I am totally bemused by this article from the BBC. A campaign has been started to ban the use of robots as sex toys.

It seems to me that the whole point of robots is to perform tasks that are either unpleasant or dangerous for humans, and sex as a profession seems to qualify on both counts.

Although I have serous concerns about robots for combat (as discussed here), and believe that controls are needed to ensure that Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics are incorporated in all AI machines, I really do not see any inherent harm in the use of robots as sex toys. Their use in such roles should reduce the number of (mostly) women trapped in such demeaning and dangerous (due to STDs and violence) work.

Would Dr Kathleen Richardson prefer that we continue with the way things are now; would she want her own daughters (I actually don't know if she has any) to work in the sex trade?

Her idea seems to be be based on the fear that robots for sex "will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women". Well, Dr. Richardson, where is the proof? Studies on the impact of pornography suggest otherwise. My personal opinion is that people who have damaged relationship skills for whatever reason are probably less likely to be further damaged by playing out their fantasies with robots, rather than with real people.