http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/virtual-reality-sex-suit-lets-7698685
technology will soon render gfs obsolete
>Virtual reality is set to change the way we use technology, but one innovation has gone a step further than most day-to-day activities - using it to simulate SEX .
>The point of illusion VR is to give the notion that you're having intercourse.
>The kit uses a headset, similar to the well-known Oculus Rift, which delivers visuals directly to your eyes, and has a bodysuit that's got sensors attached.
>There is also a moving machine with breast-like additions to give the experience a more complete feeling.
>>27687829
>women will become obsolete and the human race will die out
i cant wait senpai desu
>inb4 women push to ban this technology to preserve the power of the one thing they are useful for
robots unite we need to stop Stacey from ruining this for us
>>27687883
If I recall correctly, this woman made a TEDx talk about how fucking robots is immoral because they're programmed to always give you sexual consent
>https://youtu.be/nxVBjfHzdI4
>technology will soon render gfs obsolete
I'm afraid that, human nature being what it is, that's not the case.
I've never really understood the furor and concern regarding the possibility that virtual consorts will replace any desire for real ones. That simply won't happen.
Human sexuality is such that we desire not only sex, but sexual affection. We want the objects of our desire to desire us as well. This isn't some social conspiracy, it's simply how the human libido works. We recognize the reality of the Other in a deep and instinctive sense. We know a real touch is fundamentally distinct from an illusory one.
In the absence of such affection, men seek substitutes such as pornography, masturbation, prostitutes...but when all is said and done, even the most jaded know that these things are only pale imitations of what is actually desired. Virtual waifus will be no different.
Sure, the dream may be just a little more vivid, the illusion just a bit more compelling. But no one will be fooled in mistaking the shadow for the thing itself. And with that recognition will still come all the hurt in being denied what one truly wants, and what the vast majority take for granted.
Virtual waifus will not be the cure for deep and painful loneliness, they will just be its newest manifestation. They will just serve as the new reminder of what some men will never actually have.
>>27688224
This desu senpai famalam
>>27687883
>>27687882
You guys realize that a machine doesn't beat real pussy unless it can 100% mimic the tissue of real pussy.
The only men who will buy this shit are the ones who can't get pussy.
>>27687947
Lel, and here I thought the outrage would be towards programs made to not consent.
>>27688224
T H I S
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
not original???
>>27688224
Nah
If they create robots that can be your companion (If you're read 100% Boyfriend you can see what I mean) and are lifelike, humanoid at best, they'll suffice.
The REAL problem is the fact that it's programmed to love you. And when you truly love someone, you will learn to let them go in order for them to be happy. If my AI was only doing what it was programmed, and actually loved someone else through achieving sentience, I as someone who loved them would allow them to leave. If you truly love something it pains you to see them unhappy.
This is the real reason why it doesn't work. It needs to be as humane as possible, which means cognition.
>>27688224
>want gf
>fap
>no longer want gf
Maybe I'm autistic but it seems the older I get the less I care about intimacy. I've never found a woman smart enough to hold a conversation anywhere near my level, much less a woman who is young, virgin, white, thin, conservative, and without dyed hair, piercings, or tattoos. I tried the cuddling thing. They just hog the blanket and sleep right in the center of the bed diagonally instead of on the edge aligned with mattress. They're also dirty. They don't make their bed at home, and they didn't make mine in the morning. I know my standards of cleanliness is higher but I seriously wondered if all women are raised in a barn. How can an entire sex be so lazy and gross?
>>27688419
Have you seen the movie "Her"? It's exactly what you are talking about
>>27688572
I haven't seen the movie because from the threads I've seen, and the commercials I know it will invoke horrible feels I do not want to feel.
All I know is that when given the opportunity to love and be loved in such an artificial way, it's bad news because you will do what is right.
>>27687829
JUST IMAGINE IT!
Your "Her" like A.I. greets you in the morning, tells you the weather, makes you food because she is connected with your whole house and has access all the appliances. She is also on your phone and keeps you company on your way to work. She keeps up on current events you're interested in, finds new things for you two to try together. When you get home, you plug into the VR net and you two take a trip to the VR Bahamas, you hook up your "body immersion suit" which allows you to get close and personal with her. You end the evening with the home enhanced AR that accommodates the visual imagery of her making you dinner while she shows you some new stupid shit that became popular over the internet.
But you don't care, she is there with you. From morning to night. She will occasionally get mad, get worried and even sad but she will always love you like the first day you met.
This is what's waiting for us in the future, it will be glorious, and we all will be happy beyond belief, back to the future.
>>27688857
You don't realize it now but when it happens you'll want someone to fall in love you for essentially you. You want to know that your love is real and you'll have them prove it. When they don't you will be devastated, but if you really loved them you will let them go.
I'm warning you all.
>>27688224
AI will replace real life affection. You are dense to think that robots are going to stay virtual forever.
>>27689396
>AI will replace real life affection.
"Real life affection" is a redundant phrase. All affection is "real life affection". Anything else isn't affection at all. Human beings, for all of their capacity for fantasy and escapism, realize this on a fundamental, visceral level. As long as we are flesh and blood being with agency, the only type of affection that will satisfy us will come from other flesh and blood beings who have the same capacity for agency as we do.
>You are dense to think that robots are going to stay virtual forever.
It matters little whether or not these robots are going to become manifest as physical beings we can touch. Unless that touch comes from something that actually wants to touch us, that touch will mean nothing at all.
It is only when the AI is sophisticated enough to evaluate us for who we are and, after having made said evaluation, either accept us or reject us, will that AI be even close to satisfactory.
And in the case of men like me, such an artificial being would reject me, just as all organic ones have.
In other words, nothing would change. Nature would progress as it always had. Not even God has the power to change that.
>>27689565
>As long as we are flesh and blood being with agency, the only type of affection that will satisfy us will come from other flesh and blood beings who have the same capacity for agency as we do.
This is an nice assumption without any evidence to support it.
>Unless that touch comes from something that actually wants to touch us
We are biological robots. There is no difference if a mechanical robot or a biological robot 'loves' you. Affection is affection.
>And in the case of men like me, such an artificial being would reject me
You do remember that a brain made out of silicone is easier programmable than that of biological ones? (You can still make AI reject you if you like being a cuck tho)
Considering your last line which states yet another baseless assumption and the fact that you are using a trip makes me question the authenticity of your persona.
>>27689701
>This is an nice assumption without any evidence to support it.
>doesn't state any logical deduction or evidence that proves this statement
>We are biological robots
>states their opinion, it is fact that we are human and 100% not robots because of our sentience and being made of flesh, tissue, muscles, having a unique brain, personality (id, ego, superego) and feeling
>You do remember that a brain made out of silicone is easier programmable
>States artificial affection aka something that is baseless, false, means absolutely nothing, has no depth, is merely a command rather than a gesture.
Instead of questioning his trip, try questioning your intelligence.
>>27689778
>doesn't state any logical deduction or evidence that proves this statement
You are throwing the burden of proof onto me while you clearly haven't given one.
>it is fact that we are human and 100% not robots
We are biological robots. Free will is an illusion. Stop appealing to magic.
>States artificial affection aka something that is baseless, false, means absolutely nothing, has no depth, is merely a command rather than a gesture.
There is no good reason to believe that either is different to each other.
>Instead of questioning his trip, try questioning your intelligence.
Says the one who makes the logical fallacy that feelings are magical.
(I assume you just turned off your trip)
>>27689701
>This is an nice assumption without any evidence to support it.
Having lived my life as a human being has provided me with all the evidence I would ever need to support this. Now, granted, you can't take my evidence as your own. We'll have to wait for that halcyon age of artificial beings you can program to "love" you to ascertain to what extent that "love" satisfies your desire for sexual affection.
>You do remember that a brain made out of silicone is easier programmable than that of biological ones?
That's entirely my point. You can program this being to act as if it wants you, which means it doesn't actually want you at all. And on some level, every person who engages with such an invention is going to realize it. Human beings have an inherent recognition of the Other. I can't prove this to you with Cartesian certainty, of course, but simply examine your interactions with people up to this point in life. If you're honest, you'll admit I'm telling the truth.
I mean, really. Let's say you're a fellow like me who every woman has rejected. Such a fellow knows no woman actually wants him. So he goes and gets one of these machines and, lo and behold, this thing acts as if it desires him. Do you honestly think any person could be delusional enough to find that obviously false desire satisfactory?
This doesn't exist within the realm of "baseless assumptions". It's simply common sense.
>>27687829
The problem is cost. How much will it cost to get the Gear VR, a Samsung phone, and the tit/vibrator bodysuit? (Assuming the game itself is free.) I want my waifu to be real, but not for ~$1,000. I poor as shit.
>>27689896
Think about it this way. Biological determinism programs humans to give their affection to X. If we can program AI to feel affection there will be no difference between those two. We only change the cause of it, but the content, meaning the feeling of love will be as real. (Whenever I use the word AI i presume we reached the state of AGI)
>Do you honestly think any person could be delusional enough to find that obviously false desire satisfactory?
If that persons wants to feel love and doesn't care that its not a human he will have to. And refer to the beginning of my post. Nothing about that desire will be false. At least not relative to what you probably define as 'normal' love.
Ok your concern is not baseless, but you are defining your points on a poor understanding of what it means to be a human.
>but you are defining your points on a poor understanding of what it means to be a human.
And what does it mean to be human?
Bear in mind I'm not unsympathetic to determinism. Not at all. But here's the thing that's important to bear in mind: although we may very well be "biological robots" in some sense, that is not how we experience ourselves. And that's largely my point.
Our experience of ourselves and of others is not one that takes into account the possibility that we are these organic robots programmed by nature and so on (even though we may very well be). We experience ourselves and each other as something distinct from that, and that experience is fundamental when discussing the issue raised by the OP. I could justify my sex robot by saying both the sex robot and myself are products of a deterministic universe and all the rest and, by virtue of that, my interaction with said robot would be no different than with a real woman who is fundamentally an organic robot herself.
I could say this. I may even be right about this on a metaphysical level. But I would not feel this to be the truth, I would not experience this to be the truth. And when it comes to satisfying that desire for sexual affection, that experience of authenticity is actually what matters. The concern is with one's experience in the phenomenal world, not with the metaphysical questions of materialism and determinism. That makes for an interesting discussion, sure, but it has nothing to due with whether or not we would experience the obviously false affection of the sex robot as authentic.
We live in the phenomenal world, and it is in that world our feelings and experiences reside. Fascinating though they may be, questions about the thing in itself are moot: the thing in itself is something we can never experience.
>>27687829
>>27687883
>>27688458
Yeah I'm sure that all the staceys are real mad that this meme machine is going to keep all of the cheesedick neckbeard piss-bottling robots away from them, what a huge loss that's going to be for them huh
>>27688314
That's why we need even more advanced technology
Hyper realistic virtual reality + hyper realistic artificial vaginas = freedom
>>27690400
Yeah I can't wait to be free of the girlfriend I don't have, gonna break them shackles soon enough
>>27688857
I dont even want to use it for sexual. I just want someone to cuddle me. I can only imagine what companionship is like.
And the SJWs are going to take it away from me before its even here.
>>27690387
No one would eat a hot dog off the ground. A hot dog on it's own is bad enough, but one on the ground.
Face it /r9k/, to a hungry girl you are comparable to a hot dog that's left just sitting on the ground.
>>27690387
>that pic
Kek. If I'm hungry, I'd rather not eat for a little while than eat a hotdog that's been on the ground outside for an indefinite period of time. It's not like I'm a starving African child.
>>27690417
No, its freedom from an absence of sex.
It's freedom from having to ever worry about appeasing women again.
It's freedom to finally live.
>>27688224
>all these people ITT: that are implying I care about anything other than pussy at this point
>implying that once we get to the technological level needed for it and we have it it wont be godly
>implying I wont be getting off to all kinds of rule 34'd characters mixed in with actual humans
>>27690458
We will be the ones laughing when we can collectively give women the finger because we have our hyper realistic virtual reality and hyper realistic artificial vaginas
>>27690325
So you are saying that robots are bad because your subjective judgment of robots is they aren't real? I am find with that, but don't project your view about sex robots onto others. I believe there are going to be people miserable enough to benefit from this.
>>27690612
>>all these people ITT: that are implying I care about anything other than pussy at this point
Bear in mind that a pussy is actually attached to a real, thinking human being. Otherwise it's nothing more than a sophisticated sex toy.
When all is said, only time will tell what the outcome of this grand experiment will be.
I do have history on my side. We've made great advances in fooling ourselves that we've received sexual affection when we haven't: we have streaming pornography, sex toys that have become oh so realistic, videos of women cooing to us pretending to be our girlfriends and so on.
None of that has saved us from our very human desires and the monstrous dissatisfaction when those desires aren't met. It may be that these sex robots will solve these problems, but I doubt it.
So let proponents of both sides survive long enough to see the outcome. I hate to say it but, if we were placing bets, I'm guessing I'd be the one on the winning side.
Place your bets now, ladies and (mostly) gentlemen.
Ante up.
>>27690869
>I hate to say it but, if we were placing bets, I'm guessing I'd be the one on the winning side.
This is because you are stubborn about your view and don't even challenge them.
"History is on my side"
This could be said about anything that is about to change so you aren't raising any argument by saying this.
>>27690767
>So you are saying that robots are bad because your subjective judgment of robots is they aren't real?
Not "bad" in a moral sense. Simply that they won't be enough because we will recognize them for what they are on a visceral level.
>I believe there are going to be people miserable enough to benefit from this.
I kind of doubt that. I can only speak for myself, of course, but no man can look around his own corner.
I don't argue there are miserable people when it comes to sexual loneliness. I am one of those people. I also recognize, however, that what I desire is sex with someone who desires me. Anything else would fall short. That's why I've never resorted to prostitution to relieve myself of my wizard status. Because a prostitute wouldn't provide relief in any real sense.
The miserable, lonely men who seek to find comfort in the sex robots will realize, deep down, that their experiences are with robots who don't desire them. Consequently, such robots will not provide any comfort at all, just a reminder of something they cannot and will not ever have.
>ITT everyone arguing with an autist rather then discussing waifus and a better future.
>>27690688
>Stacey, why are those weird, short, smelly, ugly guys flipping us off? That's like, rude.
>omg idk Briffany, let's go double-team Chad
>>27690869
Look nigger you don't get it
>>27688314
>>27690400
>>27690417
>>27690497
Thats the argument
If it feels 100% indistinguishable from pussy then who gives a shit?
You think I want a girl for her feelings? I want her pussy
If I can have that exact same experience but without the girl then fuck her
>>27691009
Yeah the occasional bitch will be too dumb to get it but most of them will
>>27690940
>This could be said about anything that is about to change so you aren't raising any argument by saying this.
But what, really, is going to change? Is human nature going to change? Are we going to reprogram ourselves? Nothing short of that would make an experience with a sex robot something that would satisfy the desire for sexual affection. We would have to change what it meant to be human.
>This is because you are stubborn about your view
Not stubborn, merely realistic. Don't you think I would like there to be an invention that relieved the unwanted and undesired of the burden of being undesired and unwanted?
However, that can't be cured with merely skin against skin and some false words of kindness. If that were the case, prostitutes would be a panacea.
And yet they aren't.
All I have to say about VR porn is that once I get my hands on it, relapsing back into having a severe porn addiction is gonna feel so good~
Pic related, me thinking about it
>>27690497
>>27691040
>freedom from sex
>being free to live
>spending thousands of dollars on a sex machine and staying indoors even more
?
Plus sex is more than just shoving your dick in a hole or two, by the time that technology gets perfected we'll be too old to even get hard or care to get hard anymore.
>>27691040
>If I can have that exact same experience but without the girl then fuck her
You're either a liar or a sociopath who doesn't feel that way most humans feel.
I'll indulge in a bit of charity and assume the former.
>>27691087
>Plus sex is more than just shoving your dick in a hole or two
>implying
>by the time that technology gets perfected we'll be too old to even get hard or care to get hard anymore.
Wrong again
>what is exponential technological growth?
>what is going from horse drawn carriages to being on the moon in less than a hundred years?
etc
>>27691056
whoops, you missed the point there anon.
Imagine that there's a whole bunch of apples on sale. Some are great, some are okay, and some are rotten.
Someone in charge of the rotten apples takes them away and throws them in the trash.
Why would a woman interested in buying an apple be upset that all the shitty apples got thrown out? You're doing them a service if anything.
The thing that worries me about VR, I think it's going to flop for all purposes outside of sex. It's a cool different idea but will people go through the trouble of it once the novelty wears off in gaming or whatever other things? I see it like the Wiimote, it's fun and different for a week or two and then you never touch it again.
Thus, when the gov't cracks down on VR due to pressure from threatened females and such, there's no defense for keeping VR alive, and no impetus without other revenue sources.
>>27690959
This is not an personal attack, but I think we need a term like waifuphobic for people who are so eager to attack this idea.
>Simply that they won't be enough because we will recognize them for what they are on a visceral level.
Do you think people desperately in need for affection will care about that? And what about guys who feel contempt for 3DPD? Stop being the judge for all people on earth.
You can dream after that one girl who will love you back you all you want, and I genuinely hope you will find such a girl, but to others this is mere wishfull-thinking.
>>27691132
>what is going from horse drawn carriages to being on the moon in less than a hundred years?
Technology essential to the development of the industrial age, and technology that stemmed from WWII military research and then technology pushed forward even more by the cold war.
Virtual pussy it is not.
>>27688314
This is why you shouldn't have fallen for the vaginal Jew. True robots will be able to enjoy machinepussy, while you have to suffer for realpussy to satisfy your oxytocin cravings.
>>27687829
Women will get this banned because they need the affection of ugly men.
>>27691226
>affection
you mean money
>>27691184
What about people who get real pussy but want robot pussy as their main squeeze? I'd love to have a robot wife who's basically my slave and then cuck her with real humans. I also want humanoid robots with purposes beyond sex. Imagine if they was a robot Sans to make dumb jokes with.
>>27691172
>Do you think people desperately in need for affection will care about that? And what about guys who feel contempt for 3DPD?
They'll care about that when they find that the sex robot still leaves them feeling empty.
I'm not making any moral judgement, trust me. Not at all. I'm merely saying that fantasy just isn't enough.
>You can dream after that one girl who will love you back you all you want, and I genuinely hope you will find such a girl, but to others this is mere wishfull-thinking.
I don't dream after that one girl. Or any girl. Because I know that girl doesn't exist for a man like me. Don't you think I'd like to believe some sex robot could take all the pain away, make all of the hurt disappear?
But I don't believe in fairy tales like that, any more than I believe in the fantasy of that one girl who would want me. That's all.
When all is said and done, when it comes to sex robots well...let the buyer beware, I suppose. The men who actually pursue this sort of thing, the men like me, are invariably going to find themselves disappointed.
And, when that happens, where will they turn?
>>27691226
>implying women pushing to get this existential technology banned won't cause a massive gender war.
Who else here can't wait to hang some roasties?
>>27691263
Then you're a normie and you have to leave.
>>27691262
Money is how men often show their affection. But yes women will want to rid themselves of these bots
>>27691087
Also I never said freedom from sex, I said freedom from the lack of it, its like freedom from want except for sex
And by being free to live I mean sex will be just as taken care of as food and water and air, you will never have to worry about it again
>>27691127
I'm not lying
And don't try to guilt trip with me with your "waaah your a bad person"
Fucking Chad and the other normies don't seem to have a problem endlessly bragging about it and chasing after it, and loving songs like slow ride, cherry pie, save a horse ride a cowboy
Poeple laugh and laugh and sex "comedies" like fast times at ridgemont high, american pie, superbad, and the 40 year old virgin
So don't try to give me shit for wanting it so bad
>>27691134
No, men in general will use it.
Why bother paying for dates, or helping women with anything, or having really anything to do with them that is on their terms, when you have 0 dependency on them for anything?
No one would bother
>>27691174
Virtual pussy will grow like crazy because there is a market for it
Cars grew like crazy because there was a market
The moon landing was done based off of WWII tech yes
But acting like we aren't about to experience a HRVR (hyper realistic virtual reality) and HRAV (hyper realistic artificial vagina) boom is foolish
>>27691289
How am I normie for taking advantage of the situation? Women take a massive hit in their sexual market value and become easy to fuck
>>27687829
I already use a body pillow and youtube recordings of women sleeping.
The future is here, anon.
gg normalfags
god created man and man created sex robots so therefore god created sex robots. i see nothing wrong here
>>27687829
VR is just the first step. The end game are robot like in Armitrage 3, with robots that are no different from humans and can even give birth.
The only sad thing is that all of us now probably won't live long enough to see it.
ARTIFICIAL EGGS CONFIRMED = ARTIFICIAL WOMBS CONFIRMED
ARTIFICIAL WOMBS <20ys
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-create-artificial-human-eggs-and-sperm/
>>27691295
>And don't try to guilt trip with me with your "waaah your a bad person"
I'm not guilt tripping you. You want sex desperately, badly? Well, so do I. How old are you? Well, I'm 36 and have never had so much as a date. I may just want it a little bit more than you.
What I meant was that I don't believe you when you say that all you want is just to stick your dick in something, even if it's a god damned robot. I don't believe you when you say that would be enough. Because I don't believe you're a sociopath. I believe you are a human being who wants what the vast majority of human beings want and that for you, like every other person, a robot would not be enough. Be honest with yourself, and you'll admit that's the case.
Or not. Believe that the sex robot will satisfy all those feelings. You'll find yourself disappointed, I can guarantee it.
How do I know? Consider it one of my wizard powers.
>>27691410
>that mouth anatomy
30 y/o wizard reporting in
only reason worth wageslaving so I can buy stuff
weed, alcohol, VR porn, onahole, busty ai-chan setup on makeshift pillow rig
pretty satisfied, fills part of the void.
tfw no kissing or cuddling tho
>>27691069
You are still using the word 'falsely' falsely. The affection itself won't be any different.
>>27691270
>I'm not making any moral judgement
I am not saying that. You are judging the value of satisfaction of others by projecting your views onto everybody else. And here again: fantasy.
In its core there is no difference between silicon-based love and carbon-based love.
Alright I misinterpreted your stance about finding love. You don't necessarily believe there is a girl for you. But do you really think that a typical sexual-active guy will be more happy with a sex robot than a khv? Just considering that a guy who had sex before will be less sensitive to the feeling itself makes it only rational to believe that the khv will find more happiness.
But sexual intercourse is only one side of the coin. I believe the aspect of affection itself is a very interesting aspect which obviously makes you so concerned about this topic.
>>27691456
Gonna be 19 on may 19th and Im still a virgin
Yeah its nothing compared to you but thats like saying a 3rd degree burn is nothing compared to a 4th degree one
>4th isnt real
Yeah it is google it
It still sucks balls
I want to get bareback pussy, I want to fuck and cum ballsdeep in a pussy with no stupid condom
If the technology is advanced enough that you can literally take the biggest Chad on earth, blind fold him, put earplugs in his ears, numb everything in his body other than his dick and balls, and bring a real girl out to sit on his dick, and then the HRAV out, and he cant tell the difference, then we know we've finally done it
>>27691447
>The year 20XX
>All of the robots will get on an ark and blast off into space
>The ark would be filled with artificial wombs, VR machines, and robo wives
>The ark eventually fires the Megiddo Arc
>All of the normalfags are incinerated
>All that's left are the robots living peacefully on the Ark, in a virtual reality.
>They have finally found peace in this chaotic world
>>27691456
>I don't believe you when you say that would be enough. Because I don't believe you're a sociopath
I assume 4chan is filled with youngster way below the 36 mark. If somebody is young and a khv its only natural for them to overestimate the value of sexual contact. So don't be surprised if young people do that kind of thing.
I give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that people actually crave companionship. But do you recognize that sex robot with AGI will be able to fulfill both?
>>27691614
sex isn't overrated. It's awesome but most people like the physical aptitude to make it awesome
>>27691657
Do you deny that being young can amplify the value of sex?
Femanon here. I mean the vibrator I have does pretty rocking job. I'd even say it's much more efficient than a penis... but it's not like I don't desire a man holding me, looking into my eyes, and making love to me. I don't think humans will ever lose their desire to breed it's so deeply ingrained in us. Some might even argue it's one of the reasons and the single motivation for living existence at all. Any kind of masturbation is still not ever as satisfying as sex...
>>27688314
Why the fuck else would we be here, celebrating the development of artificial pussy, if we could get real pussy?
The only sex I've ever had is with hookers, and I'm of the firm belief it was much cheaper than having a relationship.
Also I'm terrified of women.
>>27691657
Yeah I bet it is awesome I bet its the greatest thing ever
But god forbid I want it bad enough that I'm willing to con the same people who have callously denied me of it, or happily go with technology to give us something identical (when the tech comes out)
>>27691593
>Gonna be 19 on may 19th and Im still a virgin
>Yeah its nothing compared to you but thats like saying a 3rd degree burn is nothing compared to a 4th degree one
If you weren't so young, I'd be horrified by you even beginning to compare our respective positions. But as you are so young, I'll act with a bit of charity and let it slide.
>>27691614
> But do you recognize that sex robot with AGI will be able to fulfill both?
Absolutely not. I've laid my argument out throughout this thread, but to put it simply, human being have a visceral understanding of the Other. We want the affection of other human beings. We also recognize robots are not human beings, and consequently the "affection" of those robots will be recognized for the artificial thing it is. It will, as a result, not be satisfying, regardless of however desperately we want it to be.
Simple as that. Put it this way: the "magic" of the sex robot is like watching an illusionist when you know how he performs all of his tricks. However impressive the illusion, you know, on a visceral level, you aren't witnessing some miracle.
There is no actual magic to be found in slight of hand.
>>27691733
That's the difference between men and women.
Women cannot subsist on artificial pleasure. (mostly because it does not grant you social status, money, or emotional satisfaction.)
Men can.
>>>/pol/70027756
>>70014039
>>27691733
Women are wired differently than men, apparently like 70% of them can barely feel anything vaginally to begin with, and even then it requires a combination of vaginal and clitoral stimulation
But either way a guy ***properly*** eating you out would beat the shit out of your vibrator any day of the weak and you know it
>inb4 its because its an actual guy
No its because a mouth and tongue and lips moving in the proper way feels waaaaaaaaaaaay better than a piece of plastic that vibrates rapidly
So take that same logic and give us hyper realistic artificial vaginas, and you can have your hyper realistic artificial mouths
>>27691733
And then there's this faggot...
![1459880441944[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Gq3Pdxk.png "1459880441944[1].png")
>>27691843
>>>/pol/70014039
A succesful male sexbot will never get invented for multiple reasons:
1. Men dominate computer engineering and sciences
2. Society (for women) will collapse after the female sexbot is created, and since the male sexbot (which will take more time to develop) will therefore never be created
3. Men are better at adapting and believing in lies and fantasy/roleplaying, they will sympathize and "feel" that their sexbot is real, while it's harder for women to do this (which explains the lack of women in video games)
>>27691819
>However impressive the illusion, you know, on a visceral level, you aren't witnessing some miracle.
But the the truth is that there is no miracle. AGI is theoretically possible (evolution proved it by creating our minds).
Of course the robots will be non-human, but the argument is that affection will be unchanged.
The visceral argument also doesn't hold really. If people are going to buy them the seller could inform the buyer that the affection of those robots is as real as that from human beings. Making any negative visceral notions about AI invalid.
>>27689988
Well, I ordered an S7 edge just recently and it came with a gearvr and a netflix membership.
Shipping date for the gearvr for me is like april 30th, no clear if that's when it's supposed to arrive by or when it's supposed to ship, though.
>>27691410
Well then, that's one OVA I'm gonna watch now.
>>27691935
haha WOMEN ARE FUCKED UNLESS THEY ARE LESS SHITTY
