How greatly will sex bots alter society?

It's an alternative to porn and jerking off.
Not real sex or relationships.
So it probably won't change much of anything.

>>134271787
You don't think millions of men will completely (and permanently) opt out of the dating/marriage game?
Stacy won't have any more betas to fall back on, and when Chad realizes sex bots give better head than roasties, they'll abandon ship too

>>134271448
Maybe women will stop being faggits if they realize theirs major competition or they will just get fucked in the poop chute more by alabama black snakes and be single dirty dish rag whore mothers and die of aids more.

>>134272080
Very very few people would prefer a sex bot over being with a real person. Especially not Chad kek.
Just like porn didn't change much of anything.

>>134271448
Artificial wombs and the ability to create oocytes from somatic cells will have a much greater impact

>>134272594
>porn didn't change much of anything

>americans having less sex than at any time during the twentieth history
>gen z and millenials having less sex than every previous generation
>degenerate sex acts pushed into the mainstream
>nobody has pubic hair anymore
>bestiality legalized in canada
Porn changed everything

>>134272873
>>134272594
Yea the hell, porn impacts a lot of minds in a lot of fucked up ways.

>>134272594
>porn didn't change anything
Typically leaf

>>134271448
This makes me think of futurama

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVNHytyB2rE

>>134272788
I’m sure someone else will take care of that while he has sex with his robot

>>134272873
>>134273065
>>134273612
Alright fine porn changes things.
But it's not like people chose porn over real sex. If anything porn makes guys horny as fuck. It acts like advertisement for real women kinda. Not for relationships though.
As for people having less sex, it's for other reasons and r9k might be right on a few things.

>>134272788
Not on my dick it won't

>>134274050
Yes it will. Once women lose the power they have of being in change of reproduction they'll have to actually put some effort in to be interesting

>>134272080

>implying "millions" of men will be able to afford some $3000 sex toy or even handle the social stigma that implies even owning such thing

Stop being retarded. They will be nothing more than overly expensive sex toys for degenerate rich beta cucks.

>>134274212
Why, if sex robots only appeal to that one weird demographic, would feminists care? Is there some connection between feminists and degenerate rich beta cucks?

>>134276688
Degenerate rich beta cucks are what allows feminists to sit at home all pay and continually come up with even more contrived victim role playing bullshit