Sex With Robots

I have a friend who loves two things above all else in this world: Technology and debate. He and I have had several long discussions about the relative merits and flaws of sex with people vs. sex with various kinds of machines designed for masturbation purposes. He takes up the stance that not only is there nothing inherently creepy about carrying on a habit of sex with even the most elaborate toys, but that it's superior to classical skin-on-skin. Being the old-fashioned guy that I am, I'll do my best to defend sex with real people as the preferred choice. Like so many debates involving preference and subjective elements like emotions, I think that the answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Proponents of sex with machines cite the numerous objective advantages of exclusivity to toys and while I don't agree with the logical conclusion of their line of reasoning, I'm willing to accept a few hard facts. Assuming you don't share your toys and you sanitize them properly, whether they're traditional devices or expensive dolls with various synthetic moving bits, you just won't get an STI from sex with a machine. Pregnancy is also a non-issue. On a more emotional level, there's nothing wrong with objectifying sex toys because they actually are objects.

Where toys fail, though, is their inability to form emotional connections or provide a full sexual experience. It would take one heck of an advanced sex-bot to replicate every relevant aspect of a flesh-and-blood lover. Machines don't smell like people, they don't have random bursts of passion and, vague as it sounds, they can't want you.

It's in that last particular hang-up that I think some reconsideration is in order. The clear problem with this debate is that things have been poorly defined, if at all. See, "sex" is a very broad term. The most glaring issue is where we draw the line between what is and is not masturbation. All masturbation is sex, but not all sex is masturbation. It's my view that sex with a machine, no matter how complex, is still just masturbation. It's no more qualified to completely replace sex than chewing gum is qualified to replace food.

The key difference between sex and masturbation is the possibility of consent. Not only can a machine not consent to sex, consent isn't even a relevant question when machines are involved exclusively. Most of the other differences between actual and simulated sex may be subjective and of varying value to different individuals, but a robot will never be able to duplicate the experience of being desired by another.

So, where do your opinions fall in this debate? When it's just a matter of relieving tension, do you prefer synthetics or more lively materials? If your favorite toy could be given more human-like features, would you want them? Could you be satisfied with the latest model of LoveBot 5000, or do microchips fall short of the real deal? Take part in the poll attached to the article to let us know what you think.