Perhaps Roxxxy is the most human-looking sex robot at this time, but better products are on their way to hit the market.
The forerunner on this particular market, as well as many other AI markets, is Japan, which does not come as a surprise. The Japanese people are used to living in a technocratic society, and most of them demand quick technological progress.
A Japanese company has now developed what they call a very sexy female robot called Actroid-F that looks very human. [Mirror.co.uk, Nov. 4, 2015, Dozens of people mistake robot for real woman - and they think she's 'sexy']. In fact, at an exhibition, one of two people mistook her for a real human and thought she was very attractive. However, some people were also afraid of her because she looked so human. Although I don’t wish to propagate fear by any means, it still seems like the most logical reaction to something such as this. Hollywood, on the other hand, is sweating day and night to create movies that will prepare us for the cyborgian and androidic future.
Fig. 11-2: Female “acdroid” on display. People are divided into two camps—either they think she is attractive or scary because she is so humanlike.
The following is an experiment that was done between Actroid-F and a human being. Scientists are currently testing the waters to see how well people can adapt to a near future where robots and humans will share the same sidewalks and malls.
In the first experiment Actroid F and a person were seated next to each other - both wearing the same outfit - and a participant had five seconds to identify which one of the two was a real human.
The next part involved two humans sitting side by side - and roughly half the participants said they could not confirm who the robot was, said Dr Silvera-Tawil.
The investigation is not over and he said the next step is to study if a human being can get used to interacting with android geminoids in the long-term by reducing the fear and anxiety they produce. [Ibid. op. cit.]
Article in mirror.co.uk: Dozens of people mistake robot for real woman - and they think she's 'sexy'
Oddly enough, the article doesn’t tell us how many people confused the actroid with the human.
It’s understandable that the scientists are eager to let sex robots such as Actroid-F out on the market very quickly because they have pressure on them to keep the ball rolling. There is a time limit to everything that has to do with the integration with AI in society, and the goal is that by 2050, most of us will own a sex robot! [Techrepublic.com, Dec. 21, 2015, The Campaign Against Sex Robots raises red flag for violence and victimization, calls for standards in sexbots]
Roxxxy, which is planned to be widely available now in 2016, is a success already before it is released to the general public. There were, in December, 2015, 4,000 preorders of the robot, and as of 2015, they went for £635 each; [The Guardian, Dec. 13, 2015, “Sex, love and robots: is this the end of intimacy?] approximately $900 in 2016.
The sex robots, such as the ones below, are actually already produced today and may look quite human, but they are still like prototypes in comparison to what is going to come out on the market in just a few years.
Fig. 11-3: Sex robots.
Although there is meant to be a market for women, too, where you can buy male sex robots, the major market—at least in the beginning—will be for men. I read somewhere that first the market will be up to 90% directed towards men and 10% towards women, although they expect that to change in women’s favor. In other words, it’s just an alteration of what has always been around—prostitution. You buy a sex robot instead of a prostitute on the street; it’s just taken to a new extreme. The prostitute we are familiar with is at least human. It’s still an exploitation of women and a disrespect of their sexual integrity, and in bigger terms, the Divine Feminine. The Universe is feminine in nature, and the AIF are the ultimate Patriarchs, who see themselves as being above all that’s feminine. Thus, we have a male dominated society.
Fig. 11-4: Box fresh: a warm-to-the-touch RealDoll in the San Diego factory, ready for shipment to a client. The dolls cost from $5,000. Photograph: Jonathan Becker/Contour by Getty Images
The Controllers apparently have to move through some obstacles before they can row their boat to shore, in terms of sex robots. Not all nations embrace (sorry for the pun) sex robots as easily as Japan and the U.S. Malaysia recently created a ban against them. [Campaign Against Sex Robots, Oct. 1, 2015, Malaysian Authorities Cancel Sex and Love With Robots Conference]. In Sweden, attempts are made in the same direction. [Campaign Against Sex Robots, Sep. 2015, campaignagainstsexrobots.org/]. One argument is that people who have what we call violent and otherwise perverted sex thoughts, according to societal norms, but never have dared to tell others about them now will play them out in full on their sex robot. [Techrepublic.com, Dec. 21, 2015, The Campaign Against Sex Robots raises red flag for violence and victimization, calls for standards in sexbots] In the end, how does that affect the person’s relations to other people? Being able to amplify their dark sides on a daily basis, if so desired, is not the way to deal with it—it only makes these destructive sides stronger. The rationale is that for those people, sex robots can be an ignition to violent behavior against humans, too.
An article in The Guardian makes the same observation I have made (my emphasis),
A recent study by Stanford University says people may experience feelings of intimacy towards technology because “our brains aren’t necessarily hardwired for life in the 21st century”. Hence, perhaps, the speed at which relationships with robots are becoming a reality. [The Guardian, Dec. 13, 2015,, Sex, love and robots: is this the end of intimacy?]
Here is what the CEO of the company, RealDoll, thinks about the sex robot industry, which he, more or less, is the leading force behind. He is revealing his own problems with relationships with other people, which most certainly has been a driving force for him to further develop the sex doll industry with his twisted logic:
Today the RealDoll team, infamous now for its lifelike sex dolls (of which they claim to have sold more than 5,000), is extending its range to develop an artificial intelligence system capable both of following commands and talking back to its user. A Realbotix head (reports the New York Times) which can be attached to the existing RealDoll body will cost around $10,000, and will be available in 2017. In a piece entitled “Is This the Dawn of the Sexbots?”, the company’s owner David Mills explained the appeal of these warm-to-the-touch dolls, telling Vanity Fairhe loves women but “doesn’t really like to be around people”.
“Women have enjoyed sex toys for 50 years,” he said (after introducing his first model, which arrived at his home in what looks like a customised coffin, head not yet attached), “but men are still stigmatised. We have to correct that. I want to be the Rosa Parks of sex dolls. Men are not going to sit in the back of the bus anymore.” [Ibid. op. cit.]
The prices of these dolls will eventually go down, but it is astonishing that many people, who can afford it, are willing to pay a huge amount to be able to have sex with a soulless robot rather than a real emotional human partner. This is, in my opinion, separation to the extreme.
What many of the hardcore AI followers (at least on lower-level to mid-level) seem to have in common is that they have no belief in a life after death; they are atheist. RealDolls’ David Mills is no exception. He wrote a book called Atheist Universe, which the renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkinsthinks is an “admirable book.” [The Guardian, Dec. 13, 2015,, Sex, love and robots: is this the end of intimacy?]
David Levy is a British international master of chess, but also a part of the AI movement.[Ibid.] He made the statement that we now have more or less accepted homosexuality in the Western World, and if we could do that, it will be no problem to accept sex with robots. Unfortunately, the comparison works.
Fig. 11-5: Dr. David Levy, founder of “Love and Sex with Robots.”
David Levy is the founder of the research company, Love and Sex with Robots, which is developing sex robots, e.g. sex robots that can speak and have conversations with humans. I have always stated that everything in this field, and other fields of Minion interest, are compartmentalized. A certain person, such as a scientist, only knows what he’s supposed to do, but is not told anything about the bigger picture. Levy is perhaps a top example, and he admits to it in an interview a reporter from The Guardian:
Levy has very little time for jokes. Or, it turns out, for philosophy. “Are humans machines?” I ask him. He tells me he’s learned not to try to answer philosophical questions. [Ibid. op. cit.]
Does this mean that he is told not to answer such questions, or has he learned by experience not to reply to such? If it’s the latter, he has decided to leave out philosophical question from his dangerous work, which is highly irresponsible at best. Or because he is more than likely taking orders from above, he might have concluded that he needs to suppress all nagging thoughts to secure his paycheck. This is, of course, even more irresponsible. In fact, it’s highly irresponsible, regardless from which angle we look at it.
Next, the reporter asks Levy a very good question. She wants to know what happens if a man wants to have sex with a child and buys a robot for that purpose; is there an ethical solution for that?
Levy avoids the question at first and tries to distract the reporter by telling an interesting story about robots, but he is more or less forced to come back to the original question.
He was reluctant to discuss this, pointing me to a keynote talk he did in Kathmandu called “When Robots do Wrong”. Which was fascinating, but didn’t answer my question. Eventually he responds, his email a sigh. “My own view is that robots will eventually be programmed with some psychoanalytical knowledge so they can attempt to treat paedophiles,” he said. “Of course that won’t work sometimes, but in those cases it would be better for the paedophiles to use robots as their sexual outlets than to use human children.” [Ibid. op. cit.]
First, people misunderstand what pedophilia is; when it happens in families, or by a lone male, it has to do with control and dominance more than sex, and when it happens in Minion cults, it’s about Black Magick and to feed the “gods” with pure sex energy. It rarely has to do just with being attracted to kids. Pedophiles might use a robot to take off the edge from their aggression, but they will still rape in the same manner as before. It’s ridiculous to even suggest that a child sex robot would be able to educate the perpetrator about his wrong-doings.
The attitude of scientists such as Levy is disturbing when it comes to moral and ethics of the sex robot industry. Moreover, if you leave out philosophical questions from the equation, you get an emotionless killer robot in the end—I doubt it not! In terms of rapists and other sex offenders, robots will not change them in one way or the other, except that the sex offenders might get some new perverted ideas how to control their victims by first testing them on robots.
Next page: Virtual Reality Sex—A Taste of Posthuman Sex Life