On the TV show West World the robots carried on conversations and acted like humans. As AI continues to improve, could robots take the place of a spouse?

Would the Mormon church

Isn't a TBM stepford wife already kind of like a sex robot?

Everything has already changed and keeps changing. The Mormons and the Muslims have some catching up to do.

Skynet has become self-aware.

Predicting how the future will be can be tough. When I was a kid in the seventies,I remember hearing about what the world would be like by 2000. We were going to have all kinds of flying cars, telephones would have a screen so you could see who you were talking to. Robots would run households with minimal housework...

The reality is that while many of these things sort of happened big things happened that were never predicted (at least that we were hearing about as children). The internet,personal computers,smart phones. I don't think anybody predicted the importance of text messaging.

I really don't see AI replacing people (maybe some jobs) but not in personal relationships. I suspect our evolutionary nature will continue to drive us to find a mate and reproduce to carry on our genes.

There's no reason to get married nowadays except commitment or social convention.

Modern Iceland is a good example. Women are more independent and have been so since Viking times.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/travel/wonder-list-bill-weir-iceland/
https://guidetoiceland.is/connect-with-locals/nanna/iceland-is-a-feminist-hell-full-of-bastards

There's a type of beetle in Australia that likes beer bottles. The male beetles consistently try to mate with a short stubby bottle that resembles a desirable female of the same beetle species:
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/creatura-blog/2015/05/australias-beer-loving-jewel-beetle

The sex robot thing is as old as history and goes back to Pygmalion and Galatea.

Human males are hardwired to desire sex with females that fall within a distinct range of parameters. Ancient Greek and Roman female statues almost all have the same waist to hip ratio range. Miss Universe and The Bachelor contestants all resemble each other and have the same figure.

If someone creates realistic gynids that meet these criteria, men will want to have sex with them.

In traditional cultures a woman's value is based on reproduction and her ability to provide male heirs. Sex robots can't fulfil this role. The most likely scenario would be similar to that of the heterae ("companions") of ancient Greece or Geisha in Japan. These women were not prostitutes but educated and trained to perform and entertain. It would be cheaper and easier to entrap human females to use as prostitutes instead of expensive gynids.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2017 08:43AM by anybody.

That is a rather fetching beer bottle, I must admit.

After too many beers at the bar I've gone home with the equivalent, once or twice, truth be told.

it might be hard to explain to the EMTs how your c$ck got stuck in a beer bottle.

Years ago I dated a nurse who sometimes worked at the Emergency Room at San Francisco General Hospital.

According to her there was a proctologist on-call whom she and her colleagues referred to as the "Rear Admiral."

Apparently his collection of items removed from recalcitrant rectums was quite extensive.

Several items included things made of glass. Kids, don't try this at home!

Saying "Muslims have some catching up to do" is like saying "Christians have some catching up to do." The Muslim religion is bigger and has even more varieties than Christianity does. You'll find a number of Muslim people who are very progressive, and you'll find some crazy ones (like the crazy Christian extremists who have been blowing up abortion clinics, skyscrapers and non-Christian religions buildings).

Some really intensive Sharia style submission training would probably change your perspective and opinion on that matter. And it will be much, much easier to find some devout moslems willing to enthusiastically administer that training than it would be to find any Christians willing to do it, even in the USA where Christians vastly outnumber moslems. Sticking up for Islam in the interest of being fair and progressive is like advocating amputation to cure athlete's foot. Christianity and Christians have done a lot of bad things through out history. Islam is far WORSE. I do not like Christianity, but when it comes down to it in the modern setting, I will side with Christianity and Christians EVERY time over (barbaric) Islam and moslems. Do not even try to argue with me over the point. IF you want to try to disagree with me, then attempt to prove your point by trotting your progressive rear end through some of the most militantly devout Islamic areas in the world today While dressed as a progressive Westerner, and make sure to arrange to have some video made to document your (tragic) experience since you will end up paying so dearly for it .....or would you rather take that stroll through some of the most stridently Christian areas in the world today? (Yah, that is what I thought !!!!)

worse than...what?

ALL religions have had more than their fair share of evil done in their name.

You are thinking of modern period, post-reformation Christianity of the past five hundred years or so. Christianity is six hundred years older than Islam and Judaism is even older. And those are just the Abrahamic faiths. There's lots of violence to go around and Christians have committed plenty of atrocities.

List of European Atrocities
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#European

Description of the "Auto da Fe"
http://joss.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2012/04/2011-DeStafano.pdf

NSFW: Lynching Postcard Online Exhibit
http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

NSFW: Body Of Emmett Till
http://civilrightstimelinedasilva.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/2/9/49295777/de71d295f9b8fd233a30e7727699148c.jpg



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2017 11:10PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are thinking of modern period,
> post-reformation Christianity of the past five
> hundred years or so.

my use of the words "modern setting" and "today" ( twice) in a chronological sense after clearly departing from the contextual historical tense might have been a give away indication that I was referring my current sentiment in a time period more recent than over 500 years ago.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

And your fear of some kind of Islamic takeover of America, Europe or Western Civilisation is irrational, xenophobic paranoia like the "Red Scare" or the "Yellow Peril" of the WWI era.

And right now in America evangelical Christians are the threat to civil liberties and freedom and my way of life -- not Muslims.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2017 10:50AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

....must be because you are so gosh darn smart !!!

even so You have a really hard time keeping track of time lines and what actual concerns are.

>
> And your fear of some kind of Islamic takeover of
> America,

Did I say that I was concerned /afraid of Islam doing a whole sale take over of the entirety of America ? - NO ! NO, I did not actually say that. How ever framing things in that contrived extremity was necessary for some one to start building a contrived case to say that some one else was wrong about that concocted introduced extremity happening, so the notion that the some one else was wrong could be constructed on that contrived point over that contrived argument that some one concocted. Then some one was hoping that specific concocted instance of some one else being incorrect could then be universally applied to the some one else. Too bad for the some one that their ploy is NOT going to work because it is so readily demonstrable that some one never had a legitimate point to gloat over in the first place or to use to assert as basis for their overall correctness on matters.

The thing that I DID say was that I was concerned about the welfare and safety of my kin relative to more hostile Moslems entering the USA. The thing that you then did, besides acting AS IF there is no such current trend or that it does not matter, was to attempt to put words in my mouth by saying that I was afraid of a (wholesale) moslem take over of America. You FAILED !!!! because THAT was not my stated point of concern and I NEVER SAID THAT as my presented concern !!! CARE TO REVIEW THE TEXT ON THAT ?????

So INSTEAD of you being correct, as you so foolishly pretended to be with out real basis, you have ended up being busted for using a BOGUS tactic. ( just waiting for you in all your gosh darn smartness to insist that did not really happen either )

....but do not worry!!!! I get your more basic point -which is that some one as gosh darn smart as you are can not be wrong! so let's keep going so it can be demonstrated just how gosh darn smart that you really are !!!!


> Europe or Western Civilisation is
> irrational, xenophobic paranoia like the "Red
> Scare" or the "Yellow Peril" of the WWI era.

Yah, that Gosh darn Red Scare is just completely overblown, unwarranted and paranoid !!! .......AS IF Communism had ever taken over any large countries ....... Not mentioning like say Russia or China because that might undermine your point about how frivolous that Red Scare really is!!! .......and AS IF Communism had ever carelessly and mercilessly inflicted any harm on any individuals or opposing groups in its glorious forward march (at any cost to humanity) of Communist Revolution to establish itself (so much like the glorious onward march of your personal brilliance .....at any cost to reality and facts).

"Yellow Peril" JFTR is relative to concerns about Asian based aggression in the world. It should not be any kind of stretch to include Japan and the Japanese as Asian, (especially compared to the (YOUR) (WILD) stretch of insisting that any and all concerns on moslem immigration must be based on the notion that moslems will imminently (if you have the ability to keep track of time lines at this point) take over the USA). Any way, Japan is being brought up just to point out how passive that they really are, just to prove your point about how to point out how silly that Yellow Peril really is. Japan has always been passive. They have never been involved in any major conflicts. Japan has always been a friend to America. .....Japan has ALWAYS been passive, just like when they just sat out World War II !!!!!!!

Oh, and that Chinese /North Korea thing ( suit yourself, pick an era, slide around several decades like its nothing !!!) -not worth mentioning!!!


.......It might seem that you picked some really specious examples that you QUITE errantly (mis) applied and then even more errantly posed as absolute truths to back up what you wanted to say while you miserably failed to be substantive or profound so contrary to your intentions .......but that can not be, because it is the foregone given that you are way too gosh darn *smart* to do something that stupid.

>
> And right now in America evangelical Christians
> are the threat to civil liberties and freedom and
> my way of life -- not Muslims.

Here you are BITCHING about something that is ACTUALLY a good thing in the larger sense, because No matter how irritating that the West Borough Baptist Church maybe, or how irritating that whatever other Christian agenda might be to you (And JFTR I am saying that as an ATHEIST !!! who has already allowed that I am not that fond of CHristianity, just even less fond of Islam, just to keep you straight on what I have ACTUALLY said), the darn problematic Christians still are NOT wholesale cutting off the heads of their opposition (and their own followers) like the Moslems are doing on a fairly regular basis or RAPING INFIDEL Females as a standard matter of course ....or are you going to insist that is not happening too, (based on how gosh darn smart you are) ?.......??????

......but lets not get side tracked with that niggling detail. Lets ignore the fact that it appears that you just can not be content until the moslem hoard IS more of a threat to you due to more immigration than the nasty resident Christians, because that might erode some of your dazzling brilliance that is the foremost given ......as you are so gosh darn smart.

Lets not restrict your dazzling brilliance to just this thread. Go ahead and broaden things just as you love to do. Start with Sweden, branch out as your brilliance inspires you. (Hopefully it will eventually lead you right into Syria, or Libya or Iran and you can stay there where they really appreciate how gosh darn smart that you really are) Yes I mean NOW in the current immediate time, Go to Sweden for starters, and tell them that you "do not buy" their current Swedish Rape Epidemic (that is directly related to Moslem immigrants/ "refugees"). Tell them just how wrong that they must be because you are so gosh darn smart. Tell them how you know it really is NOT happening, based on how gosh darn smart that you are.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-31/swedens-migrant-rape-epidemic-explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdGPPLmR5Bc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pogGsTU_VRI

How much do you really know about Islam? Why do you think ALL Muslims commit or are naturally inclined commit atrocities like DAESH? There are over a billion Muslims and there are many different interpretations of Islam. Do you think secret signals get beamed from the Kaaba that tell Muslims to suddenly go berserk?

The 1919 "Red Scare" was a domestic anti-Semitic, xenophobic, reactionary crisis generated by fear of Communism and the large number of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe. Because some Communists were Jews, they "all had to be" and many were deported. The "Yellow Peril" began as a reaction against Chinese immigration to America. In the 1930s, anti-Semitic xenophobia prevented German Jews from emigrating to America. In the 1950s anyone with liberal views was labelled a "Communist" even if they opposed Soviet Communism. It's not easy to immigrate to the US or get refugee status. The screening is very thorough and it takes two to three years or more.

By your way of thinking every Muslim that lives in a Western country is a potential threat. Just because some Muslims are terrorists, they all must be terrorists, right? Just get rid of them and send them back to where they came from and that will solve everything. People used to think all Germans were Nazis even if they were born in America. Not all Muslims are Arabs. Many are European.

So why isn't Dearborn, Michigan under the control of DAESH or al-Qaeda? Muslims have been living there for over a hundred years. So do Hindus, Sikhs, Coptic Christians from Egypt and Syria and other places in the Middle East. Are they bombing and raping and killing each other? They are native born Americans with the right to practise their religion (or not) just as you do. Where would you "send" them to?

The chance that I'm going to be killed in an Islamic terror attack in America is very small. It's not zero, but it's probably not going to happen. Co-operation between law enforcement and religious communities helps to ensure that it doesn't happen.

Evangelical Christianity (and to a lesser extent Mormonism) have had more of a negative impact on my life than Islamic terrorism has had. They aren't an imaginary threat but a clear and present danger. I once lived in an area near where a doctor was killed by a right wing Christian extremist.

Evangelical Christians are the ones who tell me that my body doesn't belong to me and I'm just a "host." Christians are actively working to pass laws to restrict what I can see or read or wear and control who I date or marry. Christians deny the basic facts of science and climate change and want to de-fund scientific research. Christians want to re-segregate schools, erase LGBT people from society, and re-introduce apartheid style "Jim Crow" laws under the guise of "religious freedom." Christians in the USA want to impose the same sort of religious rule in America like DAESH and the Taliban.

Not all Christians are like this but there are enough of them that hold such views so they can influence politicians who can pass laws that effect me. Muslims are not doing this nor are Jews or Hindus. I've worked with plenty of Muslims (not one of them laid a hand on me by the way) and they are no different from you. Some were immigrants, some were born in America. Some were devout, some were not. But they were all glad to live in America where they could practise their religion in peace without government interference.

You've escaped living in a Mormon theocracy so why would you want to live under a Christian one? I don't want to.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2017 05:55AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much do you really know about Islam?

MORE than ENOUGH to know that I have NO interest in accommodating it to any extent in MY homeland! that is HOW MUCH!!

> Why do
> you think ALL Muslims commit or are naturally
> inclined commit atrocities like DAESH? There are
> over a billion Muslims and there are many
> different interpretations of Islam. Do you think
> secret signals get beamed from the Kaaba that tell
> Muslims to suddenly go berserk?


Well there you go, attempting to put words in my mouth AGAIN so you can gain an ill gotten / supposed advantage. I have said NOTHING about Daesh!!!


> The 1919 "Red Scare" was a domestic anti-Semitic,
> xenophobic, reactionary crisis generated by fear
> of Communism and the large number of recent
> immigrants from Eastern Europe. Because some
> Communists were Jews, they "all had to be" and
> many were deported. The "Yellow Peril" began as a
> reaction against Chinese immigration to America.
> In the 1930s, anti-Semitic xenophobia prevented
> German Jews from emigrating to America. In the
> 1950s anyone with liberal views was labelled a
> "Communist" even if they opposed Soviet Communism.
> It's not easy to immigrate to the US or get
> refugee status. The screening is very thorough
> and it takes two to three years or more.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Completely irrelevant diatribe in consideration of the fact that Communism really has been a threat and detriment to millions of people, so fear of it IS /WAS reasonable SO CONTRARY to what you attempt (and FAILED) to assert.

>
> By your way of thinking every Muslim that lives in
> a Western country is a potential threat.


I did not really say that at all. But some real jerk keeps concocting things that he feels that I must have said or thought even though I did not and even though he is WRONG !!!!

> Just
> because some Muslims are terrorists, they all must
> be terrorists, right?

I never said that. Some one else, a real JERK, is saying that !!!

All of the pills in a bottle of aspirin do not have to be poison (just one) before I would throw it away, regardless of your insistence that you want to keep the tainted bottle of pills, because you are so gosh darn smart!!!

> Just get rid of them and
> send them back to where they came from and that
> will solve everything.

You are largely correct in a certain regard in this instance, because one thing is certain: IF a moslem is NOT in the US then when Moslems finally freak out the moslems can not so readily attack US citizens while those citizens are in the US !!!


You are also relying on the notion that there are always going to be problems in dealing with moslems, which is correct, and then further that we might as well bear that (Falsely) unavoidable burden as well as possible. THAT ASSumption of unavoidable burden ( so much the same way that MORmONISM operates BTW ....do you realize how much you are relying on MORmON tactics!!!) errantly relies on the notion that America is duty bound to be the main bearer of the burden of moslem based problems (just like MORmONS are duty bound to save the dead ) which is STUPID. See: "where would you send them?"

HOW Ironic that you are so insistent on denying the safest possible safe harbor of an American homeland to Americans in the interest of extending it to (masses of subversive) moslems who loathe america, who can not dwell in their Islamic homelands largely due to the devastating destructive outcomes of Islame, who do not deserve a refuge, and who can not wait for Islame to dominate in America (in the same fashion that is does in their ruined Islamic homelands). .....Yah, go ahead and against the moslem's own adamant declarations tell everyone that is NOT the case !!!!


> People used to think all
> Germans were Nazis even if they were born in
> America.

Wow, thanks for ( that captain obvious routine) clarifying that, premised on top of a raging generality, of "People" WHO EVER THEY ARE/WERE!!!!!!, that you in other supposedly do not approve of and object to, but so readily fall back on in that instance ....when it suited you. (WEEEEEEAAAAAAAKKKKKK!!!!)

> Not all Muslims are Arabs. Many are
> European.

That makes The European countries that are being trashed by Moslems feel so much better !!!!


Ther you are, acting AS IF Germany ....FRance, ENGLAND and Sweden and other countries are not having any problems with moslem refugee invaders.


> So why isn't Dearborn, Michigan under the control
> of DAESH or al-Qaeda? Muslims have been living
> there for over a hundred years. So do Hindus,
> Sikhs, Coptic Christians from Egypt and Syria and
> other places in the Middle East. Are they bombing
> and raping and killing each other?

just give those moslems in dearborn a little more time, they will get to their moslem ways !!! you are acting AS IF Moslems do not kill each other in areas where they are predominate while that SIMPLY IS NOT THE CASE .....go ahead, tell every one all about Iraq and Iran, the sunnis and shiites and how they have always peacefully co existed.

and since you asked, the reason that the US Moslems are not in full bloom murderous jihad is NOT because they are such gosh darn good people, it is because of the "Christian" style law and order that has been imposed on them to block their normal raging moslem barbarism, and they Despise that check, and by their own declaration they intend to dispense with it just as soon as they can.

> They are native
> born Americans with the right to practise their
> religion (or not) just as you do.

You are grossly incorrect. Sharia Murder, rape, beatings, torture IS an integral advocated aspect of Islam .......IF you would care to ACTUALLY listen to any of their rhetoric or familiarize yourself with the key Islamic doctrines ...."how much do you really know about Islam" Murder is also illegal which prevents it from being practiced even in a "religious" context, unless a person is in an Islamic (Hell hole ) homeland and Islam/shari is practiced.

but thanks for pointing out the HUGE flaw with the 14th amendment that so badly needs revision /correction.



> Where would you
> "send" them to?

You are acting AS IF their final deportation destination is my problem. THAT is not my problem. My problem is that dangerous subversives are in my country posing as refugees, and they need to be removed. Where they finally end up, as long as it is not here or in some other Christian nation or atheist nation that they intended to destroy, is NOT my problem.

The REAL question is: why are moslems brothers in other moslem nations so opposed to taking in their less fortunate moslem brothers as refugees??????

Since you asked, I would have zero problem with dropping a big load of these refugees right on Saudi Arabia's or Iran's doorstep. .....How are you going to pose Red Scare or yellow peril/ yellow fever ( whatever) or any other of your flimsy contrived BS as an objection to that ????)


If Islam is so great and Mecca is so wonderful, then the moslems SHOULD want to go back to the area where Islam dominates, but for SOME REASON, they do not want to do that.


Stop making their Moslem problems into my problems.


>
> The chance that I'm going to be killed in an
> Islamic terror attack in America is very small.
> It's not zero, but it's probably not going to
> happen. Co-operation between law enforcement and
> religious communities helps to ensure that it
> doesn't happen.

It is an unnecessary risk that I have ZERO obligation to assume!!!!

> Evangelical Christianity (and to a lesser extent
> Mormonism) have had more of a negative impact on
> my life than Islamic terrorism has had. They
> aren't an imaginary threat but a clear and present
> danger. I once lived in an area near where a
> doctor was killed by a right wing Christian
> extremist.
>
> Evangelical Christians are the ones who tell me
> that my body doesn't belong to me and I'm just a
> "host." Christians are actively working to pass
> laws to restrict what I can see or read or wear
> and control who I date or marry. Christians deny
> the basic facts of science and climate change and
> want to de-fund scientific research. Christians
> want to re-segregate schools, erase LGBT people
> from society, and re-introduce apartheid style
> "Jim Crow" laws under the guise of "religious
> freedom." Christians in the USA want to impose the
> same sort of religious rule in America like DAESH
> and the Taliban.
>
> Not all Christians are like this but there are
> enough of them that hold such views so they can
> influence politicians who can pass laws that
> effect me. Muslims are not doing this nor are Jews
> or Hindus. I've worked with plenty of Muslims (not
> one of them laid a hand on me by the way) and they
> are no different from you. Some were immigrants,
> some were born in America. Some were devout, some
> were not. But they were all glad to live in
> America where they could practise their religion
> in peace without government interference.
>
> You've escaped living in a Mormon theocracy so why
> would you want to live under a Christian one? I
> don't want to.

you are so insistent on confusing and complicating the issue.

I have already been quite clear on this matter, but you can not keep track of that most immediate detail and then you expect everyone to have a respect for your (supposed) deep abiding comprehension and appreciation of history.

It is NOT a matter of me having a preference for a Christian homeland over a better option, even as that is not an option. The reality is that current Christian America IS deeply preferable to any place where Islam dominates, and that is the reality that I endorse. (so stop trying to muddy that issue)

However, As you feel so oppressed by Christianity here in America and so sympathetic to Islam, then by all means HAUL YOUR Moslem sympathizing ASS TO AN ISLAMIC DOMINATED COUNTRY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE where you can live in ISLAMIC freedom and ISLAMIC sanctity and Islamic tranquility, and stop insisting that people like me should not mind the Islamic trashing up of America because by your majestic estimation it just is not consequential.

And I am saying that to you as an ATHEIST !!!!!!!

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Evangelical Christianity (and to a lesser extent
> Mormonism) have had more of a negative impact on
> my life than Islamic terrorism has had.

there you are, once again, bitching about something that is actually more of (a declaration of) a blessing than anything else given present realities.

.....If Evangelical Christianity really did kick your ass more than MORmONISM has/ did, then it is only natural to question how much that you really were in to MORmONISM and to conclude that it was NOT very much. And If Christianity has messed with you more than Islam, then THAT is a blessing.

Tell you what:
I'll side with anybody who embraces free speech, freedom of thought, and complete separation of church and state.
And I'll oppose anyone who's against those things.

Part of those things I support is NOT grouping people by religion (or lack thereof). Not glorifying all people in any one religion, not demonizing all people in any one religion. In fact, tossing religion out of the equation entirely -- and dealing with people based on their actions, not their beliefs.

Would the Mormon Church use their magical power and punish someone for having a sex robot? Is a dildo a sex robot?

-Will we be able to order them on Amazon, used ones from Craigslist?

-UPS backs a truck into the drive, uses drones and lifts to deliver a six-foot "non-descript" package.

-An after-market ABP company where you walk up to the counter and ask if they have a replacement part for a 2020 Model T.42, skin tone ____. Your buddy does weekend side jobs, so you leave some of his cards at the register.

-Walk into a Best Buy dealership, test drive them? oh my.

-Will they hang out on street corners, a quickie from pimps?

-Say your house gets robbed. "Shee-la" is e-tasered, stolen, reset to factory specs and now unable to be tracked. Do you file a claim with your insurer? Do you mourn?

Change the reasons to marry? Some would want to marry Shee-la, considered as a "perfect mate."

The possibilities are endless and fun.

My questions become:

Would it be Shee-la's fault if she were "raped," and would this reduce her value?

Would they make child Shee-las for perverts, and would we still consider these people to be pedophiles, or as to say just preferring a Mac to a PC?

I have only seen the Bryner version of Westworld. I've seen A.I., I Robot, Bi-centennial Man, Alien, Transformers, Terminator and a bunch of others, including lesser-known B films. I enjoy sci-fi flicks.

Has anyone seen Wall-e? It's a sweet little pro-green cautionary tale (indoctrination cartoon) made for kids, and very negatively addresses some adult issues. Machines plainly have feelings more sensitive than humans, who have become numb to their own condition through the over-use of machines.

It was easy to enjoy that sweet little love story between the two protagonist machines, until I realized the message intended for kids: Be careful with technology, be careful to limit it, or you too can destroy nature and become numb to humanity.

Okay, maybe a valid point or two, but delivery via rancid subliminal fear-implantation. Adult flicks depict either beneficial or malevolent machines, sometimes both.

When, and I don't think it's an "if" anymore, we have robots walking among us, I think it will be as much of a moral mess as any other endeavor we humans undertake - religion, politics (law), economics, policing, healthcare, education.

We are each indoctrinated into our sense of morality, and our agreements can only be general, not nitty-gritty specific. It would be easiest to get along with machines of no opinions, rather than evolve a general set of compromised, agreed-upon moral codes. Our onerous, ever-growing volumes of legal codes describing the minutiae and rulings of human interactions are our best solution so far, but those rulings can be seen to be machine-like themselves, often resulting in unwise, unfair rulings, to say nothing of the localized codes and inconsistant applications. I think that this system of control will eventually collapse under its own weight; it's a predictable outcome that a wise society would seek to avoid.

Marriage is an artificial construct designed to regulate human behavior. Many of us have evolved to the point to be able to see that no piece of legalized paper will create or break a life-long, monogamous bond; these bonds exist or they do not, with or without the legalized consent of an authority. Marriage is an adult pacifier, granting an illusion of security where none exists. Evidence of this statement exists in the far more useful prenuptial agreement, which requires no authority to employ.

I don't know that machines will change the reasons for marrying, but it is my hope that they will help to clear our vision.

Just an important safety tip: Don't EVER buy a sex robot on craigslist.

If you do have a sex robot that you bought on craigslist have it professionally cleaned and sanitized.

Real Dolls™ and the men who prefer them over human females.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukok0oeIFoQ&feature=youtu.be



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2017 12:30PM by anybody.

Is that what's called "i-doll-atry?

I can just imagine some Mormon guy taking his robot wife to church with him and getting in trouble.

I can imagine some Mormon guy buying multiple robot wives so he can follow the prophet and be a polygamist of sorts.

I think it would be cool if I had a robot and could get it a job and send it to work each day so that I could be lazy and not have a job.

With the intense hatred Mormons have of masturbation and bestiality, I think that the brethren would come out strongly against robot wives.

Fascinating stuff to think about.

Heretic 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can just imagine some Mormon guy taking his
> robot wife to church with him and getting in
> trouble.

My uncle already did. He did not get in trouble. MORmONISM loved her. Too bad that since she was a bio robot that she could actually breed and have kids, which she then virtually abandoned every one of them as the cold hearted mechanical MORmON bitch that she really was.

Marriage is on its way out.

Sex robots will be good for all. Guys get sex when they want, and women won't have to deal with a guy and all his patriarchy abuse and what not.

Oh my, didn't any one of you watch the propaganda video about robosexuality?

As a very solitary person with an unfortunately high sex drive and a distaste for marriage, I certainly hope so. Don't get me wrong, I hold women in high esteem -- it's just that I would never personally want to tie myself to someone for life. The few relationships I've tried were awful because I love being single. And I have no desire for children or a family.

I love Westworld. We need that kind of robot, right now.

To me - it seems like males like the idea of having one or more robots. You can have sex whenever, clean the house, cook, maybe the robot can have a job and bring in a paycheck.

Women maybe not so much.

In the future I can see one of the Temple Recommend questions being - do you own robots? Do you have sexual relations with your robots? Then the granddaddy question will be - do you have or have you ever had homosexual sexual relations with one or more of your robots?

Can you imagine a man brings his seven female looking sex bots with 21 mini children looking sex bots to Sacrament Meeting. Especially if the children sex bots are programmed to eat cheerios and spill them?

On the outside of every Mormon building where it says All Welcomed will be added except Sex Bots, Homosexuals, Children of Homosexuals and anyone or anything our magical God hates this week.

I expect the government would try and tax sex bots. The ACLU would demand rights for sex bots. Sex bots would sue you for trading it in for a younger better behaving model.

The list goes on and on.

Lovin Machine, by Wynonie Harris, 1951:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy-_RHT_jgc

I kid you not.

I like that one too!

...or tragic on this site sometimes. Do some of you realize women have the sole organ that's only purpose is for pleasure?

Like a manufacturer wouldn't take advantage of a market that produces andrids that can go for more than 2 minutes, knows what to do with a clitoris, and has a tongue that doesn't get tired and doesn't need the pathetic reassurance "That was great honey! Best sex ever!" as the unsatisfied woman sneaks off to the bathroom to use her vibrator to get off for the zillionth time while her mate snores away.

Barring any creepy sci-fi predictions, androids for sex might not be a bad idea overall. The rest of us will continue in our "less evolved" human relationships with another human being while those with objectophilias can carry on with the objects of their desire.

I was in the midst of many young white boys with testosterone flowing out of their ears.

There was a bit of a polygamy joke about the beautiful girls with a bit more pigment in their skin than us. The joke went something like ... "See that one over there, look elder ... she'd make a fine 3rd wife!!!" "Nope," the other missionary would respond, "she's much better than that, she'd make a fine 2nd wife."

I could see and android as a fine 2nd wife.

Is a threesome really a threesome if one is an android? Just pondering.

weeder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in the midst of many young white boys with
> testosterone flowing out of their ears.
>
> There was a bit of a polygamy joke about the
> beautiful girls with a bit more pigment in their
> skin than us. The joke went something like ...
> "See that one over there, look elder ... she'd
> make a fine 3rd wife!!!" "Nope," the other
> missionary would respond, "she's much better than
> that, she'd make a fine 2nd wife."
>
> I could see and android as a fine 2nd wife.
>
> Is a threesome really a threesome if one is an
> android? Just pondering.


Does a dildo make it a threesome? Is a battery powered dildo a Sex Bot?