We were recently asked some questions by a reporter as to how we define our product and why we call it a sexbot. By definition, (that we have found anyway) a sexbot is a robot designed to have sexual intercourse with humans. A robot (by our research) is a manlike device with a mechanism that enables it to move or work of itself. We believe that we are making these statements correctly and that in fact our product which we call a sexbot is by the definition above the only one of its kind.
The reason for our post is that we are asking your opinions about some of the terminology here. We respect your views and interests and are impressed with your knowledge of this subject.
To give some background info on us. We have run a residential/commercial construction company for the past 15 years. We decided about 5 years ago to invest in a different field and somehow got started in robotics, which resulted in what we have today. Therefore, our understanding of the terminology is somewhat limited, but we are learning.
Another statement we want to make is that we first created Susie, and in an effort to simplify the testing of her (meaning a human would have to test her) we created Harry. So if Susie is a sexbot - meaning designed to have sexual intercourse with a human, what would Harry be if he was designed to have sex with a sexbot? The reporter asked us this question as well and unfortunately we didn't have the answer. He also made the statement that some of our competitors on the market who claim to be sexbots, really don't fit into the defintion of a sexbot as we define it. Is our definition correct? The reporter then made another statement, in which he said that it was interesting that our sexbots could have intercourse and perform in the act of and could also have intercourse with one another as sexbots. He believed that there was no other male and female robots produced that could have intercourse with each other.
Another question to ponder. We were asked if our product would be considered a toy. Being that it is human-like and for the sole purpose of intimacy with a human, we believe that it is not considered a toy (as other products on the market may be considered) due to the fact that a person could become attached to it and develop a relationship.
Not to be so long-winded in our post, but we really do respect your knowledge of this subject and because of publicity, we know we will be asked the same or similar questions in the future and on behalf of your interest and this community we certainly want to be able to answer them intelligently.
One last thing to think about. If our product is considered a sexbot by definition, what is the next logical step in its evolution, i.e., sound and/or visual perception either for response in a motion or for verbal communication, etc. and what would it be defined as in that form? And maybe a better question would be, what would everyone here like to see as the next step? As Keizo stated, we are lightweight which means there is room for advancements.
Your feedback and knowledge on this subject has been an invaluable source for us and we want to represent your interests intelligently and correctly.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and we look forward to corresponding with you all.
MMCYB
