Help me figure out why sex with Robot 'females' is WORSE than paying for prostituted women

This is not a moral question, but a logical one so perhaps the word' right' is unhelpful

This is my entire point.

To begin to speak about 'rights' - you turn it into a moral argument.

You have probably heard of 'the personal being political' in feminist consciousness raising. Well extrapolating about feelings informed by a shared understanding of the common everyday oppressions of being female is central to that.

That statement doesnt not say you dont have the right to those feelings or to share and express those feelings. It says you dont have the right to 'extrapolate' those to assume you understand what the user 'thinks and feels'. This is not a moral question, but a logical one so perhaps the word' right' is unhelpful. It should read 'you cannot begin to assume categorically that because you feel something in a certain way that you can know how another person feels about it'. It is conjecture at best but you and anyone else have the right to your own feelings and to express them in any way you see fit.

I take your point about the masturbating men, although i think it was a slight abuse of hyperbole and not completely true. Taking it down a notch i could say that i feel that your arguments are very controlling and that you seek to undermine the contributions and thoughts of others for your own gratification. I need a compelling argument as to why 'i do not have the right' to extrapolate from this feeling as to what you think about people and by implication me.

Regards to homosexuality you are making a very simple statement so convoluted. Feelings and opinions and interlinked but also independent. Someone can feel that gay sexual intercourse is disgusting, that is their feeling for which they need no evidence, its just how they feel. They could also have an opinion about gay marriage, thinking that it undermines the traditional institution of marriage. This, im sure, would be backed up by some sort of fact or statistic. Doesnt make it true of course but its still an opinion, informed by a feeling.

This person can extrapolate from their feeling to come to a conclusion about their own opinion or further feelings but they cant speak on behalf of others around this matter. When i say cant i dont mean it as a moral restriction but as a practical one. We are all responsible for our own actions, thoughts and feelings...not those of others.

Here you go:
"we do not have the right to extrapolate what we feel about [the sexual behaviour of others] into what the user of the robot thinks and feels about us."

This is a clear diversion from a discussion about feelings and their wider contexts to defining 'rights' and 'wrongs'. Also this statement is devoid of qualification. Because I can always ask why don't I have the right?

For example, if I'm shown evidence of a sexual trend of men who like to photoshop images of female colleagues being tortured, dismembered and begging for mercy in order to masturbate over, and find this unsettling - I need pretty compelling arguments and justifications as to why I 'do not have the right' to extrapolate from this unsettled feeling as to what these men think and feel about women, and by implication me.

This following example dianethediabolist used is certainly not justification enough: Homophobes find gay sex abhorrent, they can feel that way if they like [here the muddled thinking is evidenced when feelings become opinions] they are entitled to their opinion.
Surely an opinion is a judgement based on evidence? Yes, feelings might be part of that evidence, but a judgement of that evidence is also required to call it an opinion.

And because the forming of opinions requires many things, such as, gathering evidence, thrashing out arguments, first hand experience, detached analysis, feelings - and yes - even extrapolating from these feelings in order to make a judgement- it seems really weird to suggest that 'extrapolating from feelings' is somehow de facto, absolutely wrong and bound to lead to error (and the hounding of an oppressed minority).

So this final closing statement of the example is unsupported: It is wrong for them to try to extrapolate that homosexuality is damaging to them as heterosexuals, or society as a whole. Because perhaps it is not just the extrapolation of their feelings of 'ew' that leads them to think homosexuality is damaging to them as heterosexuals, or society as a whole, but that 'ew' along with an extrapolation of that 'ew', along with a preacher who says homosexuality is of the devil [poor evidence and hate speech], along with a culture that deplores the feminine [cultural misogyny], along with a primitive need to have scapegoats that makes persecuting outsiders enjoyable, etc, etc.....

Basically dianethediabolist's example is simplistic and doesn't allow for the complex causes of homophobia. If it were logical and realistic then we would live in a world where people get beaten up for eating marmite as much as being homosexual.

Can you point to one time when DioneTheDiabolist said you or anyone else didnt have a 'right' to their feelings or were 'wrong' for feeling them?

You have not justified why you feel that your comments are not policing but others are. You cant say that others are saying things are right or wrong (which they arent by the way) and then yourself say that they are wrong for doing so. You are perpetuating the same thing, Its illogical.

If i point at an apple and say its an apple, im right because it is. Of course you could ask me to qualify that and explain why or how i had reached that conclusion...and i would talk about its form, its taste its provenance etc. But still you could say 'but what qualifies those statements"...and so i would talk about the broader context of agriculture or the human digestive system. But still you could ask for qualification...ad infinitum.

No in this case you would have wasted your time. If you point at an apple and say its an apple- your justification could be "because apple is the word to describe the fruits bearing these particular qualities in the English language. - in other words 'because apple is its 'name' - there's nothing inherent in that apple itself - the name is a human category.

You seem to spend much of the time 'critiquing' others arguments rather than setting forth your own.
Not always, in this particular case I was alarmed at all the people with crass knee-jerk responses that effectively seem to be assuming the moral high-ground - and policing the thread.

To assert that someone elses assertions are unqualified without qualifying your own assertions seems to me to be a never ending and pointless line (cirlce) of argument.
There is nothing I've said I haven't justified, and to you what is 'pointless' to a feminist is an essential defence of a space in which women can discuss feelings about things they find unsettling and to try to work them out (and voice concerns that they may portend greater female oppression in the future)- without being told that they are 'wrong' or 'don't have the right' to.

I dont think the assertions were unqualified, they made a great deal of logical, simple sense.
Perhaps this is because your analysis shares an equal lack of depth and rigour? And additionally because you benefit from it?

Its clear thinking because the thinking is entirely connected to the original question at hand. I dont think the assertions were unqualified, they made a great deal of logical, simple sense. Things like that dont need qualification.

Example:
If i point at an apple and say its an apple, im right because it is. Of course you could ask me to qualify that and explain why or how i had reached that conclusion...and i would talk about its form, its taste its provenance etc. But still you could say 'but what qualifies those statements"...and so i would talk about the broader context of agriculture or the human digestive system. But still you could ask for qualification...ad infinitum.

You seem to spend much of the time 'critiquing' others arguments rather than setting forth your own. To assert that someone elses assertions are unqualified without qualifying your own assertions seems to me to be a never ending and pointless line (cirlce) of argument.

You say the argument is not 'connected enough to justify it'. I disagree, it makes perfect sense to me. On what basis do you believe it doesn't justify it???you need to qualify that assertion. And so we found ourselves biting at our tails again.

im done

tomwm I hardly think making arbitrary and unqualified assertions about 'who has the right' and what is 'wrong' on a matter, and illustrating such sweeping judgements with an example that is in the rough ballpark of the matter, yet not connected well enough to actually justify it (and shoutily refusing to explain your reasoning) is clear thinking,

And yes it does feel like you are going round in circles when discussing with someone like that - a bit like trying to challenge Nigel Tufnel on his assertion that an amp that "goes up to 11" is better.

DioneTheDiabolist - YES! intelligent clear thinking that keeps the heart of the issue at the heart of the solution
FoodUnit -Your comments feel like a cat chasing its tail.

I doubt most men (or women if they are gay) would prefer them to the real thing.

Garlic -

Thanks for that. MN is educational .

Here's one (picture inoffensive, except in so far as it's a fake girlfriend).

Himalaya, they do. They tend to graduate from the cheap sort with printed hair and bad seams, to bigger & better ones with wigs. Expensive inflatables have moulded features and are less likely to deflate during - er use. Moving on from inflatables, you get silicon dolls which also vary in size, versatility and price. Top-of-the-range silicon dolls are life size, extremely lifelike in appearance (much artistry has gone into those!), feel like skin and have moveable joints which can be posed ... They all have oddly wide-set legs, though, to accommodate the -er, necessary parts which, in an expensive doll, are made the same as a Fleshlight. The poshest silicons are so heavy they have to be secured to a ceiling joist if the owner wants them to stand up. This is achieved with a heavy chain, which attaches to a bolt in the back of the doll's neck.

More than you ever wanted to know about sex dolls!

Can I ask a stupid question. I always assumed those blow up "sex dolls" were just for practical jokes. Do men really use them?

"amillionyears Sat 21-Apr-12 19:58:17
Xenia, pm me if you want to."
Was there something you wanted to say?

Xenia, pm me if you want to.

DioneTheDiabolist I'm not telling you to do anything, I was not being specific about you. Just pointing that by asserting who has the 'right' to feel something, or that it is 'wrong' to extrapolate wider patterns from those feelings, is effectively taking the moral high ground, and in so doing - policing people.

hey ho indeed

Ah FoodUnit, it appears we have a communication difficulty so I will put this as clearly as I know how:
I came onto this thread to discuss sex with robots, not semantics.
I will not be changing my language.
I will not be providing definitions for every word I use.

I find your inability to understand my posts unfortunate, but hey ho, that's life.

I understand the difference between feelings and extrapolations (or inferences) from them - I was talking about changing the language from:

how this makes me feel/what impact could this development have? to:

person (a) has the right to do such and such, person (b) doesn't have the right to do such and such

also, you aren't the only one on the thread doing it, so I don't want you to feel this is a personal attack or I think you are an authoritarian kind of person who loves policing people. Just that the effect of telling people who has the right to do what implies a privileged access to absolute information (authority).

The gay example required a lot of unqualified assumptions though so I don't think it really justifies your position.

It is wrong for them to try to extrapolate [from finding gay sex abhorrent] that homosexuality is damaging to them as heterosexuals, or society as a whole.

1. You haven't defined what you mean by 'wrong' - do you mean incorrect or morally wrong?
2. Do you mean that extrapolating from a feeling that there might be a wider pattern is always wrong (incorrect or morally) What's your justification for that?
3. Is it 'wrong' to even try to extrapolate any feelings to find a wider pattern (or do you mean 'wrong' in fact to extrapolate and act on that basis to persecute a minority group)?

Because without clarifying this it could seem that 'flashers make me feel uncomfortable - perhaps this means they present a danger' is an extrapolation too far - when in fact we know that rapists often start off with flashing, for example, and in this case I do not believe it is either morally wrong or incorrect to extrapolate from the feeling.

No, no policing from me.

I think that my example regarding homosexuality and homophobes explains the difference between "feeling" and "extrapolating".

It may come across as authoritarian to you, that was not how it was intended. However, that is your subjective response to my post and you have the right to feel how you wish about it. To extrapolate from your feeling that I wish to police this thread is wrong.

DioneTheDiabolist We have the right to feel what we feel about the sexual behaviour of others, but we do not have the right to extrapolate what we feel about it into what the user of the robot thinks and feels about us. Please qualify how these rights are defined, or where you acquired the knowledge about the lack of right to 'extrapolate what we feel'? If you are defining who has the right to feel or extrapolate from those feelings, surely you are policing no?

Basically you have nudged the discussion from how this makes me feel, to who has the right to do what. That comes across as quite authoritarian to me

Very few people are going to want the sex robot (whether it is create male or female) rather than the real thing.

No one is policing women's feelings. I have no problems with the robot, but am perfectly happy for women or men for that matter to say they do and try to work out why they do.

It is not policing women's feelings. It is exploring them and offering an opinion (having been invited to by the OP).

A robot is a machine, just like a car or a sewing machine. The manufacture of sex robots is simply technological progression of the blow up dolls which have existed for many decades.

We have the right to feel what we feel about the sexual behaviour of others, but we do not have the right to extrapolate what we feel about it into what the user of the robot thinks and feels about us. Homophobes find gay sex abhorrent, they can feel that way if they like, they are entitled to their opinion. It is wrong for them to try to extrapolate that homosexuality is damaging to them as heterosexuals, or society as a whole.

On a different note, I do not believe that the availability of sex robots will end prostitution. There will always be those who want sex with a human woman and no matter how realistic a robot is, it is certainly not human.

I posted that I wouldn't have a problem if the robots didn't look like women. I still like that women's erotica story about the red velvet sex chair (although, god help me, I did wonder how you would clean it ) But making sexbots as 'women' suggests real women aren't good enough - or legally abusable enough. It's the Stepford proposition: women would be ideal, if only the pesky things didn't insist on being human.

There is a difference between controlling an appliance and controlling a person. I think humanoid robots blur that difference. Well, they don't yet, but will as soon as a true android is developed. It's a dead cert that the first successful ones will be developed by the arms and the sex industries: in both cases, apparent humans which are capable of taking more abuse than a living being. I'm not that keen on either but, where the sexbot is concerned, there are no arguments in its favour. It will developed specifically for men's pleasurable abuse and, as such, will be expected to be more human-like than the humanoid weapon.
... trying to cram a dissertation into a post here, and failing!

I disagree that the idea is more repugnant than using human prostitutes - it's safer.

I wouldn't feel justified in condemning a man who bought one as a replacement for human women. I wouldn't like what it says about him, but hey.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the assumption that a robot prostitute should be a simulated woman.

I think we are saying that we don't have a problem with using things for sex as long as a) they don't have a brain or b) (better) they don't look like they have a brain. Seeing as that's exactly how some women see sexual women I am struggling to see the difference [devil's advocate emoticon!]

I find it interesting that 'expressions of women's discomfort about incidents of the female body being dehumanised by by men', keeps getting forcibly misrepresented as 'assertions about policing male sexual behaviours'.

It is really flipping the OPs question from: why do I feel like this? to being: am I allowed to feel like this?

By the stealthy move of: women 'sharing feelings' about men = women 'policing' men.

I think this is really common in patriarchal/misogynist culture, where questions about male 'rights' to sexual behaviours trump females 'rights' to have or express their own feelings...

Its hypocritical silencing:

Patriarchy policing women's feelings - right on a mn feminism/women's rights thread!