Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Woland]

Good morning all!

I don't know why, but I was just thinking whether or not there have been any implications or outright statements of intimate relationships between humans and synthetic lifeforms/AI in the QC-verse. I can't think of an example.

To be clear, I'm not asking about just hook-ups*, I'm more interested in where these relationships would fall in the social spectrum. Are they illegal? Taboo? Accepted, but only recently? Pursued by humans but explicitly forbidden by AI common programming?

Has The Artist made any clear assertions that such relationships are simply not going to be addressed in his story? Like, it's part of the universe, but he's not going to talk about it (similar to statements regarding non-disclosure of Claire's physical-station along the gender spectrum).

I did a couple of searches and couldn't find any threads where this was already being discussed, but if I missed something, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

*A decision about the intentionality of this pun is currently pending before the Pun Board. If you are a person who will be impacted by this decision, you will receive notice of the decision by certified. If you object to the decision, you have 30 minutes to file an appeal with the Board for a review of your objections.

[Is it cold in here?]

The Artist said in one long-ago Q&A that he's unwilling to bring the subject up in the comic.

I think the QC world's attitude would be sharply mixed. That society is still working out how to treat its silicon-based citizens and only recently changed the law to acknowledge their full citizenship. Every good and bad and baffled reaction you can imagine is doubtless happening.

Hannelore accepted Station's declaration of love in stride but was weirded out by the idea of dating a synthetic and sent it back to her dad.

I hope the all-love-is-beautiful crowd wins.

One thing leaps to mind. There's going to be an emotional strain on any marriage in which one partner is almost guaranteed to outlive the other by centuries.

Another is that "intimate" includes all kinds of emotional closeness. Momo and Marigold might as well be sisters, for example.

[hedgie]

To be fair, the "trainer boyfriend" was extremely uncanny valley, which might be enough to freak anyone out.

[comicalArchitect]

Keep in mind that QC arguably takes place in the same universe as Diesel Sweeties (Faye's sister appeared there), and human/AI relationships are commonplace but still controversial there.

[Zebediah]

May pretty blatantly implied that robots with human-compatible genitalia exist. So the possibility of human-robot sexual relationships is definitely there.

That being said, I doubt we'll ever actually see it. Besides Jeph not being comfortable with the idea, the humanoid robots in the main cast probably won't get involved with a human for a number of reasons. With Momo, there's the fact that she looks like a young teenager, which would add another layer of ick factor. May is in a cheap chassis that is almost certainly not equipped with functioning genitalia, and besides, she seems to find the whole idea of human sex a bit disgusting. And Bubbles has crippling psychological issues that make her reluctant to even remove her armor, much expose herself to any emotional vulnerability.

[Kugai]

They may be out there, but unless Jeph ever gets to the point where he's willing and comfortable enough to deal with it, I doubt we'll ever see it in the Comic.

It's an interesting speculation though, and considering just how commonplace AnthroPC's are in the QCverse, I would be highly surprised if there were'nt such relatinships out there.

[Loki]

To be fair, the "trainer boyfriend" was extremely uncanny valley, which might be enough to freak anyone out.

The fact that it was picked out/created by her father probably contributed as well.

We do know that AnthroPCs have a libido which can also "target" humans, at any rate ( http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658 ). We also know that robots can be attracted to each other. ( http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=347 ). And well, I have talked to a couple or so of humans in my lifetime, and I am certain people are gonna try to get it on with AnthroPCs.


Oh, and I wanted to commend the OP for their expression regarding Claire. I was expecting worse when I came to this thread.

[Is it cold in here?]

Just remembered that Jeph said once the standard companionship contract said something to the effect "nothing creepy". "Creepy" was undefined but probably bears on the subject of this thread.

OK, here it is, "be nice to each other, no creepy stuff":
http://jephjacques.com/post/33130409922/a-d

[comicalArchitect]

Just remembered that Jeph said once the standard companionship contract said something to the effect "nothing creepy". "Creepy" was undefined but probably bears on the subject of this thread.

OK, here it is, "be nice to each other, no creepy stuff":
http://jephjacques.com/post/33130409922/a-d

Okay, but all that says is that companion AIs can't have naughty times with their companions. Hannelore can't hook up with Winslow, but Sven could bang Momo.

[Is it cold in here?]

It hints that society, or at least whoever draws up companionship contracts, is not sex-positive about relationships across the carbon-silicon line.

[Kugai]

I think the 'No Creepy Stuff' Clause is there to protect AnthroPC's from any serious and ongoing abuse.  Something that, you have to admit, could be a distinct possibility considering that they may be considered 'Property' by some of their Owner/Companions.

[sitnspin]

Is it still "creepy" if it is mutually consensual?

[hedgie]

I read it the same way.  But there likely is still a strong stigma against relationships between meat beings and AIs who do not have a contractual relationship where a potential power differential may prohibit them.  Hell, even though Pintsize and May are both AIs, and might seem like a good match on paper, I think that more than plenty of humans may be squicked just given the difference in chassis type.

I think the 'No Creepy Stuff' Clause is there to protect AnthroPC's from any serious and ongoing abuse.  Something that, you have to admit, could be a distinct possibility considering that they may be considered 'Property' by some of their Owner/Companions.

I read it the same way.  But there likely is still a strong stigma against relationships between meat beings and AIs who do not have a contractual relationship where a potential power differential may prohibit them.  Hell, even though Pintsize and May are both AIs, and might seem like a good match on paper, I think that more than plenty of humans may be squicked just given the difference in chassis type.

[Morituri]

To me, "no creepy" means continue to be respectful and kind to each other, even if one of you wants to goink and the other doesn't. 

There's a thing I tell clueless guys who want to figure out how to express interest without being  creepy.  No means no, and also removes your right to bring it up again.  It doesn't mean you can't be friends, but if someone who has told you no changes her (or his) mind, it is up to them to bring up the topic, not the other way round.

And, if you don't even want to be friends after she says no?  Well, in that case you're definitely creepy and she's right to be saying no.

[Morituri]

Also -- pointing out the obligatory. 

Robo-chassis in some models apparently have male bits...  http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1459

Robo-chassis in other models apparently have female bits...  http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3098

I think I'd be really surprised if those weren't manufactured specifically for (both fleshy and silion-y) customers who wanted that sort of interaction.

[Is it cold in here?]

Unless of course those strips were jokes.

[Kugai]

Partially I think

[Mr_Rose]

Eh, I dunno. Sex dolls are not a new concept and they keep getting more sophisticated. Even if they were never originally built to work together, wouldn't take too long for someone to try putting an AI brain into one.

[mustang6172]

I'm wondering if Jeph will introduce an AnthroPC, who had the wrong genitals installed.  That's right:  a Transbot.

Somebody better hit the Like button because I've been waiting for this to come up organically for about 6 months.

[DSL]

Organically, huh?

[Undrneath]

I'm wondering if Jeph will introduce an AnthroPC, who had the wrong genitals installed.  That's right:  a Transbot.

Somebody better hit the Like button because I've been waiting for this to come up organically for about 6 months.

I'll give it to you but I still think it was a bit shoehorned.

[SomeCanadianWeirdo]

In case anyone didn't know David Willis dealt with the idea of a human/robot relationship in Shortpacked!  The storyline in question begins with the following strip: http://www.shortpacked.com/index.php?id=1833

[Neko_Ali]

Also kind of with a transgender AI/robot. The webcomic O Human Star deals with the same subject too, in part. Though at a pace that makes Jeph or Willis seem positively speedy.

[Mad Cat]

Oh, you think that was shoehorned?

What is the plural of robo-labia?

http://www.ohjoysextoy.com/eva/

It was this post or start a new thread… somewhere.

[Is it cold in here?]

(mod)Let's please maintain the impressive quality level we've had so far in this thread(/).

A sad possibility in the QC world is that since AnthroPCs used to be considered property, it would logically follow that there'd be involuntary sex work. It's the sort of thing too dark for Jeph to explore.

Also, come to think of it, off topic since that would be exploitative and not "intimate".

We can guess at the social reaction by analogy. In my country, to my country's shame, it was 1995 before a bare majority approved of marriage between parties who were both homo sapiens but of different ethnicities. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

Silicon citizens would not face the same centuries of hateful baggage but marriage to them might be a larger conceptual leap for the general population.

There would be opposition from people who are stuck with the idea of marriage being for creating and raising children ("we are working on that technology").

On the other hand, if technology advances to artificial wombs, a synthetic might even be a safer gestational parent. Egg donors are already a thing.

[Mad Cat]

My understanding of shipping and shippers is that the pairing you are talking about is one that you want to see come about because you are somehow emotionally (eroticly?) invested in the pairing. I say that in order to defuse any claims that what I'm about to do constitutes shipping. I do not have a vested interest in this pairing, but do desire to discuss the implications/barriers/possibilities thereof.

The pairing is Hannelore/Bubbles.

I never considered this until I realized that the current strip is the first time that these two characters have been in the same room. Both characters are psychologicly damaged in one fashion or another, and perhaps the two characters are damaged in complementary ways. Bubbles, being synthetic, would perhaps not set off Hannelore's OCD. We've seen her sitting on couches and sleeping in beds. Could she hug and cuddle a combat-model anthroPC?

Has Bubbles expressed a clear gender identity? This is completely separate from the question of what genitalia she may or may not actually have installed at the moment. Would Bubbles even be psychologicly capable of being attracted to Hanners? Assuming that she is so capable, could being with a person who doesn't want to touch or be touched by other people, much the same way as Bubbles herself, possibly be the ice breaker that could bring Bubbles out of her shell/armour?

The only thing we know of Hanners' sexuality is she's a pyrosvestophile (attracted to firefighters). She's used the term firemen, so I think it's a generally safe bet that they are masculine bodied firefighters, but as mentioned in the prior strip by Faye, Bubbles "look(s) like a big, muscular person", and she's practicly fire-engine red. Is that close enough for Hanners to make a love-connection?

Discuss.

[Penquin47]

The only thing we know of Hanners' sexuality is she's a pyrosvestophile (attracted to firefighters).

Not true.  Even leaving that aside, we know she likes Indiana Jones and Mr. Clean.

[toffee-skye]

 

...there likely is still a strong stigma against relationships between meat beings and AIs who do not have a contractual relationship where a potential power differential may prohibit them.

i feel like this is the crux of the matter. as Momo repeatedly emphasises, robot-human relations are far from equal, as many 'bots and AnthroPCs are still, technically and legally, property. whilst the argument may go 'what you do with your property is your business', it does get more than a bit morally f'ed when the property is sentient.

intimate relationships, i.e. sexual ones, are possible due to the (mentioned) fact that robots with genitalia do exist.
however there's three questions to consider here:

• was the genitalia given to the 'bot for precisely that purpose?
• if yes to the above, was it given because the 'bot WANTED it?
• if no, then who did demand it?

obviously if the answer there is no, then what you have is an act of violence against a sentient creature, as well as disgusting implications for the person who did demand it. hence why there's probably a stigma against it - i.e. it's perverse and creepy, alongside just plain old technophobia.

if the answer there is yes and the robot not only has developed sexuality but an impulse to express it, i see no reason why human-robot intimate/sexual relationships couldn't exist. if the answer is yes BUT the robot did not expressly desire genitalia (or it was designed with genitalia for one function), then as we've seen Pintsize declare, what you have is a sentient sex toy.. and further morally grey implications.

hmm. i've rambled. sorry.

[Morituri]

I see Hanners and Bubbles as a possibility for deep friendship that explores some issues, but I don't see them as candidates for makeouts (or anything more serious than that, come to it). Both characters have stuff going on that's an effective block to relationships that involve sexuality, although Hanners seems to be working on getting past them and, for the moment, Bubbles doesn't. 

So, anyway, I guess I see Bubbles as potentially benefiting from Hanners' influence or perspective, and Hanners getting some entirely different and serious perspective on emotional issues as well.  But I think that's work that both of them need to do.  If they do it together, they'd be in that weird space of having become too emotionally close to one another without becoming romantic - and that usually precludes romance.

Also, we've seen no evidence that Hanners' attraction template includes females of any kind, whether biological or synthetic.  She's mentioned "Cowboys" and "Firemen", so I'm guessing she's androsexual.   Could be gynosexual as well I guess, but if so we've seen no evidence of it.   And she once described makeouts something like "I guess they're kind of like tigers for me.  Beautiful when seen from a distance, but it would be really bad to have one up close and happening to you." 

And as far as I know, we've seen no evidence that Bubbles is sexual at all.  Aside from having her "gender bit" set to female and presuming the software templates have the same statistical variation found in human populations, that means about 90% chance she's androsexual, and 20% or so that she's gynosexual (some overlap occurs; some folk miss both).  But there's no reason for a synthetic to have a libido at all if they don't want it.  For them the libido may be possible to just switch off, and right now I think Bubbles doesn't want one.  She has really basic trust and guilt issues that likely block her from exercising her sexuality until they're worked out.

[Mad Cat]

I never considered this until I realized that the current strip is the first time that these two characters have been in the same room.

Ooops. Forgot about the party.

[mustang6172]

I think we all missed an obvious pop culture reference.

[ischaemia]

QC has touched so many other bases in interpersonal relationships (at least as far as LGBT pairings go), so I admit I wouldn't be surprised if something like this eventually happened; the Sci Fi aficionado in me pretty deeply hopes for it, even. I can understand the reservation on Jeph's end, though; maybe for all of the relationships he's had in the comic so far, he's concerned something like a Robot/AI/Station/Human pairing would take away from the seriousness and legitimacy of everything else he's presented. I can understand that, and I guess I'll always have Janelle Monáe's body of work for anything I feel like I'm losing out on.

I'm still secretly kind of sad Station and Hanners didn't develop at all, but ah, what can you do.

[andrew]

This has been a very interesting thread, with a lot of careful thought on it.

It reminds me of an old SF short story, "Helen O'Loy", written by Lester del Rey back in 1938 (it appears in Gunn's "Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume 1" collection). And this was written back in the days when sex was absolutely prohibited in science fiction, but love was (barely) permitted, as long as it appeared to follow then-current societal conventions. And del Rey didn't deal with the issues brought up here nearly as much. Of course, it was a short story; how many pages did he have to do so, and still fit the actual story in? 

So, should Jeph choose to go there, there is precedence (and far more than just my one fairly tame reference).

[Is it cold in here?]

Welcome, well-read new person!