I don’t know of anyone else who shares my point of view, and especially not professional sexologists.

You may need to update your beliefs based on that evidence. Admittedly, your personal history has a strong effect on your recommendations for society, but (and I'm sorry that there's no delicate way to say this) your case is not the average.

sexual relationships starting at an appropriate age

You keep using that term, like it's analogous to the essential time window in childhood for language acquisition, but adults are much more flexible.

male business leaders who lack sexual experience need help in acquiring it as part of their training so that they can earn the respect of women in the work place

One anecdote is not evidence, but I'm the least sexually experienced and the most professionally respected person at my office. Even outside of my own team, our commercial department is full of women and all of them defer to my opinion on expected timeframes and quality checks. And I achieve all that while being on principle opposed to the idea that women naturally look up to men for guidance.

this psychotherapist says that young women need the emotional growth that comes from experience with sexual relationships

I think it's time for each individual to decide what they need instead of imposing a homogeneous standard on everyone.

I think you're overestimating the importance of sex in human relationships. I'm willing to bet that someone with no sexual history can do a good enough job of raising a baby and a child, especially if they were well nurtured themselves. I'm concerned about how they'd do with an adolescent who's interested in sex.

More generally, I believe that people who have a hard time getting started on sexual/romantic relationships have parents who didn't have a good relationship.

As for social change, I don't think forbidding IVF for virgins isn't going to solve anything. I think we have sufficient evidence that external control doesn't have good tools for getting people to have children or form families.

I believe we're looking at a bottleneck where only people who really want children are having children, and I don't know what the outcome will be.

If the human race went entirely non-sexual but still wanted children at a reasonable rate, I don't think it would be a disaster. I also don't think this is likely.

I find it plausible that at least some of the people who don't want sex have had a traumatic sexual history. I really can't say that the world is a worse place because such people don't have to have sex to have children.

The big advantage I can see for sex robots is that if they can compete successfully with low-end prostitutes, women and girls will be much less likely to be forced into prostitution.

Edit: wording.

1. As a woman, I do find men who think that upon encountering one, they should 'deal with her' (not even sexually) rather creepy... Perhaps you could imagine this totally counterfactual world where you simply have no obligation to 'deal' with anyone based on a binary characteristic?

2. As to virgin motherhood, strictly speaking only mating is 'missing', the rest is right there (since the blind god of evolution has prepared females to give healthy offspring if raped, pair-bonding and courtship cannot be necessary). Dunno how much emotional maturity one picks up during mating, but I would not expect it to be a lot. As to hormones, it is in principle not impossible, just a very complex issue.

3. I found (usual disclaimers apply) that maturity comes rather after giving birth. When you slink into bed and try to immediately fall asleep, in case the kid decides to wake up at 3 am; or if you desperately want sex, you do it silently and briefly, in case that deadline moves ever closer - than yeah, you can claim some personal growth, because you are putting other's interests before your own.

4. Do you think it is better for a human being not to leave descendants if the being is absolutely unable or unwilling to have sex? If virgin motherhood actually outcompetes the traditional way of reproduction, it means it has some advantage, and the question becomes - what is the acceptable trade-off for this advantage. I would like to see some in-depth discussion of this, but I am afraid I can not quite treat the idea [of a "parthenogenesis-based" society] seriously.

BTW, do you think notable clergy 1) never included 'thriving adult men', or 2) were secretly all debauched anyway?

Let's say a long-term couple wants to have a child, but some birth defect or sexual dysfunction prevents them from having sex. Should they be prevented from having a kid? The sex aspect doesn't seem to matter in itself. What would be concerning would be if people who fear intimacy or lack interpersonal skills are able to just skip straight to having babies out of loneliness, without ever having to get past their developmental blocks.

I don't doubt adult virgins have missed out on important developmental experiences, but it's odd that you focus on sex itself as being this big developmental step rather than, e.g. a committed long-term relationship. I think that's the important part.

I disagree (but upvoted - social evolution is a worthy topic).

I'm a pretty big fan of freeing our (and specifically my) cognition from the evolutionary pressures which created it (and me). Removing the pressure of sex from almost all male/female interactions seems like a worthwhile thing to explore.

I share your basic conservatism in that it's a pretty scary change. I just see the good in it as well as the risks.

Sexbots are more of a joker, some sort of wild card in the gender dynamics debate. I think there's something that I'm not sure if it's being avoided or if it's simply elusive enough to not be mentioned, and I have no idea what that is. It seems like they're making men and women like cooperating enemies.

On topic, sexbots would be harder to implement for women considering they're more attracted to behavior rather than looks.. although if you can make a convincing sexbot for a man I'm sure that canonically we're not too many steps away from making one for a woman.

Something like this trend has already advanced far in Japan,

Next stop: Japan. Now I'll just need to figure out if their supposed dislike for non-natives is real or not.

By the way advancedatheist, you give me a troll-esque vibe but admittingly you post some good content from time to time. High five.

Why are you worried about preserving skills that would largely become irrelevant?

How is a sexbot different from a sexdoll or a fleshlight and pornography?

I don't think it would create any problems in a mentally healthy individual, though it might exacerbate those suffering from pre-existing issues surrounding sex.

Create a sex robot that behaves like a human female. Problem solved.

In all seriousness though, it seems like by the time sex robots that look and act sufficiently human arrive on the scene, we'll already necessarily be well within the time frame of emergence of strong artificial intelligence and most of your points would become moot. It seems to me that there's only a short window of time between "sex robots that some men, but not most, would find appealing" and "the (sex?) robots have taken over."