Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by takyon on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the neural-network-penetration dept.

Humans could soon be having sexual relationships with robots, a top academic has claimed.

Dr Helen Driscoll said advances in technology mean the way in which humans interact with robots is set to change drastically in the coming years.

Dr Driscoll, a leading authority on the psychology of sex and relationships, said 'sex tech' was already advancing at a fast pace and by 2070, physical relationships will seem primitive.
...
She said: "Most people successfully integrate other forms of virtual reality into their lives, but virtual sex - not to mention love - will be seen by some as infidelity, and this will present real challenges to some relationships.

"In the world of the future, we could well see human relationships increasingly conducted entirely online.

Would you feel cheated on if your partner had sex with a robot?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:30PM (#218184)

    Just as real people are all ugly, robots will also be ugly. Just another thing to ignore. What we really need is real virtual reality.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:43PM (#218190)

    Real ugly virtual reality?

  • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:47AM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:47AM (#218259)
    We can just make other robots to fuck the ugly robots so we don't have to.