From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A source for the title?[change source]

I wouldn't know where to begin looking if this article had to be moved, but could we have a reliable source for the page name? MindTheGap (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From the en:wp page Robot fetishism, -- Creol(talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see that references technosexuality but not robosexuality. Not too much of a problem, unless creating the phrase here is considered original research. Though Robosexuality seems better than the EN version "Robot fetishism". Thanks MindTheGap (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Robosexuality would be preferable to 'robot fetish'. And there is currently a redirect from 'robosexuality' on EN to 'robot fettish'. I havent looked around for this much, but I know it exists... here is something i found quickly on wikia:[1]... if we need more references I can go hunt some down later :) Benniguy talkchanges 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
the actual quote:

Bender: You really want a robot for a friend?
Fry: Yeah, ever since I was six!
Bender: Well, all right. But I don't want anyone to think we're robosexual or anything, so if anyone asks, you're my debugger.

—Futurama, episode 1: Space Pilot 3000

-- Creol(talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Futurama quote is all well and good, but that only shows what Robosexuality means in a fantasy world, not a real world environment. There are only slightly more than 1,0000 Ghits but for the sake of not introducing complex terms I suppose we will have to let this one go. MindTheGap (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea of the unclarity could be incoorporated into the article? That way, the reader would know both sides of the view. Benniguy talkchanges 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coinciding sexualities[change source]

The reason I am keeping the section for sexualities is because - in an article that specifically discusses sexual attraction to robots - showing how it's also a subset of hetero-, homo-, or other sexualities is valid and relevant. If the IP editor who keeps removing the section would care to comment and start a dialog, it would be much appreciated. --Lithorien TalkChanges 04:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)