What do you think human relationships and intimacy entail and why can't some sort of high-tech robot legitimately emulate that?

>it sounds like you view women as a warm fleshlight

I think most people accept the fact that women and men are sexual objects. If you view me as a mysoginist for believing that, then I think I understand why you might think our society is still patriarchal or something.

In fact, I can't say that most straight men expect something cerebral or spiritual out of their partners. But even if it was the case, you could expect that a hyper-inteligent machine would exceed human capabilities in this regard.

The only types of people who aren't going to be humping robots are members of isolated societies who have a grudge against technology. Hence the amish.

There are an increasing number of loser men and women who have these AI partners. I think we may see a tipping point where "genetic dead ends" comprise the majority of the population.

With this level of sexual competition, who can blame them? If you're not at the apex you can put in the effort to reproduce but then your offspring are just faced by the same problem, one generation removed.

The majority of men born in this generation won't reproduce. For the average man, there is no sense in doing anything but devoting your life to some high-risk/high-reward strategy. I don't even know what that entails these days, but apparently it involves a lot of sports betting.

I'm normally endowed, as are like 90% of men (so I think these types of baseless insults fall flat). But if I wasn't, would you rather I pass on 3.5 inches of american steel to the next generation? Your insult stands regardless and reveals your underlying preference. If I was endowed well enough, I'm sure you would see my point.

It makes no difference personally, as a gay man who is uninterested in exploring robosexuality. I prefer to work my clankers.