My main problem with this line of reasoning is that it's largely just transposing the same logic that's used against things like BDSM or kink in general, of positioning it as something uniquely or at least especially harmful when the reality is that where it's abusive, it's abusive in the same ways and with the same or lower frequency than the equivalent vanilla relationships or scenes, that the fundamentally most harmful thing is just vanilla cishet patriarchy and even the tame and "safe" things that reinforce and feed into that.

Like the starting point is that it's "icky" and so must be something uniquely or exceptionally harmful and then imagining how all the ways it's different must make it especially bad, when we know from other comparable examples whether this is violent or sexualized media or kink scenes or whatnot that that's not how it works.

That's why I think the way to evaluate the potential harm is to start from the ground up and try to see materially what it's most likely to do, which is where I'm getting "it would cause addiction/dependence and probably increased isolation, while having all the hazards of extant chatbots dialed up a few more notches", and if it's going to reinforce toxic norms that's going to be more in it mimicking the dynamics of a traditional patriarchal heterosexual relationship (or a homosexual mimicry of the same, because I can 100% imagine gay men buying a femboy robot bang-maid too) rather than it coming from some more "salacious" kink place. Especially since so many people are just intensely, unwaveringly boring, and would think a robot blowjob while they eat some microwaved breakfast treat is the literal peak of their imagination and desires. They're not gonna be playing out The Story of O or the like, just some pathetic existence where their fancy roomba tells them they're a special good boy before sucking them off.