We don't have enough jails.

Would you mind teenagers and Twenty-somethings learning about sex by fucking a sex-robot because it's more convenient than hitting on somebody?

A dildo is a sex-toy and it is clearly discernable as such. It gives you an orgasm but it doesn't look like a human, it has no affection for you and you have no affection for it.
However, a sex-robot would have a human form and it would simulate affection for you. It's not a question of if but of when humans apply anthropomorphism to this humanoid and start treating it as a human.
For example: People treat their pets like children.
For example: People base their judgement of other people/things on looks, not on internal qualities. People regard something as "cute" if the phenotypical representation triggers instincts normally triggered by human babies.

I am talking about the cultural implications when "people" and sex-toys become psychologically one and the same.

If people make an emotional connection to the thing that comforts them and makes them happy, then they treat their sex-toy emotionally like a human.




Imagine what it would be like, growing up in a world where you are free to have the choice:
1. Get a robot-girlfriend/boyfriend who is always there for you and does everything you want, no questions asked.
2. Approaching a stranger, with a risk of failure. Talking to said stranger and getting to know said stranger, with a risk of rejection. Establishing an emotional connection to said stranger over the course of weeks (statistically, the first sex happens between the 9th and 18th date), with a risk of rejection. And then having sex with him.

What would be the emotional difference between them? Why would you treat one different than the other? Human relationships are more complicated, so they would be less desireable than today, because there is an easy alternative. This would mean your moral compass wouldn't automatically regard human relationships as "nomal". "Normal" is as people do. And it would be normal for people to fuck things that do as they are told.

or woman do behind close doors that is legal today should be illegal tomorrow. I'm much more worried about machines trading stocks.

Example:
Someone engages at home in racist and sexist hate-speech because that's his opinion, dammit. At home. Nobody hears it, nobody gets harmed by it.
What are the odds that this person is all of a sudden a tolerant person when in public?




The problem is that the psychological shift won't stay at home. Your personality affects others.

Using a sex-slave means a dehumanization of others. And the sex-robot would effectively be a sex-slave in the mind of the owner because it 1. is obedient and has to be commanded, 2. is antrophomorphic and gets depicted as a human in the mind of the owner.

My fear is that humans will be unable to tell that thing they use for sex (which would be life-like in all fleshy criterias) apart from a human.

My fear is that humans will apply the dehumanizing behaviour they have learned and that they have been taught from a young age to real people.

Hell, what do you think kept slavery going? A tradition of systematic dehumanization deeply ingrained into society and taught to every child from early age as the way things are supposed to be!

Just as the Nazis made a distinction between their families and the Jewish people they tortured and killed.

And why did they regard those humans as not counting as humans? Because they grew up in a society where they were taught this.

If you want to provide a counter-example, please try to find a dress-code that regulates how sexy males are allowed to dress.

If deviants have an outlet for their urges and fantasies.

I don't think rape and assault are predicated on sexual impulses (and other fantasies) but rather to show power over other individuals.

No one needs to rape someone to get sexual fulfillment. That requires a huge amount of anger, hatred, and desire for control over someone else's bodily integrity and dignity.

What objective evidence specifically leads you that suggestion?

1.

Porn. Does porn provide an accurate image of what sex is like? No. Porn is two people fucking in uncomfortable positions as fast and hard as possible to make it look good on camera. Does somebody get hurt by porn? No.

Porn also defines unrealistic new standards: It shows what sex is supposed to be like. It shows how you are supposed to look like. Actual humans and and actual intimacy have no place in the universe of porn.
For example: Since a few years there's the craze for women to ask for plastic surgery so their labias are as small as the labias of porn-stars. Why? Because porn has defined a new beauty-standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiaplasty

Porn moves the definition of "normal" away from things that actually exist and towards things that only exist in scripts and movies, thus making them real after-the-fact. You are no longer a human, you are a canvas to depict the latest cultural craze.




2.

Celebrity culture. We are long past the point where we treat celebrities as human beings with a right to a private life. What do we do if some paparazzi reveals something private and embarrassing about a celebrity? Do we look at the headline and say "No, it would be really impolite to intrude into their private life like that?"

No. We eat it up. Because those celebrities OWE us an insight into their private lives. If they don't want these things to become public, why did they choose to become famous?

We consume celebrities and with this consumption we justify treating celebrities like objects that exist to our amusement instead of actual people. That is dehumanization.




3.

How would you feel if the sex-doll had your face? Your daughter's face? Would you feel uncomfortable around a person who fucks your likeness whenever he feels like?
Why would you? He is not hurting you! All he does is connecting your face with the sensation of having cheap, emotionless sex. How could this possibly have downsides for you?

How could a sex-doll with the face of your under-age daughter possibly have downsides?




4.

"Does using email dehumanize the mailman?"

I want to give you a quick example of corporate culture.
In Germany, the company-department responsible for administrating workers is called "Personalbüro", "office of personnel". The worker is by name a person.
In the US, the name of that department is "human resources". The worker is by name a resource, an object.

You are free to read up more on the topic whether the human counts as a human when in the workplace.

... the holodeck will make them obsolete.