Daniel H. Wilson in Slate:
It’s hard to think of a more attention-grabbing title than “Robots, Men, and Sex Tourism”—especially in the academic world.
Written by researchers from New Zealand’s University of Wellington and published recently in the journal Futures, the paper predicts that in the decades to come, humans will patronize robot-staffed brothels, freeing them from the guilt associated with visiting a flesh-and-blood prostitute. Perhaps predictably, it sparked a lively conversation about whether the sex industry could be automated—and not a little squeamishness about the whole idea of robot-human relations.
That at least some of us will be having sexual intercourse with robots in the future should be obvious by now. Somebody out there will make love to just about any consumer good that enters the home (and if that’s not the first rule of product design, it should be).
But will our robot-human relations be relegated to the bedroom, or will love enter the equation, too? Is our society headed in a direction that will support this transition? Looking at current trends, I’d say that the answer is a resounding yes.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:46 AM | Permalink






















Comments
For the men who treat women like 'bots already, this will be a very smooth transition. For the women who are "in a relationship" but feeling like they are in it all by themselves, the thought of being with a genuine, unpretentious and straightforward 'bot, instead, might make them get a poodle.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 8, 2012 10:32:24 AM
It will not matter. On 17 August, 2027, Skynet becomes self aware.
(It was rescheduled, sorry for the delay)
;-)
Posted by: Bill | May 8, 2012 10:53:58 AM
This is utterly idiotic. Men visit prostitutes for a little commitment free human interaction. Prostitutes have been making this point for decades, that men are lonely and the service they offer is often more companionship than sex (ok, with sex on the side).
Give you a counter example. How many brothels are there in the world which offer sex dolls?
None.
If robot sex was a starter, we'd already have a version of it with plastic dolls. We don't.
The paper is wrong.
Posted by: JM | May 8, 2012 11:07:29 AM
Just another step in the dehumanization of human relationships (tweets instead of softball games, texts instead of lunching).
Posted by: Shelley | May 8, 2012 11:37:32 AM
It's an anti-natalist's wet dream.
Posted by: reader | May 8, 2012 11:55:13 AM
Am I the only one who immediately thought of Summer Glau as Cameron in the Terminator series and Tricia Helfer as Six in Battlestar Galactica?
Posted by: Kent | May 8, 2012 12:27:18 PM
reader, that's gorgeous.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 8, 2012 12:28:28 PM
How is this different from beastality?
Posted by: Raza | May 8, 2012 1:16:24 PM
I'm finding it hard to understand, except in the sense that people have visceral reactions, what's interesting here. If these are dumb robots, it's the morally unproblematic actual scenario of screwing a pumpkin or using a dildo. If they're smart robots, this is the morally unproblematic scifi scenario of sex with aliens. Is the worry the intermediate cases?
Posted by: prasad | May 8, 2012 1:27:36 PM
The idea of visiting an establishment to rent out a used sex toy doesn't seem very appealing, especially as silicone cannot be properly sterilised. I'm sure folks will continue to spend large sums on their very own next-generation RealDolls, however.
Posted by: Sagredo | May 8, 2012 1:47:00 PM
If the robots have been programmed to consent, how is that different from say drug rape?
Posted by: Raza | May 8, 2012 3:10:10 PM
"If the robots have been programmed to consent, how is that different from say drug rape?"
To what extent have we been "programmed to consent"?
Posted by: DAS | May 8, 2012 5:36:21 PM
Programmed consent would be the robot's natural attitude; only a hack by a new user would be equivalent to a date rape drug.
Anyone who enjoys this kind of speculation, check out the works of the late S. Lem!
Posted by: Klausi | May 8, 2012 6:00:24 PM
I am ashamed to be a 3QD reader. All of this is unnatural, immoral, sick, and depraved.
However, if we are talking about Tricia Helfer as Six in Battlestar Galactica. well,...
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 8, 2012 9:15:51 PM
This subject was covered on a recent episode of "House." Season 8, Episode 17 - "We Need the Eggs."
http://www.hulu.com/watch/350948/house-we-need-the-eggs#s-p1-so-i0
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 8, 2012 9:29:39 PM
Prasad: Your examples pass the consistency test, but two nonsenses don't necessarily make sense.
Posted by: Raza | May 8, 2012 9:50:36 PM
Sex is evolution in slow motion and the pleasure part is the enabling means not the end. We have got it backwards what with sex robots and "the case against kids". Being liberal and open minded does not mean one has to be ridiculous as well.
Posted by: Raza | May 8, 2012 9:58:09 PM
Prasad: Your examples pass the consistency test, but two nonsenses don't necessarily make sense.
Are you saying that you think prasad's examples are not just viscerally gross but actually morally wrong? In the first case--a basically mindless robot that has a realistically human appearance--it's difficult to see why this would be any more immoral than any other sex toy used for self-pleasuring. If you think it is immoral (but don't think all forms of masturbation are similarly immoral) can you explain why?
Posted by: Jesse M. | May 9, 2012 12:55:59 AM
Jesse M: Please see my other comment (just before yours). It is not a question of being viscerally gross or morally wrong but whether it is sensible just as if addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex is sensible.
Posted by: Raza | May 9, 2012 3:37:21 AM
Until a robot becomes sentient, it really isn't any different than sticking your dick in a vacuum-cleaner. If robots become sentient, we'll have bigger problems than the ethics of screwing them.
And meanwhile, SF authors have been discussing these issues for over half a century, so we could try going back to the classics, rather than imagining we're inventing a new wheel here.
Posted by: dave | May 9, 2012 5:27:02 AM
Marge Piercy wrote insightfully about this in 'He, She and It' (1991)
Posted by: Mike Cope | May 9, 2012 6:20:15 AM
If the activity is robotic, then why should the participants not be robots? Robot-porn would be a wonderful parody on an activity human beings have inexplicably sentimentalized.
Posted by: M73 | May 9, 2012 6:42:54 AM
Raza, babbys are fine things, and I completely reject the weird argument in that other thread that we have some duty to stop reproducing and go extinct. Doesn't mean there's something wrong with co-opting the associated structures for other modes of good, wholesome fun. Also addiction is awful and all, but I guess I'm failing to see what I said that led you believe I think otherwise. I wholeheartedly endorse the intuition that one should enjoy vibrators and E.T. sex in moderation. Too much and one wastes time and suffers from friction burns among other things.
Posted by: prasad | May 9, 2012 8:05:28 AM
Please see my other comment (just before yours). It is not a question of being viscerally gross or morally wrong but whether it is sensible just as if addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex is sensible.
Well, do you think having sex with a robot would be any less "sensible" than other forms of masturbation? Also, while I agree it would not be sensible for the entire race to stop having children as the anti-natalists suggest, I don't think there's anything insensible about an individual choosing not to have children in a society of people who mostly do. Would you disagree?
Posted by: Jesse M. | May 9, 2012 8:23:42 AM
Maybe people who have avatar sex on Second Life would like robot sex:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-06-19/columns/getting-started-with-sex-in-second-life/
Posted by: Louise Gordon | May 9, 2012 12:49:43 PM
Jesse M: If self-abuse was sensible, why would it be called abuse?
Posted by: Raza | May 9, 2012 2:05:05 PM
As far as I know, the term 'self-abuse' was used exclusively by the Catholic Church in describing - and defining - masturbation. The Church dropped the term some time after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Dropping the term was considered a more enlightened view of auto-eroticism. I agree.
I am not aware that there has been a re-emergence of the use of the term, 'self-abuse.' Anyone know something I don't? Does anyone feel it is the better term for masturbation? Raza?
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 9, 2012 4:56:36 PM
I don't think that robots could ever fully replace sex workers.
Someone else mentionned above that clients often like to sentimentalize the transaction and tell themselves the sex worker is really into them. I suspect that's harder to do with a machine - although that in itself is probably no insurmountable obstacle as the history of this profession has shown that there is no limit to the human capacity for delustion.
But there is another segment of clients, which will pose a bigger challenge for the budding robot sex industry: those that seek out sex workers because they need a target for their externalized self-loathing. For quite a few clients it's very much about contempt and superiority. Could you ever feel all that much contempt for an inanimate thing? You can't dehumanize it, because it isn't even human in the first place. Where would be the fun in that?
Posted by: Adele Quested | May 10, 2012 7:10:33 AM
"For quite a few clients it's very much about contempt and superiority"
These are very sick people. Probably Republicans.
Posted by: reader | May 10, 2012 12:54:24 PM
Jesse M: If self-abuse was sensible, why would it be called abuse?
Because the term dates back to the 18th century, when people were conditioned by religious conservatism to see masturbation as sinful, and doctors dreamed up fictitious ways in which it was supposed to be damaging to one's health (these medical claims have long been discredited)--look at this book from 1887 for example. But am I to understand that your objection is not religious or medical but based on the fact that sexual pleasure evolved for reproduction? Do you think gay relationships are similarly insensible? More generally, why is it "insensible" to make use of biological traits for different purposes than the ones they originally evolved for? (nature itself does this all the time, it's sometimes called exaptation) A lot of biologists believe that all altruistic behaviors evolved due to kin selection effects (genes for helping those closely related to oneself are selected because those relatives have a high chance of sharing the same genes, so the behavior is "sensible" from the perspective of the selfish gene), would you say that if these biologists are correct, it is then also "insensible" to help (or care about) anyone not closely related to oneself?
Posted by: Jesse M. | May 10, 2012 3:10:01 PM
These machines, owned, of course, by wealthy entrepeneurs, will simply deprive many of the poorest people on the planet of their livelyhood.
Posted by: aguy109 | May 10, 2012 3:38:01 PM
On the bright side, those poor people can then get jobs in the factories that make sex robots. And then automation will take those jobs away, and the assembly-line robots will have naughty plastic sex with their products, bypassing us entirely :)
Posted by: prasad | May 10, 2012 3:54:21 PM
People--especially doctors--like to become True Believers in weird stuff:
http://www.szasz.com/iol8.html
Posted by: Louise Gordon | May 10, 2012 3:56:18 PM
Love the non-sequitur doctor-bashing but Thomas Szasz? Really??
Posted by: freddy | May 10, 2012 4:36:58 PM
@ aguy109 and prasad:
Even if the poor couldn't afford the sex robots, themselves, as employees in the manufacturing of sex robots they could take care of the product testing.
"Hey [Fred/Susie/Whoever], I think there may be a bug in the computer program. It seemed OK to me but maybe you could take it for a test drive, and tell me what you think."
...
"[Betty/Hank/Whoever], it needs to have the vacuum pressure adjusted. Here, put it through it's paces and fine tune the suction. When you think you got it just right, then ship it to [Whomever/Marcia/Peter] in final test."
...
The customer receives the shipment and unpacks the sex robot. After removing the protective plastic wrapping, the customer finds a green index card taped to the robot. Printed on the card is the following:
"Before your quality product was shipped to you it was thoroughly tested and evaluated by the following employees:
"Abbott
Barbara
Bernie
Chris
Daniel
Dana
Diane
Edward
Francis
George
Heather
Jackie
Karen
Lee
Marcos
Nancy
Oliver
Pat
Randy
Samuel
Toni
Uma
Victor
Wallace
Xavier
Yousaf
and Zeke"
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 10, 2012 7:03:39 PM
@ Jesse M,
Regarding the 1887 medical text: I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or be outraged. I mention outrage because a 'Doctor' could make up whatever the hell he pleased and pass it off as scientific fact. Thank God you can't do anything like that these days. Right?
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 10, 2012 7:17:09 PM
Lol Norman, I wasn't squicked before, just amused, and don't squick that easy, but that image of sexbots pre-tested for quality assurance, that definitely did it. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone found it appealing, like the famous vending machine underwear in Japan.
Posted by: prasad | May 10, 2012 7:56:35 PM
Freddy,
What part of Szasz's explanation of masturbatory insanity did you fail to understand?
I know, he's the bête noire of medicine for aligning himself with CCHR. But he is right about masturbatory insanity.
Posted by: Louise Gordon | May 10, 2012 8:08:16 PM
Very funny Norman, and many thanks for not making me the namesake of the E-tester.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 10, 2012 9:30:23 PM
Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrel singing "Ain't nothing like the real thing, Baby." 1968 on the R&B Tamla label.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svAs-6MiqxE
Posted by: Norman Costa | May 10, 2012 10:01:46 PM
Post a comment