Sex Robots- creating the "perfect" woman

There's nothing wrong with wanting people to be kinder and more considerate. But there's no way to force them to behave a certain way without coercive control.

I don't think coercive control is a bad thing always. I think men should be coerced not to use prostitutes. I think people should be coerced not be racist. I don't think they should be coerced in a legal sense necessarily, but they should feel a coercive pressure from a moral community. They should feel guilt.

If a married person has sex behind their spouse's back they risk destroying the marriage. They know that. However they can't be prevented from doing it as it's not illegal.

No, and neither should it be legal. But it should be seen as wrong.

I'm saying the idea of sexual autonomy makes no sense. I don't even understand what it means. As far as I can see, it is a feature of patriarchy in that it conceptualises sex in terms of people acting on each other rather than connecting. Hence the dominant woman is a male fantasy because it fetishizes power. A woman can say 'well, I like BDSM and that's my choice and whether men get off on that or that is their issue' but that would be to assume that our sexual choices and identities are formed in a social and cultural vacuum.

There's nothing wrong with wanting people to be kinder and more considerate. But there's no way to force them to behave a certain way without coercive control.

Every time someone tries to engage with an idea you change tack independent. What you've been suggesting all along is that women's sexual autonomy, or their right to decide their own sexual experiences for themselves has been a major factor in the increase in men's sexually abusive behaviour. When challenged on that you don't engage you just fall back on statements about porn etc.

If a married person has sex behind their spouse's back they risk destroying the marriage. They know that. However they can't be prevented from doing it as it's not illegal.

Independent, why do you keep leaping to conclusions that don't follow from what someone has said?

Nobody has mentioned whether or not people should feel guilt free about their sexual behaviour.

I'm not saying anyone should be forcibly stopped from having an affair. But the idea that we should all agree it's OK just because people should have sexual autonomy is not credible.

Power to control my own life, power to have consensual sex as and when I want.

OK, so if you're married is it fine for you to have sex with whoever you want behind your partners' back? Would it also be fine for a forty year old woman to have sex with a sixteen year old boy? Would it be fine for a woman to use porn?

All consensual. All legal. See the problem?

The idea that anyone should feel guilt free about doing anything sexual they want so long as someone has said yes and the law hasn't been broken is ridiculous. In fact, traditionally it's an idea used by men to justify their immoral behaviour.

Can you please define your terms, independent.

What is sexual autonomy? Sexual power?

independent. For the benefit of people like me, would you mind saying exactly what you would like to happen?

1. The criminalisation of anyone using prostitutes.
2. The regulation of the porn industry - making it accessible only to adults with credit cards. If any of the hubs are found to host illegal material, they are fined and shamed.
3. A vast redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, allowing all women and men to lead economically independent lives free of exploiting and degrading employment conditions.
4. A sex education programme which encourages children to view sexual partners as people rather than sexual commodities - that encourages them to view sex as not just a source of pleasure but an expression of love, empathy and care.
5. Zero tolerance of the corporate sexualisation of children.

That would be a start.

Power to control my own life, power to have consensual sex as and when I want.

I'm wondering if by female sexual autonomy being another male fantasy, independent means that it's not a material reality.

That it doesn't really exist in the way women (fondly) think it does.

Independent, rather than ask other people to define terms, can you please define your terms as I previously asked you to do?

What do you mean by sex?
What do you mean by tech?

Also can anyone explain the meaning of depersonalisation as a psychological concept?

'Female sexual autonomy is just another male fantasy.' This is a truly disturbing statement. Female sexual autonomy is a right afforded to women by a society that sees them as human beings. It doesn't matter one fucking bit if men fantasise over it, because guess what, we're human beings who have our own lives that exist independently of male fantasies. Jesus Christ.'

Yes, I agree with Sparrowhawk.

So, because men abuse women, women shouldn't want or have power? You do realise that women exist independently of men?? That I don't give a tiny stinking shit if the idea of me having power turns a man on or not? I want to have power and autonomy for MYSELF because I am a human being and I don't give a fuck if men want to rape me because of that. They are the ones in the wrong, not me.

What do you mean by power? Power to do what?

I'm enjoying this. I have to confess, I struggle to understand everything independent is saying, until it is interpreted and spat back by the other posters.

independent. For the benefit of people like me, would you mind saying exactly what you would like to happen?

Could you say it in terms of if X happened, then X would follow. Specifically using women's part in this.

It sounds to me like you are trying to put in, what you believe, is an unpopular opinion by the backdoor.

Can you just spit it out.

Also, given that female sexual autonomy has, in your eyes, led to men's behaviour becoming more problematic, surely it's men's behaviour that should change rather than women's behaviour? Or do you believe it's up to women to manage men's behaviour by not expressing their own sexuality?

I have no problem with men using sex dolls. I mean, it's pretty pathetic and sad but it's up to them. I do have a problem with the sex dolls being sold as 'the perfect woman,' because that implies that the perfect woman is one who has no autonomy and who does everything a man wants her to.

Your argument in your previous post is really incoherent.

'it is important to understand that you cannot combat rape by extending the sense of power and entitlement felt by these men to women - as though women having lots of depersonalised sex and expressing their sexuality in an assertive way will somehow rebalance things.'
I have never known of any feminist who believes that rape can be combatted by encouraging women to have lots of depersonalised sex.
However, I can't see what's wrong with women 'expressing their sexuality in an assertive way' - can you explain what the problem is? Should women avoid expressing their sexuality? Or should they only express it in a submissive way?

'Sexual liberation and whatever assertion of sexual autonomy women make has only led to greater opportunities for men to abuse and objectify women, with a commercial sex industry that dwarfs anything that has existed in human history. Female sexual autonomy is just another male fantasy. The idea of you having power turns guys on who can only think of sex in terms of power. The fact that they'll never have you only makes it better, because it means you're never entirely real.'

So, because men abuse women, women shouldn't want or have power? You do realise that women exist independently of men?? That I don't give a tiny stinking shit if the idea of me having power turns a man on or not? I want to have power and autonomy for MYSELF because I am a human being and I don't give a fuck if men want to rape me because of that. They are the ones in the wrong, not me.

'Female sexual autonomy is just another male fantasy.' This is a truly disturbing statement. Female sexual autonomy is a right afforded to women by a society that sees them as human beings. It doesn't matter one fucking bit if men fantasise over it, because guess what, we're human beings who have our own lives that exist independently of male fantasies. Jesus Christ.

And sparrowhawk, do you think that all 'non-criminal, consensual activity' that men engage in is fine? Like using a sex doll for instance? No, and neither do I. Just because a sexual situation meets a standard of consent and is technically legal it dies not necessarily mean it is OK.

No, my concern is with people behaving themselves. Yes, sexual assault and sexual objectification is gendered - historically, culturally and socially. But in order to challenge that, you need a coherent moral position. In addition to speaking out against rape, it is important to understand that you cannot combat rape by extending the sense of power and entitlement felt by these men to women - as though women having lots of depersonalised sex and expressing their sexuality in an assertive way will somehow rebalance things. It's important to point that out for the simple reason that it won't work. In fact it demonstrably isn't working. Sexual liberation and whatever assertion of sexual autonomy women make has only led to greater opportunities for men to abuse and objectify women, with a commercial sex industry that dwarfs anything that has existed in human history. Female sexual autonomy is just another male fantasy. The idea of you having power turns guys on who can only think of sex in terms of power. The fact that they'll never have you only makes it better, because it means you're never entirely real. Reality is personhood and love - and that is what is truly radical because it doesn't give cheap thrills and no one can make much money if it. Pornographers hate love. Like the liberals, they want to destroy it. Sexual autonomy and empowerment however are a billion dollar gold mine. Actually, I have no idea what sexual autonomy means? Not being raped, objectified or coerced into sex? That isn't autonomy; that's just the baseline respect with which any woman or human being should be treated.

'I really struggle with this idea that a woman should be able to behave sexually in any way she likes. Nobody should be able to behave sexually in any way they like. Everyone's sexual behaviour should be governed by a moral conscience.'

I find it utterly bizarre that in a world where millions of women are raped by men every year your concern is about women engaging in non-criminal consensual sexual activity.

Can you see why feminists rejected this model?

Yes, and I've said several times that the answer is not a return to the past. I'm perfectly aware that a hundred years ago women were considered little better than chattel.

As I have said, the issue is not with feminist principles, but a strain of sexual liberationism which dovetailed perfectly with the values of consumer capitalism and got mixed up with feminism. As a result, industrialised porn and a sexualised marketing culture is the dominant paradigm. The truly radical woman now is the one who says no to this orthodoxy.

Just because there was lots wrong with the old moral order, it does not mean there is anything wrong with a moral order in and of itself. Without a moral order there is nothing but brute power, money, self-interest and barbarism. Rather than creating a new moral order which was more progressive and equitable, the left embraced the politics of the self; the politics of 'if it feels good then do it'. In so doing, they had more in common with the Thatcherite and the Reaganites than they realised. All they did was transfer those individualist values from the realm of economics to that of sex.

I am completely against men feeling entitled to treat women like objects, but I'm no fan of women treating men or other women like objects either. Not that as many of them do this compared to men, but there is an attitude of 'well if men can be individualistic and entitled and predatory, then women should have that autonomy too. We can shag about like men and climb the corporate ladder'. Is that really the kind of equality you want? Two wrongs don't make a right. I really struggle with this idea that a woman should be able to behave sexually in any way she likes. Nobody should be able to behave sexually in any way they like. Everyone's sexual behaviour should be governed by a moral conscience. Conceptualising sex purely in terms of power and autonomy is very dubious IMO. At its most wonderful, sex is when two people give up their power because they love each other. If sex feels empowering to either party then something's wrong.

And I'm no fan of either men or women in corporate positions earning several hundred times the amount their minimum wage employees do. 'Lean in' is a particularly degraded form of feminism because it effectively writes off all the women who don't have the opportunity for a career in Morgan Stanley or Google.

"Good.
That's why the fact that women survive and nurture is down to our strength and love of our children, alone, and not alt right posters like you."

I'm not on the alt-right. The alt-right are libertarians who think feminists are stopping men from doing as they please. I'm quite supportive of feminists stopping men from using prostitutes and objectifying women. Women survive down to the love of their children? Really? And you're a feminist?!

Sorry, but that is a conservative view. You're saying effectively that women are natural nurturers and this is enough to sustain them without the state getting involved.

Again, the fact that certain types take such a keen interest in these lovely feminist threads, on which I normally lurk, shows we're rattling cages. Always a good sign. If feminism didn't scare them so much, they wouldn't exert so much energy on shutting it down.
Thanks for posting OP.

I don't think independent is naive, rather he is using sophistry and being disingenuous