Get ready for the future

[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.

Comments

[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 :(

[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.

[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.

[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?

[sabotabby]

I have had... wait, this is public post, isn't it?

Is that a problem? ;)

[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.

[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?

[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.