I was more intrigued by this part: [..] A California-based cult group UNICULT started a fundraiser for a sex robot brothel that allows customers to only have i

I was more intrigued by this part: [..] A California-based cult group UNICULT started a fundraiser for a sex robot brothel that allows customers to only have intercourse with robots after they’d used a relevant app to converse with them enough. The robots would always consent to sex after the points were earned, so the consent model in question only put forth an illusion of choice. Another sex-robot creator named Sergi Santos made Samantha, a sex-robot who can say “no” and activate “dummy mode,” becoming lifeless if she is touched aggressively, bored, or tired. The problem here is that this doesn’t stop the person who owns the robot from raping the robot. This is why philosopher Robert Sparrow argues against designing robots with the ability to consent, as it allows the fulfilment of a rape fantasy if consent is denied. In the International Journal of Social Robotics, Sparrow writes, “Even when the intention is not to facilitate rape, the design of robots that can explicitly refuse consent is problematic due to the likelihood that some users will experiment with raping them.” He explains, “[I]t will not be possible to rape robots unless the designers of robots make certain design choices.”[..] It seems like somewhere along the line, the creators of sex robots have lost the plot. The goal is to have sex that money can buy. Or something like that. What am I missing?