If hard determinism is true, does that mean while we are having sex, sex is having us?
Hahaha, what? This has to be the nerdiest forum page I've ever read. Etzel, did you really try to make this into a philosophical debate about the free will of the fuck robot? XD
Robots would be just another version of the blow up doll. I can't imagine how they would compare with the real deal. To fully satisfy your mating instincts and enjoy yourself, you have to be with the real deal, nature made sure of that. As long as your only partner is smth that's not really alive, you're masturbating. Closest thing after that would be, you're fucking the little asian guy who programmed the robot to do its thing.
What's wrong, nerd? You hate yourself? More than once I've seen you post this nerd bullshit. Why? You don't like being a nerd? At least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing! Like a homophobe who's secretly a fagot, really.
Talk of robots and sexuality is extremely interesting and anyone who's interested in the FUTURE of mankind must think deeply about these issues. Perhaps in the future there won't even be sex. When we get to the point where we make our babies in labs, women will be of no use. This is what Baudrillard termed "the revenge of the immortals" or "the final solution". How can stuff like that not be interesting?
The answer to my question, by the way, is that it depends. However pleasurable fucking a woman may be, the purpose of sex is procreation. Sex with a robot amounts to sex with a toy, no more different than sex with a fleshlight (like a certain user from here may already know, lol), which is ultimately masturbation. Sex with a cyborg, however, can still lead to procreation and is thus not inherently decadent.
"Decadent" is the main word here. I'm going through all the trouble of thinking about and analyzing this in order to pick apart health from sickness, and what I'm trying to allude to is that "sex" with a robot is sick and decadent, and only hedonistic fuckfaced weaklings will be interested in it. Because they base all their evaluations on PLEASURE, instead of the infinitely more healthy criterium of POWER. "Sex" with a robot (or "sex" in a virtual reality, it amounts to the same thing) may eventually even be MORE PLEASURABLE than real sex with real women — but what does that mean? Heroin gives more pleasure to the brain than sex, physical activity and good food do — does that mean we should turn all our kids into drug addicts?
So sex with a cyborg is a possibility, since a cyborg is by definition an organic being, and not sick, because we would still use it as a means to procreate.
I am not entirely sure, however, how the fight between immortals and mortals will head out! Perhaps there will indeed be no sex in the future! Or perhaps not...
By the way, according to my definitions and examples, fucking a woman with a condom (or for the sole reason of experiencing pleasure), could be seen as "sick" and "decadent", or even, ultimately, as "masturbation". But to say something as retarded as that you'd have to be an autistic pedant. My definitions and examples are mere guidelines which help me analyze the health of a process, and they are not set into stone. For what difference is really there between fucking a piece of metal, or a pie, or a woman, when your only concern is PLEASURE? It can all be seen as masturbation, in this perspective. But the point here is that some pleasures are more healthy than others, and inserting your penis inside a dog, however pleasurable it feels in your head, is sick and leads nowhere. It's never a matter of sickness OR health, but a matter of degrees of health.
Which leads us back to fucking a woman with a condom (i.e. fucking a woman for the sole reason of quenching our desires and needs of pleasure). In this case, while it is more sick than fucking in order to impregnate, this difference is almost NEGLIGIBLE, and taking everything into account, sex with condoms is not sick nor decadent nor masturbation. Some people have simply inherited huge desires to thrust their penises inside teh sweet pussehs, but recognize having a child at these points in time of extreme need would affect negatively their lives ("negatively" here interpreted as something that would harm them), so they CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE to fuck with a condom, knowing full well that if they don't they can give birth to an unwanted child — or worse: catch a venereal disease. This is NOT sick — it is indeed extremely healthy — for these people would harm themselves if they lived a life of celibacy. They would indeed make themselves sick by not fucking.
But all of this should go without saying, and I'm merely explaining myself for the benefit of the aspies in the audience.
i doubt id use a women very often- robots dont claw your back while moaning in your ear
Oh I missed this one. Yeah that is most certainly the signal of good sex. Blood pouring down your back. Guess I'm cancelling that 5,000 robo doll and waiting for the next version. Moaning? What makes you think a decade of stimulation using a battery powered jackhammer is going to make a woman moan over your dick? 12 inches or not...
This topic is one of the many stupid things I continue to see on this forum. The joy in sex is the sensations and physical interaction with another being. Watching their responses to "you" keep the pleasure going, not to mention the smells, and the sounds. I couldn't imagine fucking something that has no life behind their eyes, no change in rhythm during the thrusting, no will to eventually toss your ass to the side to ride "you" for a change. Robots work for the insecure virgins who can't get anyone, or those sexual abuse victims too afraid of men to give it a go.
EDIT: To be on topic, I have fucked a robot before, which is why I currently have an ex- girlfriend.