Summary: Sexbots are the next wave of entertainment tech. Many fear that they will wreck both marriage and the economy. The former is likely, to some degree. But they will be a boost to the economy.
“{The arrival of sexbots} will blow up the world. It will make crack cocaine look like decaffeinated coffee.”
— Anonymous (source here).
She will be a big hit on Tinder. From her showing in The Sun.
The great and good tell us that sexbots are not coming. But if they do, nobody will want them. “Lifelike sex robots are unlikely to arrive anytime soon. Even if they did, most people wouldn’t be interested in them.”
“In the future …the question is going to arise: ‘Is it ok to have sex with a robot?’ To the average person the answer ‘No’ will seem as obvious to us now as our understanding that it is not acceptable to have sex with other species of animals.”
— “The Sex Trafficking of Robots.“
They also tell us that even if somebody wants sexbots, they will be bad for him. “Sex With Robots May Not Be Healthy” and “Sex-bots could CRUSH human limbs and spy on you for the government as fears grow over rogue robot lovers.” And if anyone does use them, even though they are harmful, the wise and wonderful clutch their pearls about the ethics of sexbots. Such as “Sex with robots: analyzing the gender and ethics approaches in design“, “Sex robots will be programmed to love us – and suffer for it” and “Sex robots are here, but laws aren’t keeping up with the ethical and privacy issues they raise.”
Of course, the wise know that sexbots must be very very regulated – like every other aspect of Americans’ intimate relations. For our own good, because cannot be trusted to make our own decisions.
The most common reason given for regulating sexbot concerns their ability to give “consent.” This is quite delusional. We might just as logically require regulation of women’s “vibrators” – to ensure that women obtain their consent before using them. Perhaps at some distant future time, sexbots will have some form of sentience. Today it is a silly reason for pearl-clutching.
Why they fear sexbots. Why they’re wrong.
Dirty books since Gutenberg. Porn on home video since 1977. Area code 900 sex chat lines after 1980. Internet porn since the 1990s. Now sexbots. Technological progress has brought us more effective and less expensive substitutes for sex with people. The shift of porn from XXX theaters downtown to viewing in the home on tapes-DVDs-streaming grew the market by orders of magnitude. The shift from prostitutes to sexbots will have the same effect.
A glimpse of the future: “People Are Having Sex With 3D Avatars of Their Exes and Celebrities.” Crude images now, but improving fast.
Each new tech in its time aroused fear that men would be distracted from joining the rat race – forsaking their obligation to marry, have children, and provide for them. They might have an effect similar to that of heroin and crack – safely used by many but destabilizing some people. This is already happening: significant numbers of men are going Galt – dropping out of the rat race and sometimes even not marrying.
With sexbots, this might happen on an even larger scale. The success of even low-end prostitutes shows that men have low minimum standards for sex substitutes. Even the primitive sexbots of the kind likely to be sold in the next decade or so might gain a large market among men. It might make marriage even less attractive to men, especially the low-status guys that women now “settle” for in their 30s. What will happen to the economy without the spur of marriage – men working to be an attractive provider – and the later and stronger need for men to support a family?
But sexbots might not have the awful effects so widely feared by some – and joyfully anticipated by others. Sexbots might replace marriage for a substantial fraction of men (even a small fraction might unbalance the male-female dynamics in America). But they might boost the economy.
How much will she cost? Cover of Galaxy, September 1954.
How much will sexbots cost? Low-end devices will be simple, but still expensive. But the sky is the limit for high-end machines. They will have well-designed features, warm skin, plus some capacity for interactive conversation and movements. All this will be expensive. Men will work hard to earn the money to buy or rent them.
Sexbots will quickly improve for many generations. As with cars during most of the 20th century, men will enviously look at the latest model – and work to get one. Just as automobile production was a driver of the 20thC economy, sexbots might become a driver of the 21st century economy.
The Left has conducted vast social engineering experiments on American society. Technology has further destabilized our society. We cannot begin to reliably guess what lies ahead. But it certainly will be different.
For More Information
Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
See “The History of Sexbots in Movies.” I like Cherry 2000
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about the 3rd Industrial Revolution now underway, about romance, about women and gender, and especially about sexbots.
- Our scary future: sexbots are coming, powering the ‘sexodus’.
- A look at sexbots, prototypes of a radically different future for society.
- Technology will shape our society as porn and sexbots destroy 21st century marriage.
- Reluctant recognition that sexbots are coming.
- Sexbots are coming. Society will never be the same.
Books about the coming revolution
- Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships
by AI expert David Levy (2007).
- Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other
by Sherry Turkle (2011).
- My Fair Ladies: Female Robots, Androids, and Other Artificial Eves
by Julie Wosk (2015).
- “What’s love got to do with it? Robots, sexuality, and the arts of being human.” In Marco Norskov (Ed.) Social Robots: Boundaries, Potential, Challenges
Charles M. Ess (2016).
- Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications
by John Danaher (2017).
by Julie Wosk (2015).
by John Danaher (2017).
Maybe I am odd, naive, insufficiently sexually adventurous….or whatever.
I simply cannot imagine being turned on by a robot of the sort envisaged here.
Now if the machine genuinely had independent mental life, thought, feeling, intelligence, could discuss, react, learn and persuade, read, listen, be moved? Maybe. At that point it would no longer be a robot though, it would be artificial life, we would start to classify it as a non-human person. At that point all the usual relations and feelings we have with people might come to seem viable. I can just about begin to imagine that.
But the idea of a sexual encounter with a sort of programmed doll? It just strikes me as a total turn-off.
I guess in any event we are going to find out whether the mass of the population is like me. I do sincerely hope that the forecast of mass demand for such things turns out not to be correct. I guess the next ten years will tell.
henrik,
“we are going to find out whether the mass of the population is like me.”
Have you ever paid a prostitute a few bucks for a blow-job in your car? Or for a quick screw in an alley, cheap motel, or crib in a whorehouse? Do you read or watch a lot of porn?
Then you are not in the target market. You might as well say that since you don’t eat spicy food, there is no market for it.
Porn is a giant market. Prostitution is a giant market, and few guys care if she has an “independent mental life.”
No, never done or even considered doing any of those things. Never wanted to, the idea is simply repellant.
But yes, I know its a large market, so lots of men are doing them.
Henrik,
Then your assertions of disinterest are in the same bins as “blind people talking about 3-d films” and “deaf people talking about stereophonic radio.”
What’s your point?
Larry, two comments:
Like Henrik, I’ve never done any of the things that you described in your response (for the same reasons) but my understanding (based on talking with local police officers) is that the men who hire prostitutes is very small percentage of the male population. This is supported by the link below where 1% of the male population admitted to purchasing sex in the last year.
https://www.livescience.com/28169-men-who-use-prostitutes.html
Re: “deaf people talking about stereophonic radio.”
Thomas Edison was virtually deaf but used his teeth to hear music. Although he didn’t hear in exactly the same notes as the rest of the population, the clarity of his perceptions continually astonished people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/edmund-morris-edison/598357/
I, for one, cannot agree with the theme of this post.
Pluto,
That’s hilarious! Keep those eyes closed!
I look forward to your business marketing music to deaf people who listen to it with their teeth! Do you seriously consider that a sensible rebuttal?
“This is supported by the link below where 1% of the male population admitted to purchasing sex in the last year.”
That’s even funnier! First, what makes you believe that people give an honest answer to that question? Second, that astonishingly misses the point. Comparing whores to sexbots is like comparing XXX-theaters to porn on tapes-DVDs-streaming. The latter tech innovations expanded the market by orders of magnitude – for reasons obvious to most people. In addition to those reasons, sexbots are safer to use than whores.
A scene from Bad Grandpa comes to mind. Here at Dalrock’s website.
https://youtu.be/sJdOEoXWLtU?t=65
Dalrock,
Thanks for posting! Brutal humor.
What’s my point?
I think my reactions are quite common. I think the market may be a lot smaller than you expect. As it is for the activities you refer to.
Henrik,
“I think my reactions are quite common.”
“Common” means nothing. Are people like you 30% or 60% of 90% of the relevant population? Horror films are a not-for-everybody genre, with a market share of roughly 10% of US box office (depending on definitions) – but still have giant audiences (“It”, based on Steven King’s novel, grossed $700 million in 2017). A 10% “market share” (usage rate) of sexbots would have a large destabilizing effect on gender dynamics.
More broadly, the existence of today’s giant audience for porn, low-level prostitution, and sex toys decisively proves that you are wrong – in the sense of precluding a giant market for sexbots (ie, providing a fuller experience than the existing tools do today).
The “I wouldn’t do it, therefore others won’t” is a kind of solipsism quite common in comments about the future. As a method of forecasting, it ranks below reading tea leaves.
“The “I wouldn’t do it, therefore others won’t” is a kind of solipsism quite common in comments about the future. As a method of forecasting, it ranks below reading tea leaves.”
Yes, I agree, its a very weak argument. That is not what I was arguing. I was arguing that I think lots of others are like me. Enough to make the viability of the market for sexbots doubtful.
How many in percentage terms? Yes, it would be really interesting to get some proper data. How many men do go to prostitutes? Of the men I have known well enough to have a clear view, I’ve only known one, and he was very discriminating in his tastes, the kind of activity you refer to wasn’t something he would ever have considered.
Look, in the end this is a question of whether I would think the sexbot industry is a good investment. I’m very skeptical.
I have to admit that the fact that it lacks all appeal for me on a personal level may bias my view. It is difficult to get enthusiastic for the market for a product that has no interest for oneself.
I guess we will find out together in the next ten years.
Yeah, that’s those who “admitted” to doing so within just the last year. The study said about 15% admitting to hiring prostitute some time in their lives. 15% is a minority, but not insignificant, assuming honesty among the men who denied ever doing so.
Here’s a percentage study across other countries.
https://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004119
In Spain, it’s as high as 39%, in Italy as high as 45%, and in Cambodia as high as 80%! It would seem the ubiquity of a service can affect how willing men are to patronize it and admit to doing so.
And they note that the real numbers may still be higher because of “possible underreporting by survey respondents about their private sexual practices.”
Using mimetic material and media for self-gratification is now ingrained among young males. So much so that social scientists can’t even find any men who don’t use pornography to serve as an experimental control group.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uom-ate120109.php
If so many men are masturbating into socks while watching videos of real or simulated women or purchasing low tech sex dolls, is it really such a stretch for them to masturbate into a higher tech mannequin?
I agree with others here that some men pursue what we might call ‘non-relational sex outlets’. What Larry refers to here:
I also agree that if the desire for such things is foreign to one, that is likely to bias one’s assessment of the scale of the demand
The thing I am skeptical about is whether the scale of demand for in particular female sex-bots is going to be large enough, or of a nature, to have significant social or cultural consequences.
Some are comparing them to vibrators for women. I don’t think they are at all comparable. Vibrators have a market because of the vagaries of female orgasm. I don’t think they substitute for a partner in significant numbers. They have also become socially acceptable (because they guarantee orgasm) in a way I don’t believe sexbots will.
I doubt that sexbots will even substitute for the ‘blow job in your car’ or the ‘quick screw in an alley’ Larry refers to. I have of course at times wanted and found raw sexual experiences, but simply cannot imagine the drive I then felt being gratified by a sexbot.
I doubt there is a very big market for female sexbots, I doubt their use will become socially recognized and acceptable, and I doubt that significant numbers of men will use them, or indeed any other masturbation aid, as a substitute for live women.
In the end this depends on one’s view of the balance of forces in the sexual drive in heterosexual men. I agree of course that it has a strong element of simple lust. But what I am skeptical about is whether sexbots can either have a scale of adoption or purposes of adoption to produce any significant social or cultural changes.
If I am wrong, then within about ten to fifteen years this will be a big market, men will be buying them on Amazon and Ebay, there will be reviews and ratings of them in the Guardian and on Ars. Men will get up in the morning and sit across the table from them whle they have their coffee. Their friends will all know they have one and will have their own. It will be openly agreed that this is a reasonable alternative to having a real woman in one’s life.
And the ladies will be doing what…? Sitting at home with cats? Moving in with each other…?
We shall see. I agree with what I think is Larry’s view, that at some point expressions of feeling or belief are not very useful unless accompanied by proper evidence based analysis, and I admit to not having that.
The numbers of prostitutes and scale of recourse to them which have been cited in the comments is very interesting, but does it really show that sexbots are going to be a substitute for this contact with live bodies? Color me skeptical. They are paying for live women, not for a masturbatory aid. I have also read a story suggesting that in a Swiss brothel, some clients are using a sexbot in the company of a prostitute. Again however, it is not showing substitution exactly. The client is still paying for the involvement of a live human being in the act.
There is an early fictional reference of sorts, forget which book, in Tom Sharpe. An inflatable sex doll figures largely in it. Hilarious. Sharpe is the Smollett of our times.
An activity or item can become pervasive but still remain something that is embarrassing and not mentioned in polite or public company. Even though pornography use is ubiquitous among men now, that does not mean that men openly talk about it in mixed company or tell their coworkers at the water cooler what they masturbated to last night (that would almost certainly get men fired and sued for sexual harassment). Do women talk about their vibrators with their female coworkers over coffee? I’ve never witnessed or overhead that. If you have, then the womenfolk must be quite frank around you.
You said “it would be really interesting to get some proper data” about “how many men do go to prostitutes” so I posted the link. It was the previous poster Pluto who claimed that the supposedly small percentage of men who solicit prostitutes is a reason to doubt men would purchase sexbots.
You don’t have to wait on that one, Henrik. That’s already happening even without the sexbot revolution.
https://www.oprah.com/relationships/why-women-are-leaving-men-for-lesbian-relationships-bisexuality
True, but as the feminists allege, these men are paying for “live women” to comply with their sexual demands without the need for charm or persuasion that are supposedly required for unpaid copulation. And some of them are probably paying because they cannot normally persuade a woman to provide such service without payment. Lots of feminists and traditionalists would claim that men’s use of prostitutes is more analogous to a “masturbatory aid” than what they consider a legitimate conjugal act.
It is true that many men probably think that live women prostitutes provide certain benefits that sexbots cannot. But like anything, there are pros and cons for each option. For sexbots, they are not real and some men may find them less gratifying than a real person (paid or not). However, with live women prostitutes, there are cons and disadvantages, such as having to arrange each interaction, paying per session, contracting venereal disease, being attacked or robbed by the prostitute or her affiliates, being attacked by visiting the high-crime area, being arrested in a police sting, being in company of prostitute in public and getting recognized by people you know, etc. Sexbots are purchased and can be used whenever the user wishes and don’t carry the risk of disease, crime, or arrest. So while some men may find sexbots wanting compared to live women prostitutes, others may find their benefits compelling.
A portent of the future?
https://nypost.com/2017/08/22/sex-dolls-are-more-popular-than-real-prostitutes-at-this-brothel/
When you meet an attractive female on the street, your first thought is not “Dam, she must have read X tomes of War & Peace, she must be a good partner”. Sex and the instinct of procreation are one of the most primitive/primal instincts people have.
Feelings and everything else comes after that. If you think otherwise you are extremely naive when it comes to intersexual dynamics and relationships between sexes.
They will use familiar faces (and bodies and AI voices) licensed from Pop and Movie Stars, Sportsmen and women; any Celebrity actually (including the deceased) These Celebrities will make vastly more income from licensing than their primary careers.
Bwilli,
“These Celebrities will make vastly more income from licensing than their primary careers.”
That’s a brilliant insight. Some B-grade film hotties might find this a big income source! It’s better than the often-used alternative of dropping into porn.
Even A-list hotties past their prime might find this attractive.
Why buy when you can rent?
But do Android’s dream of electric sheep?
Raymond,
A great and apropos science fiction reference! Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
by Philip K. Dick (1968), the inspiration for the films Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049.
Of course, that book was about artificially created human beings – not robots.
Human beings / robots… That line could get fuzzy if you consider engineered tissue to be a machine.
Wayne,
Lots of interesting fun things in sci fi about the distant future. It is important, however, that we don’t get distracted by those guesses and ignore the things happening today.
This is pervasive when talking about sexbots. People ignore the certain near future, instead treating sci fi as if it were tomorrow.
Another step towards the Technological Singularity.
Longtail,
How so? The tech involved in building sexbots is pretty mundane – ignoring the sci fi fantasies of artificial human-like minds.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is required reading for this subject. The theme is that the “robots” (manufactured bio-mechanical entities), so useful as slaves on outer space colonies become rivals to real humans as their fast evolution progresses. The earth government bans their presence from earth and outlaws sexual relations with them although that ban is widely ignored. This ban is the human’s acknowledgement that the androids have the power to quickly overcome their inventors.
The central question that the bounty hunter deals with is what is life?
Sex and reproduction drive all the base desires. Sex will move AI Relentlessly forward. We must grapple with the questions Mr. Dick presented.
Great topic!
Sexbots are extremely low on my list of worries. In fact, sexbots do not worry me at all. I am all for them to the extent they bring men pleasure. I don’t see the downside. I suppose they could prove addictive, just as porn or drugs or alcohol or regular ol’ masturbation may prove addictive, but that is true of anything that brings pleasure.
Sexbots will never provide an adequate substitute for real, live women any more than a vibrator provides a woman an adequate substitute for a real, live man.
A man who is less inclined towards relationships with real women because he has a sexbot probably has problems with women and thus would not be a good partner anyway. I can imagine very few, if any, men I know going this route, any more than I can imagine my female friends giving up men in favor of their vibrators. We are all wired to crave relationships, not just orgasms (lovely as orgasms may be).
(NOTE: Obviously, this post assumes heterosexuality for the sake of discussion, but I have a lot of gay friends who, similarly, would not give up relationships in favor of masturbatory aids.)
Margaret,
Time will tell if your confident forecasts prove correct. But the world is changing fast. Your belief that the past is the future has proven an unreliable guide so far.
I wonder if you even see the changes occurring in the realm of male-female dynamics. Have you talked to many young men – esp those 20 -25 – about this?
Have I talked to many young men about sexbots? No, I have not. I can guess what you might be driving at but why don’t you make your point instead?
Strange you should mention that. The same advocates who rail against pornography use for men are now floating the idea that vibrator use inhibit women from attaining satisfaction from intercourse with “real, live” men.
“Vibrators and Other Pleasures: When Moderation Fails”
“Vibrators and ‘Dead Vagina Syndrome’”
Additionally, transsexuals are insisting that women should find artificial prosthetic phalluses just as satisfying as if not more than functioning biological penises attached to living men.
And if you disagree, I guess you’re some kind of “transphobic” bigot.
Durasim,
Of course, difficulty achieving sexual satisfaction with a live person is a different issue than a reluctance or disinterest in having a relationship with a live person.
But your point is well taken. I am generally pro-pornography but certainly, there are credible reports that young boys who are exposed at length to internet porn while their sexuality is still developing may grow up to find themselves having problems performing sexually with real people.
Not sure what the trans issue has to do with the discussion. I agree with what I assume is your position that no one is obligated to sleep with someone they find sexually unappealing for whatever reason.
Not really. “Difficulty achieving sexual satisfaction with a live person” can be a compelling reason why somebody has a “reluctance or disinterest in having a relationship with a live person” whether it’s because of impotence, premature ejaculation, vulvodynia, illness, injury, or being habituated to pornography and/or vibrators. If they assume that they are in store for dissatisfaction and humiliation, they may wisely decide to not even try the “live person” route anymore and keep to artificial things.
But whatever their reasons for their lifestyles, it’s not always going to be the case that somebody who relies on artificial means of sexual gratification will readily choose a “relationship with a live person” if it is somehow available. Some pornography-using masturbating men may in fact decline any possible relationship, however unlikely you think it is that they would ever have the chance for one. Perhaps because they are accustomed to pornographic standards, they don’t find the “live persons” attractive enough for arousal. Likewise, a woman who is accustomed to using a vibrator may decline solicitations from “live” men because she thinks those men are homely and don’t provide emotional engagement and that unsatisfying intercourse with them is not better than using a device that stays firm and moving so long as it is plugged in or the batteries last.
I mostly agree and I’m sure lots of the men who would purchase sexbots are out of the running from the outset. But it is possible that there exist men between the extremes of incel basement dwellers and the charming heartthrobs. Perhaps there are some men who could have made themselves into better relationship prospects if they undertook some self-improvement, but they chose not to and using things like pornography and sexbots provided enough gratification that lack of relationship did not motivate them to change. That’s what the Malcolm and Naufal paper tried to argue.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2534707
And continued use of such artificial things probably compounds on their unattractiveness.
Do you think it is ridiculous that this trans-person insists people should find prosthetic genitals just as satisfying as (if not more than) real genitals?
I bring up the “trans issue” to show that there are conflicting messages about what people are supposed to accept or reject about artificiality in sexual matters. This trans person was insisting that people should find “his” multiple artificial phalluses combined with “his” winning personality to be better than a biological penis. And since “his” op-ed was published on VICE, that’s a signal that such arguments will become a tenet of enlightened sexual mores.
So we are being told that artificial things in combination with some natural human interaction can make up for lack of natural sexual attributes and that if we refuse to consider this, we are backward and bigoted. Presumably, a woman may say that she gets enough emotional engagement from her non-sexual acquaintances and enough physical gratification from her vibrator and she thinks the men she encounters would not provide either of those things as well as her current sources do and so she does not need a combined sexual/emotional relationship with another human. Likewise, a man may think he gets enough emotional engagement from his platonic acquaintances and enough physical gratification from pornography, fleshlights, or sexbots that he thinks he does not need a combined sexual/emotional relationship with another human. Assuming that not all men who use sexbots are going to be asocial shut-ins.
Durasim,
Let’s say you are right that some people may be less motivated to pursue relationships if they have options like pornography and vibrators and sexbots for sexual satisfaction. Surely the same would be true of regular old masturbation – a practice that is near universal among men, is extremely common among women, and is as old time.
Also, if that’s true and certain people truly have a preference to be alone with their porn, vibrators and/or sexbots, I don’t mind that. To each his or her own. It’s not as if the human race is in danger of dying out. I find it hard to believe that avoiding intimate relationships in favor of one’s vibrator or sexbot will be a popular choice. I am surrounded by people who are either in thriving relationships or hoping for one.
As for the trans issue, you ask me if I find it ridiculous for a trans-person to insist that people should find prosthetic genitals just as satisfying as real genitals. I would say I find it not necessarily ridiculous, but I do find it unreasonable.
I am skeptical of your prediction that “such arguments will become a tenet of enlightened sexual mores.” Enlightened sexual mores include a strong belief in the moral right of any adult to choose with whom to have sexual relations (assuming the other person’s willingness, of course). No one ever needs to justify not having sex with someone (other than perhaps in the context of an ongoing, long-term relationship). It is an entirely personal choice and an individual’s reasons are nobody else’s business. So efforts to shame people into sleeping with trans-people are likely to run up against the free-choice-and-consent-wing of the progressive, sex-positive crowd. Plus, trying to shame free people into sleeping with people they don’t want to sleep with will never work anyway.
It’s true “regular old masturbation” is as old as time and I’m sure it has always provided some mitigation against lacking conjugal opportunity even back in caveman times. However, greater and more elaborate mimetic advancement in things like pornography and sexbots probably has a more potent effect in that regard. A person may find the more advanced state of those offerings to be more effective in quelling loneliness and in deterring them from the risk and trouble of pursuing actual relationships. If all they have is fantasy of people they’ve actually met and their hands, they may get bored with that faster than infinite media produced images and videos and automated devices that perform the physical labor for them. Pornography itself has been around since cave etchings. But in the last few decades, its influence seems to have increased radically beyond still images in magazines. You yourself conceded that “there are credible reports that young boys who are exposed at length to internet porn while their sexuality is still developing may grow up to find themselves having problems” which did not seem to be a trend back in the days of “regular old masturbation.” So perhaps there is something about today’s simulated sexual offerings that has influence enough to disrupt or change sexual development in ways that “regular old masturbation” did not.
I’m glad you are consistently libertarian in that regard. Some feminists today want pornography and sexbots to be banned because they think such actions violate and threaten women even when they are done in the privacy of some masturbator’s room with no women present. I never suggested there was a danger of extinction, at least not here in the West. In Japan, the decline of interpersonal sexual activity and rise of mimetic isolation is correlated with a continuing crash of birthrates.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/asia/japan-fertility-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
And lack of sexual/mating partners can have serious consequences even without risk of population decline. China certainly does not want for people, but the gender disparity resulting from one-child policies has led to an explosion of “Leftover Men.”
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/leftover-men-china-get-married-gender-imbalance-one-child-policy-10485358
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/sep/28/my-parents-say-hurry-up-and-find-a-girl-chinas-millions-of-lonely-leftover-men
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2142658/too-many-men-china-and-india-battle-consequences
What percentage would you define as “popular” then?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
You know personal anecdotes and experience are of limited value when projecting about future social trends, but while we’re on the subject, I’m surrounded by people reeling from divorces and domestic violence and who rue the day they entered into their disastrous affiliations.
Yeah, in the good classical liberal sense of respecting people’s bodily sovereignty, you are correct. However, I should have put “enlightened” in quotations because I meant the mores that are now considered progressive and “woke” along with the sexual identity rules that are promulgated in the mainstream media today.
I wish that were the case, but that position has been losing ground rapidly. The “free-choice-and-consent-wing of the progressive, sex-positive crowd” is nowhere near as influential as it used to be, if ever it was honest about its intentions. If you don’t want to have sex with people of certain races, that’s “sexual racism.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-blacks-is-not-a-sexual-preference-its-racism
Oh, and remember the case of the pornographic actress who was denounced as “homophobic” because she did not want to have sex with men who had sex with other men.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/august-ames-dead-porn-actress-homophobic-refuse-male-star-gay-sex-scene-online-bullying-suicide-a8097556.html
And apparently, it’s also bigoted to decline to have sex with somebody because they have HIV.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/patrickstrudwick/this-hiv-positive-guy-gave-the-perfect-slapdown-to-someone-w
As for the “trans” issue, it’s official that everyone is obliged to consider transsexuals as viable sexual partners or they are “discriminatory” and “transphobic.”
I’m surprised you would make this statement. People have been compelled “into sleeping with people they don’t want to sleep with” since time immemorial. When attractive young women marry repulsive, fat, decrepit (but rich) men, do you think those women did so out of true desires of the heart? People have had to marry and sleep with people they did not want to sleep with for all sorts of reasons, even excluding rape. Family pressure, economic incentive, psychological denial, etc. Even kings and emperors married and copulated with women they found unattractive because they needed whatever alliance or treaty that was conditioned on the marriage. Plenty of homosexuals claim they only entered into heterosexual unions and “beard” marriages because they were “in denial” and they were shamed and pressured by society to conform with heteronormativity and what not. According to them, being pressured and shamed “into sleeping with people they don’t want to sleep with” is common and ubiquitous.
Durasim,
Don’t forget Aristophanes’ play “A Parliament of Women” (AKA “Assemblywomen”). The women of Athens assume control of the government and enact laws that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive.
In one scene, an old woman attempts to force the young handsome Epigenes to sleep – citing the new law. His young pretty girlfriend and the old woman fight over the man. Two more old women enter and drag him away against his will.
It is perhaps the earliest known work arguing against female suffrage. Aristophanes has proven to be prescient: American women tend to favor socialism more than men do.
Margaret,
Yes, basically agree with most of what you are arguing. But, this is society in cultural and technological upheaval. Its pretty unpredictable, as the experience of the last 50 years shows.
We have to be open to the idea that maybe what we think is basic human and male nature is in fact just the result of previous cultural conditioning and that institutions which did this are now being totally dismantled, so that we may see very dramatic unforeseen developments as a result.
When Emerson preached yielding to spontaneous impulses, he had little idea what those impulses would turn out to be in the second generation of followers of his advice.
https://youtu.be/IrrADTN-dvg
I think this is worth posting.
The sex robot will be big but the companionship AI will be earth shattering.
Sven,
True, but in the sense that all Star Trek devices will be earth-shattering. Transporters, space travel, androids, replicators.
I don’t understand the fascination with treating imaginary tech as if it was about to go on sale soon. Esp when people ignore the potentially large effects of tech that is going on sale soon.
Most comment threads are somewhat bizarre these days. The more important the topic, the less interest commenters have in grappling with it.
Just when I thought that anime pillows were weird…
Another example of accelerationism by one of the parties
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/dark-money-democrats-midterm-071725?
Probably not the first dem dark money group, but at least one of the first widely reported. Kinda shocked politico published this, considering that they are trying to sink their own story about the Ukraine aided the Clinton campaign.
The market may not be one we can clearly see, but yes it will come.
When I read comments on young men 18 to 25, yes a fair few would rent one with their mates, when they are having a beer and play station night. Girls might do the same, handsome stud that kisses all night,, but when it comes to the crunch comes in all the sizes.. it goes on and on, until the girl always climaxes then stops.
Less handsome or successful men may buy one; if programmed well, and accessorises marketed well they might even turn from galt to active workers!! Successful men may have a top shelf model one, for lonely nights.
I heard on TV yesterday the average teenage / early 2)’s person with an Iphone is expected to spend $70,000 on apps etc over their life time. A sex bot could easily be double that in accessories.
It will put huge pressure on us all, but especially the young, as the alternatives will be beautiful, clever etc and always available and welling no courtship or time input needed.
I will re-read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick (1968).
IMO, some of the commentators are choosing the wrong historical examples. I remember when people thought unwed mothers and divorces were a small percentage and would stay that way because of shame and innate goodness. It took some time but unwed mothers, single parents, divorces are at levels unbelievable a few decades ago, much less if you go back to the 1960’s.
There was a reason for unwed mothers and divorces. Larry is pointing out that the reasons for this phenomena, are his reasons for the rise of sexbots. Since technology advances quickly, but entrenched institutions (our legal handling of divorces, in this case) are slow to change, it will happen quicker than most will anticipate.
In fact, the denial of recognizing that many men are already on that road is surprising. I see those who cannot see a large market as evidence that Larry is correct. This is based on the predicted history of marriage. When the phenomena of unwed mothers and single parent families started, it was said that it would not be a large number. Events have proved, as Larry stated, that betting that the past is the future has proven (to be) an unreliable guide.
INCELS, MGTOW, Game for the 10%, etc., the market is there.
For those who like sci-fi, there is a scene in a book about WWW, and the top 0.1% of capability. An escaped genius is at a new job where the industry sent him. The industrial conglomerates control their employees like a socialist’s wet dream. The genius spends one night with the sexbot. When asked by the underground who were trying to change society why, he replied, because the conglomerate expected it, and not doing it would have triggered re-education for him.
I can see those so intent on destroying our culture not rejecting sexbots, rather, the opposite.
YMMV
With regard to limb crushing, plenty of modern household devices can kill or maim you. And people have been inadvertently injuring or killing themselves during self-gratification even before the discovery of “auto-erotic asphyxiation.”
As for being spied on by the government, this seems to be a variant of the “God is watching you” shame tactic, except they substitute government for God. But the premise is the same, arguing that you should never do in private what you would not want someone to watch you do. In which case, most people would not want to ever urinate or defecate.
Cynical and realistic men probably figure that the government and Google is already spying on them anyway when they surf the web for non-sexual purposes or buy groceries with credit cards. So for them the choice is “get spied on without sexbots” or “get spied on with sexbots.”
Everybody seems to take for granted that sexbots will only be appealing to men. In my humble opinion women will be equally eager to buy them. And yes, there is a Science Fiction reference there too: Isaac Asimov`s Robots of Dawn.
Taraxippos,
“Everybody seems to take for granted that sexbots will only be appealing to men.”
I don’t see anybody making that assumption. The people writing about sexbots are quite careful to say the exact opposite.
“In my humble opinion women will be equally eager to buy them.”
The current demand for porn, prostitutes, and sex toys implies that you are wrong. The demand for all of these is far larger among men than women.
Perhaps I wasnt paying attention, but it seemed to me that the whole discussion turns around men and the appeal sex bots will have for them. Sex bots will not be a lot more than sex toys or pornography, their purpose will be to emulate a sexual partner, so I believe they will be more appealing to women than pornography or vibrators were until now. We`ll see…
Taraxippos,
“Perhaps I wasnt paying attention, but it seemed to me that the whole discussion turns around men and the appeal sex bots will have for them.”
Yes, you weren’t. Or perhaps your bias prevented you seeing the details. The discussion is primarily about men because men are the largest – by far – market for such products today.
Sex bots will not be a lot more than sex toys or pornography, their purpose will be to emulate a sexual partner, so I believe they will be more appealing to women”
Probably not, since the customers today for prostitutes – from a blow-job in the car to high-end escorts – are overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) men. Also note that it will be a long time until sexbots are remotely close in fidelity to prostitutes.
To start with mainstream narratives around sex-bots are form fitted into current narratives of political correctness. They have little predictive merit, I can say for sure they are all likely wrong.
I speculate Sex-bots will Save Marriage and will Transform the economy in ways we cannot currently imagine.
The Sex-Bot industry will usher the true arrival of a human android with human like AI. When sex bots arrive it will be as big as say the arrival of the automobile, film industry or the internet. It will fundamentally change the economy at its roots.
Sex bots are priced such that the industry is already self sufficient. It is incrementally improving and integrating available technology. What may jump start the sex bot industry will be the next major military struggle/war. Many hundreds of billions will be invested into research and development creating new autonomous AI weapon systems. This tech will find its way into the generation of sex bots that will be transformative.
Gods primary first commandment is to be fruitful and multiply that is bringing forth the next generation. With birth control this has been short circuited. Sex bots will be part of the harem with flesh and blood women who can make babies being the catered to these human queens and trade successful men’s seed to impregnate. Human like, emotional, vulnerable, Sex-bots will become lovers, inspireres, helpmates and scapegoats.