You made it all the way through that post without mentioning the Stepford Wives.

I guess fembot 2.0 will get pregnant, and give birth.

In balance, access to a robot sex substitute like that, for the males so inclined, might wind up saving actual flesh and blood women a lot of trouble.

(But in the long run, it would probably demolish the guys.)

While I think that dudes who get off on banging artificial women, both robotic and RealDoll, have a bit of maturing and/or therapy to do, I ultimately think its essentially harmless. After all, at least their creepy, misogynist Betty Crocker fantasies are played out with an inanimate object and not, you know, a real woman.

Besides the obvious benifits of having a good quality, responsive, and reactive android for care of human beings, this technology can do more.

At last men can have a real viable sex toy, one that can actually respond in all the complexity of a real woman. Heck, it could even train a neophyte to be more responsive to a human lover.

I tell you what is creepy - womens sex toys! What is a womans replacement for a man? A STICK. The really advanced versions - as soft stick that vibrates. All the personality, warmth, emotions, even uniqueness of the individual male - all can be shrunk down to a fancy stick.

What does that say about how women really view men?

And this guy is creepy for creating something truely complex and responsive?

To suggest the ability to buy fembots might save women from sexual assault is like saying if only the Catholic church would allow their clergy to marry then perhaps priests stop sexually assaulting children.

or some combination thereof. So should it look old, androgynous and fat?

"You made it all the way through that post without mentioning the Stepford Wives."

Unfortunately, this being Broadsheet, she did not make it all the way through the post without using a variation on the word "creep".

sorry....

... then perhaps priests might stop sexually assaulting children.

-- cdevlin

Or jealous? There's really nothing in that demo that indicates that this is sexually oriented. But you're the one going on and on about wheelchair bound android porn.

Its a machine. Vibrators don't have free will either and I don't see a problem with that. But even if you did have woman-hating sociopaths who feel like such an android does all they'd ever want from a woman and thus didn't want anything more to do with real women, how is that a bad thing? I'd much rather they have a doll to take their BS out on, than be forced to prey on real women. Someone who is fulfilled by a robot, is not someone I'm lining up to date.

I guess the intentions and ideals of the designer do project a sexist attitude, but I'm having a hard time being outraged just by that. One guy out there thinks women from the 50's are the ideal, film at 11.

%99.99 of men's sex toys are no different than women's sex toys: a rubber or plastic imatation of an orifice. Some aren't even that, just a rubber sleeve. Whats that say about men's view of women?!?

The point of sex toys, as most people well know, is not to replace anyone. They are tools, they serve a specific purpose; i.e. quick, easy orgasms, either by yourself or with a partner. Thats all.

The fact that you consider a lifeless, yet life-like mock woman to be the ultimate men's sex toy says a lot more about you than about anything else.

How is getting "pleasure" out "banging" (your quotation marks) any different than a woman heroically taking control of her sexuality by buying a vibrator? There's a serious unexamined double standard on your part.

Didn't Futurama say that these robotic "assistants" would eventually lead to the fall of all mankind? Matt Groening, visionary.

You don't need to worry about the men you WANT. For men, if not for women, sex toys of ANY kind will (nearly)always be an inferior substitute for the real thing.

So, today's topic is a sex robot!

Go, Broadsheet!!!!

If you really think that there is "nothing in that demo that indicates that this is sexually oriented", despite the android having a vagina (with sensors) and benippled breasts, features that would seem to have little to do with housework or reading the paper to old ladies, then I have a great deal for you on a slightly used, 19th century suspension bridge in scenic New York City!

I am glad that women and feminists would never be so low, base and creepy as to use a mechanical device to replace a nan for sex.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

Sure looks like it to me.

Wonder what they think...about patent violations.

I am glad that women and feminists would never be so low, base and creepy as to use a mechanical device to replace a man for sex.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

like the dweebs that would buy one.

In a world where women are allowed to choose their partners, there will be some unpartnered men. An android probably won't stop them from complaining about how awful flesh-and-blood women are, but it has a high probability of stopping them from actually trying to have sex with them, much less marry them.

No matter how human it looks or feels, an android is a thing, a machine. It's made of metal, plastic and silicone. It needs a power source, as it lacks a metabolism. It will require regular maintenance, just like any other machine. It is not human. It can't even really feel pain, even though it's been programmed to respond to certain sensory information as though it hurt. Change the programming, and there's nothing to be empathic about.

Androids beat the heck out of forced marriage to a man who doesn't really like women very much.

There's this school of thought (in music production) about using drum machines that believes the absolute worst thing someone can do with them is try to make them sound like/be a replacement for a real drummer. Even when using samples of real drums, no matter how many variables (subtle or otherwise - pressure sensitivity, swing rhythm, playable pads, for example) there are, it will technically never sound like a human being for the simple fact that it isn't. Kind of in the same way, the only way to get a drummer to sound just like John Bonham is to dig him up and reanimate him long enough for a session.

In short, the idea is that (supposedly), anyone who strives to make a drum machine sound like a real drummer is a fool. That it will sound more natural if one keeps in mind that it most definitely is not.

Point being, why does a robot receptionist (or even sex toy) have to be made to look like as much like a living, breathing woman as possible? I don't mean it needs to look like R2D2, but if people really have to have one of those things, what's wrong with a big, funny, comfy pillow with whatever goddawfulness (a synthetic vagina?) they need to attach to sell it to people who would buy one.

I know the answer is the same as why SUVs need to have 8 cyliners instead of 4, but look how that's turned out.