sabotabby: raccoon anarchy symbol (Default)
[personal profile] sabotabby
Captain Mushroom: We tried out a chair in London. You sat down on it, and it would conform to the shape of your body and then squeeze, slowly and gently. The chair would actually give you a hug.

Me: It'll be so awesome when we can replace human emotions with robots.

Date: 2007-11-06 09:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistersmearcase.livejournal.com
That seems like the dialog from a gaybortion, except it'd be hard to fit the first part into one word bubble.

Date: 2007-11-06 09:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistersmearcase.livejournal.com
Hey how did Gaybortion get its name? (Sit by the fire, children, and we will now hear the story of how Gaybortion got its name.)

Date: 2007-11-06 09:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com
I foresee carnivorous digester chairs

Date: 2007-11-06 09:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
A woman named Temple Grandin designed something like that for herself. She is labelled as "high functioning autistic" (as much as I dislike labels). Many people with an autism spectrum "disorder" (it conveys some advantages) are upset by physical contact. The hugging machine has a soothing effect without all the smells and emotional complications of a human being.

Dr. Grandin designs humane slaughterhouses and found that cattle will calm down if their sides are compressed. This sounds like kind of a nasty trick (to calm the cattle before they are killed), but it means they don't get shocked by cattle prods as often and are less prone to abject terror upon entering the abbatoire.

Anyway, I think it would be kind of awesome to have robotic hugging machines. It's not that different from using a vibrator, when you think about it. Vibrators certainly deliver the goods more cleanly and efficiently than their human counterparts. Machine sex and machine hugs for the win, I say.

Oh sex machine, let me be your fleshy little machine slave <3

Date: 2007-11-06 10:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
Heh. In rez I was almost humanely slaughtered by a roommate who listened to Backstreet Boyz non-stop.

Electronic things run out of batteries and sometimes the motors burn out. I have mourned the tragic loss of two Vibes thus far. I guess I got too needy :(

Date: 2007-11-07 01:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
Tee hee, insatiable. I love the way that word feels in my mouth. It's so slippery and salacious! Thanks, I take that as a compliment ^.^

Date: 2007-11-07 05:08 am (UTC)
ext_65558: The one true path (Burj al Arab)
From: [identity profile] dubaiwalla.livejournal.com
I was almost humanely slaughtered by a roommate who listened to Backstreet Boyz non-stop
Doesn't sound all that humane to me.

Date: 2007-11-06 10:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shelestel.livejournal.com
That's interesting (about the hugging machines 'n stuff). Most people effectively use pets though.

Date: 2007-11-06 10:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
I dunno... my sea monkeys never seemed that interested and lately I feel like my cats are just using me for the body heat :(

Date: 2007-11-07 01:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shelestel.livejournal.com
The question is what are you using them for. The chair's not gonna hug you - or the fucking machine fuck you - out of love either, let's face it.

Date: 2007-11-07 01:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
I am being slightly sarcastic. I do not expect to get huggles from brine shrimp. And I do love my kitties, I just understand that they are attached to whoever gives them the tastiest food in the highest quantity.

You can't deny the utility of something that gives you multiple orgasms on demand and is never busy or too tired or sick. Sometimes it is nice to have sex with people, but sexual partners aren't guaranteed to love you just because they are not machines. People might fuck you because they are needy or lonely or because they don't get off on machine sex and are desperately driven to Sex version 1.0 (fleshy model).

I'd rather have my biological need for orgasms (and maybe also huggles?) fed mechanically so that I don't get attached to the wrong people out of haste and desperation.

Date: 2007-11-07 01:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shelestel.livejournal.com
I understand what you are saying. I merely challenge the idea that you need a fuckbot.
And if I were to be really serious, I'd say that the fact, say, that we typically don't enjoy masturbation as much as we do partner sex is all in our minds. I have had... wait, this is public post, isn't it?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shelestel.livejournal.com
Okay, okay. I was about to say that autoerotic activities can be as satisfying as we want, or let, them to be. It may be easier for us to have a wholesome experience with another human being, be it for biological or social reasons, but I think that the borders are flexible.
Anyway, stop distracting me - you have no idea how much planning I still have to do for tomorrow.

Date: 2007-11-07 02:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burning-string.livejournal.com
Sure, I don't need a fuckbot. Fuckbots are just very useful. Machine sex is also superior to sex with humans in a few ways. Machines may be disadvantaged in that they cannot love, but this is only a disadvantage if you want love with your orgasms. Sometimes I want orgasms to come with a side of affection, but not always.

So my question is this: is there something inherently bad about getting pleasure from a machine? What is it that makes us suspicious of a hug-machine? I have a gut feeling that there's something creepy about a hug machine, but I can't rationalize it. I can see that I might lose something valuable if I never sought people-hugs once I had machine-hugs, but is there any evidence to suggest this would be the case? Do people want to have less sex if they have orgasm-producing machines?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shelestel.livejournal.com
The idea that sex with machines is bad sprouts from the notion that sex has to have a para-purpose, that sex for its own sake is bad.
I don't really believe in concepts such as "inherent evil" - Foucault would laugh at those, and I can't stand being laughed at.
People are typically reluctant to extend their psyche (myself very much included), and since most people in our culture grew up with the notion of sex not being complete without love, it might very well be that we will feel that such sex is incomplete. If we grew up with notions that sex is good for its own sake, than this would hardly be the case.

Date: 2007-11-06 10:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
The chair would need a minor heating element. ...

Perhaps it could vibrate and make a purring noise.

Date: 2007-11-06 10:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
My chairs already vibrate and purr. They also don't let me sit down on them because they are full of cat.

But this one you could sit on. That might be a bad idea, though: It might train people to sit on their cats.

Me: It'll be so awesome when we can replace human emotions with robots.

Just think: You could program your phone to whine "You never call."

Date: 2007-11-07 12:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
Does this mean I should call?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
Sick again or still sick?

I forget too. Flip a coin?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
Heads. Now does that mean I call or you call? ;)

Date: 2007-11-07 02:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
By the way, I take it you caught [livejournal.com profile] seanmonster's "History of LOL Cats" post.

Or had you already seen it?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
During the day would be best.

Saturday night I'm seeing Dave Brubeck(!)

Date: 2007-11-06 10:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
Speaking of both robots and cats, you might like this. Promise you will refrain from being traumatized until you have seen the end of the credits.

Date: 2007-11-07 02:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] esizzle.livejournal.com
Well you can program a computer to read face expressions using digital imaging and tone of voice, and based on that calculate some action response. it's not difficult. The only tricky part is that the robot will be so much better than humans that you'll never want to interact with a human ever again. once you go robot you never go back.

Date: 2007-11-07 02:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rohmie.livejournal.com
Like the Kate Bush song "Deeper Understanding" ...

Or have I already mentioned that?

Date: 2007-11-07 02:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bike4fish.livejournal.com
Somehow the original post made me think of an anaconda (... and then squeeze, slowly and gently ...). Considering the turn the conversation took, I probably shouldn't say any more along those lines...

I never quite understood that there was a conflict among non-automated auto-sex, machine assisted sex, and sex with someone else. Sort of the same thing as mashed potatoes vs. ice cream. I probably ought to try ice cream on the mashed potatoes some time, though.

Profile

sabotabby: raccoon anarchy symbol (Default)
sabotabby

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    1 23
456 78 910
1112 13 1415 1617
181920 2122 2324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Page generated May. 28th, 2025 09:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Most Popular Tags