Do you talk about your worries and fears to the fleshlight beside your bed? Do you try and plan a future with the magazine you’ve made sticky?

All to say I don’t care what gets your jollies off (legally of course) but there’s a huge difference between self pleasure and building a life with another human being.

Maybe you’ll experience it some day.

What a stupid question. Do you think people use sex toys as a replacement for emotional intimacy and shared life experiences or is this a self-tell that you think relationships are nothing more than sex?

and your husband won’t be tempted to fuck it

There are robot cat boxes tbf

Monogamy? In this economy?

They see women as accessories, like a tie or jacket, and fundamentally less valuable than themselves.

I think this is partly driven by a mixture of misogyny and low self-esteem. A woman on equal footing might threaten their very fragile self worth.

So being a normal person would mean partial submission to a woman (because that’s just part of being in a relationship, you’re not always on top), but at the same time they feel the societal need for a woman, because only having sex makes them true men.

And it’s also the typical self-victimization of fascist Ideologies. Nazis are victims of the Jews, current fascists are victims of immigrants or Muslims, incels are victims of Chad Thundercock.

I think I’m poking fun of torso dildos. I usually have a tenga in my drawer.

That’s beyond comprehension. No sane person is taking their dildo out for dinner or to a friends house to watch a movie. They’d have to be android quality.

They have dolls for that. And people have been. There’s documentaries and videos all about it already.

No no it’s like a human body without any limbs.

I guess now that I think about it the limbs would be flaily and weird. I don’t think there is a head either, just the torso.

If you’re not familiar with this there are dildo conventions that showcase all the latest and greatest.

didn’t mean to dehumanize them, i meant that they aren’t men in the sense of masculinity. theres not much thats less masculine than bothering people who don’t want to be bothered.

I stand corrected

I mean, it’s rather obvious it’s just written down as it’s spoken - like “bone apple tea”. But while it’s relatable that someone who doesn’t know any French cannot write “bon appétit”, I don’t get how a native speaker could write “should of” and thinking yeah that makes complete sense.

It’s also not an auto-correct problem like “there, they’re, their” may have originated (I hope it did).

I understand to some extent, thanks!

i just learned yesterday that apparently america teaches kids to read not by, you know, having them read things, but by memorizing made-up rules to… guess at how words are pronounced and what they mean…

this uh, explains a lot about why america is why it is, i feel.

shoulda makes vastly more sense, and is precisely the kind of thing that tends to become slang and eventually just the standard spelling, like “dunno” or “gotcha”.

“should of” just feels like people know it should be two words, but don’t know how it’s spelled, and instead of just spelling it phonetically they make something half-phonetic up.

Should of is so much worse though. There/they’re/their I can excuse as being dyslexic or English as a second language. But should of/could of speaks to a deep problem. The person who types it does not consider what they say.

Yeah, holy fuck, the morality waters get very murky very quickly when the topic of sex robots come up especially when it concerns taboo and illegal fetishism.

Content warning: moral discussions of sex-bots for very taboo fetishes below.

I think it mostly comes down to people’s personal tolerance of “ick” i.e. how much person A judges a fetish that person B has that person A is not into.

Some people are, understandably, completely turned off or even horrified at taboo kinks like age-play, roleplay-incest, CNC, scat, blood, etc.

Heck I’ve even seen some articles that argue that “mainstream” BDSM is the fetishization of women’s suffering and therefore inherently misogynistic. But I don’t think that’s a common viewpoint and not one I hold either.

Personally, I don’t care what sex thing people are into that doesn’t involve me so long as it’s not causing harm and it’s between consenting adults.

So springboarding off your comment about pedophilia and beastiality, which are both illegal for extremely good reasons: would sex-dolls or sex-robots for both/either be harm-reduction or harm-enabling?

On the argument for harm reduction; it’s an outlet for those fetishes that has no victim. Therefore it could prevent those who have that fetish from victimising children and animals because it’s much less risky and not illegal to use a sex-doll/robot for those purposes in private solitude. And who should care what weird things people get up to in private so long as it does no harm to others.

On the argument for harm enabling; it could push illegal fetishes that are quite rightly shunned by society towards normalisation. Shame is a powerful emotional tool used in animal social groups to discourage behaviour of individuals that are harmful to the group.

In a similar way if someone says something weird in person in front of a group of people they want to be accepted in they get ridiculed, feel shame and embarrassment for saying something weird, and don’t say it again in that group.

Now with social media, those people who have the same weird opinion (just to be clear everyone has at least a few weird opinions, no exceptions there) can find eachother and echo-chamber themselves, calcify their opinions into more extreme forms, and occasionally act them out in the physical world causing harm to others.

What happens when the technology of social media collides with the technology of sex bots? Like with the hypotheticals you gave of people “stealing” identities of celebrities to make their own sex bots or styling them after pictures of kids they found online.

What happens when they start sharing tips for making animal sex-bots with more realistic fur, exploring these problematic fetishes with others which normalises the behaviour in the group, until finally one of the group decides that only the “real-thing” is good enough for them now then goes out into the world and does harm?

I don’t know which side I fall on. And I don’t think I will ever know until I can see some conclusive evidence one way or another.

That’s as far as I will entertain these kinds of discussions because my “ick” point is when these trains of thought lead to asking the same question about simulated snuff.

Because that opens a whole other horrifying can of worms of what about making bots for simulated rape, murder, and necrophilia for those with psychopathic tendancies?

And for me it boils down to is the question “do we make objects to sell and commodify humanity’s capacity for evil as recreation?”.

As you are a sex worker, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the ramblings above and please correct me if I’ve made any assumptions or leaps in logic.

Well, on the matter of dolls looking “just like” whoever, I think that should be legal with no reservations. The point we consider those acts you’ve described heinous and disgusting and so on is because real people\animals suffer. The rest is simply not our business. So if there’s no real suffering involved, this is not even up to discussion.

Releasing filmed material with dolls is another issue, I think this should be considered harassment, maybe even on the “rape threat” level. But again - scaled by the real rights being violated, not by what we want and don’t want others to do, because that’s not our business.

I’m not sure I agree about it being a good outlet, I think you are right about not being sure. That outlet logic doesn’t quite work the same with every person. Again, a person on the spectrum (like me) might use that possibility to play, and for them it will really be an outlet. A usual person with weird fetishes might do that too, or want the real thing after playing with toys enough, as with gateway drugs. A psychopath will likely have no use for toys since they only want real power over living beings.

As we all see with the Web and social media, lots of genocidal rhetoric has been normalized in the last decade that wasn’t before that. Don’t want to mention Azeris, but 15 years ago they (in the Russian-speaking Web) wouldn’t go to common places, because those places would expel savages ; now the common places are just as degenerate and hateful. I wouldn’t want the same thing to happen with torture and rape fantasies.

So - I think it’s a bad thing. In private they may do with dolls as they want. In public and in the Web - depending on how realistic it is.

There’s also a substantial male population for whom a woman being subservient is a turnoff, though, with knowing it’s a transaction being sufficient. For such people a doll could help with some purely physical stupid things, but those are the least of lonely people’s problems, so not very useful.

EDIT: Oh, another person has already said all the same things.

Well, my notable spectrum-related personal trait is that I want to know the truth about things, so falling in love with pictures just won’t work, I won’t be able to expel from my mind the fact that it’s not real in any regard.

Unless a machine conscience of human kind becomes real.

Haven’t seen the new one yet.