The ABC is being slammed, yet again. This time for their most recent episode of Q&A, where sexologist Nikki Goldstein suggested socially inept people could benefit from sex bots.

“I feel like there are people who really do struggle to have these intimate connections,” Goldstein said. “I’ve interviewed people before that go to brothels, and they feel that the only way they can have this girlfriend experience is to be paying for it. They don’t necessarily want to be there.”

“Now when I think of sex robots and where we’re going with A.I. technology, I feel like that’s the perfect person that would really benefit from being able to feel like they have some form of an intimate connection without having to go to the local massage parlor or brothel,” she said.

Goldstein went on to say, the sex robot may be used as a therapy tool in the future to help people establish intimate relationships with human beings.

“Is it such a bad thing if somebody has a relationship with a sex robot?” she asked.

According to sex bot inventor, Sergi Santos, it’s only a matter of time until human and robot marriages become as commonplace as the mobile phone.

“Before you know it, these robots will be doing your jobs and marrying your children, your grandchildren, your friends,” Santos said. “You need to remember that just a few years ago mobile phones were seen as a non-essential item in society, but now we can’t function without them.”

Lyle Shelton from the Australian Conservatives tweeted, “This is right up there with the time Q&A gave a platform to Peter Singer to extol the virtues of bestiality. As a civilisation, we are lost.”

And in case you’re wondering, there’s no exaggeration in Lyle’s remark. In 2010 Peter Singer, Professor at Princeton University appeared on the program where he suggested that sex between humans and dogs is harmless, provided the animal essentially consents.

The disconnect between the sex robot and sex as God designed it is highlighted in the following excerpt by David Platt:

God designed sex to be relational, but self-stimulated sex is lustful. God designed sex to be covenantal, but self-stimulated sex is non-committal. God designed sex to be intimate, but self-stimulated sex is superficial. God designed sex to be fruitful, but self-stimulated sex is fruitless. God designed sex to be selfless, but self-stimulated sex is self-centered. God designed sex as a complex union, but self-stimulated sex involves personal isolation. God designed sex as a complementary heterosexual act, but self-stimulated sex is a personal homosexual act.

Welcome to “the right side of history,” funded by us – the taxpayer.

WATCH: