Moral questions for the 21st Century- Sex and Robots

Some traditional religous morality has defined sex outside of marriage, even masturbaation as "immoral", others take a more "liberal" view on sex outside of marriage, even more so on masturbation.....but let's consider this in light of advances in cybernetics.

(Seriously, if we can. )

Suppose our friends the Japanese finally get past their prototypes and create a reasonably "human-like" android....gynoid to be more specific (but throw in a male version for women as well, if you like)....that can mimic human reactions, speech, even emotions and physical response.

Human beings can either go to "robotic bordellos" or simply purchase one of these androids for their own home and they are used for sexual pleasure by the owner/user....in the same way sex toys (for both genders) are available now.

What would be the "moral" impact? Would a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. consider "sex with a robot" to be "immoral"? Or simply another form of masturbation?

 

With or without AI?

The movie "Her" delves into this subject matter to some degree, sans the human physical interface.

 

The extreme right and Christians would push to have them banned...right after they bought a few.

 

There would certainly be a fair few who were opposed to this. Much of the beef some religions have had with sexuality is its overuse and casual use, whereas most would accept that in combination with love and so forth, it can hardly be a bad thing. I also doubt that some prominent religions will consider love towards a love-bot particularly good, but I would guess that the main argument they would give would be that those who proclaim to love robots do so not out of love, but an interest in casual robot sex.

 

Another point.....is an artificially intelligent robot that acts as a sex toy considered "sinful" ...not just for the human "user" but the android itself?

Will religions grant a state of "sinfulness" to A.I.? Or will they deny A.I. and claim it is "just a simulation, not real sentience"?

 

Obviously the fundy/right Christians will consider ANY sexual activity with an android/gynoid to be a "sin".....since they also regard masturbation as "sinful."

And you're right...the loudest fundy preacher against "Satanic machines used for lustful purposes"....will be caught in a Motel 6 in Enid, Oklahoma with a "Cherry-3000" (or even a "Eddie-3000").

 

It becomes a question.....more "liberal" churches who regard masturbation as "not desirable but harmless" or less?

Do they apply that to a man who's using the "Fembot-vers. 4.0"? Or the woman using "EDuardo-209"?

 

I'm not sure I understand what the question you're referring to is.

 

Just another form of masturbation, which is what it would be.

 

If "Data Dollies" ever do reach the market, men will explore the possibilities ad nauseum, and religions will blame human women.

 

Religious people who support sexual immorality are just pagans who act the way the pagans id before Moses appeared.

Moses initiated the idea of religion as we now understand that term.
Moses divided people into pagan Gentiles and his own religious people who recognized that unregulated sexual behavior creates a Matriarch which gets weaker and weaker, and finally collapses.
The reason this occurs is the kids grow up immoral and weaken society as fatherless kids abound in number.

Unrevealed and unnoticed sexual permissiveness that does not threaten the behaviors of kids forced harlots and Gays to hide their intentions and stay inside the closet.
Robots would not allow this to happen, since they must be sold and advertised and made public.

 

No,...
It is all about the kids,the child abuse, and the criminal behavior of the bastards as they grow up:

 

I don't think ED 209 is anatomically correct.

 

If we allow the Japanese to lead us into the future, prepare for some sick ass (*)(*)(*)(*).

Honestly people Einstien implicated, our morality is a horse and technology is a space shuttle. If we do not stop the science in the name of science, we are bound to be destroyed by our on hands. The tower of bable is a fitting story.

 

yes, terrible people, the Japanese.

oy vay ....

 

so in other words, you'd like pre-order?

would you prefer The Mary (a porcelain skinned redheaded demurely dressed 'christian' with a hidden devil streak)?

or

The Shania (a tanned, bleach haired, strumpet dressed like 17 year old trailer trash)?

 

Would a church that doesn't consider masturbation particularly "sinful"....object to the use of sexual surrogate robots?

 

It'd be interesting to see the more Religious Right churches' reaction. You might be onto something...one can see them saying "Men wouldn't be using these 'machines'...if women were more subservient to men like the Bible says they should be."

 

Dave, not sure I see if you're "fer it" or "agin it"? The "sex robots" would be sold publicly...maybe not even as "sex robots" but as "maids" or "butlers".

So not sure how "unrevealed" or "unnoticed" plays into it?

More basically, in your humble opinion, is masturbation "sinful"? If "No", then what's the "difference" in using a sex robot?

If "Yes", why? By what Biblical injunction?

 

I still think there'd be objections. One of them is the closing of the gap between love and casual sex. There might of course be exceptions to that, all I'm saying is that there's nothing excluding the objection.

 

Are you claiming that churches no longer consider masturbation to be immoral?

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post and Off Topic Response Removed<<<

 

I am not aware of which church has the category "particularly sinful " . Please elaborate

 

the ultimate vanity, to presume we know can readily identify the very fine line between lust and new love. since religion panders to just such vanities, it figures that lines will be drawn in sand on the matter. men are such babies.

 

I don't doubt it....just wondering what rationale they would use or what "Bible verse"?

- - - Updated - - -

Not all. Plus it's not directly referenced, pro or con, in the Bible. Remember, Onan wasn't chastized for masturbating....but for "premature withdrawal" during sex.