to not see a problem with men using robots for sex

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34118482

Yes, its a bit sad and perverted, but I can't see how a glorified sex doll hurts anyone. I would be horrified if a sex doll looked like a child. However if a really sad sexually frustrated man masturbates with a sex doll that looks like a grown adult, no one is getting hurt.

I don't think it that robots will be sophisicated enough to replace a real spouse in my life time.

Weary is playing a bit fast and loose with the list of needs she refers to. Human beings don't need sex in the sense of having a right to engage in sex acts with another person regardless of another person's wishes - but to be deprived of the opportunity to seek willing sexual partners makes people unhappy. And I think most people would agree these days that forbidding masturbation is unkind and unfair.
As to whether having a child-shaped doll that you beat up and/or have violent sex with is 'wrong', well, I don't think it's any more wrong than playing a computer game that involves shooting people, or writing stories about how you'd like to dismember your co-workers.
A lot of whinyarses are very fond of the idea that horror films, computer games , certain kinds of music - and porn - which depict unrealistic or fantasy scenarios are inherently bad and wrong and harmful. These individuals generally don't like fiction or music of any kind, because they have a total mistrust of the human imagination and they are the ones who struggle to distinguish between fantasy and reality - despite the fact that some of them are superstitious and have an imaginary friend that's obsessed with stopping other people having sex...

whirlpool - I agree that being able to express your sexuality in a way that does not do harm is a human right.

Sexual peversions?

That's rather judgemental isn't it

Are you saying you are not on board with people who's fantasies you personally find distasteful? How horribly prudish.

Incidentally, the basic human needs that should be aimed to be met for every human on the planet are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I'm surprised you've not heard of it.

If you want to expand "human needs" to mean "lots of things that most people need in order to make them happy" aka that particular idea from that particular theory, then sure you can put sex in there. Bear in mind though that many people don't need sex (asexual people), many people don't want sex (due to past experiences), many people hate sex (due to damage to their organs due to mutilation), many people have no thoughts of sex at all (babies and children), many people don't think about sex so much at all these days to be honest (most of us as we grow older) and some people choose or commit to go without sex entirely (various types of religious people). So by the time you've got rid of all the people who actually don't need sex, then it starts to look a bit less like a universal need that ought to be met, doesn't it.

Unless, all of those people who don't need sex, are counteracted by all the feminists who clearly need a good seeing to...? (JOKE! Of course I don't think anyone on this thread would imply that).

"As to whether having a child-shaped doll that you beat up and/or have violent sex with is 'wrong', well, I don't think it's any more wrong than playing a computer game that involves shooting people, or writing stories about how you'd like to dismember your co-workers."

Yes quite.

I don't think many people apart from you have actually said this sgb.

Clearly if the argument is that it's fantasy and no harm done, then anything goes in terms of what the robot looks like and what behaviours it displays.

My point is that if people feel discomfort with fantasies that would be distasteful, harmful or criminal when carried out in real life, they need to ask themselves honestly why that is. Because logically, they shouldn't. Like you don't.

TBH as I've been saying I don't think these would result in an increase in sexual violence ect (although I don't know obviously) but I do have a very instant visceral reaction against the idea, which I have been trying to explore but not had too many takers in actual engagement

I'd be with you though, if we think that these are no problems, then they should meet whatever the market demands in terms of look / behaviour.

I think she's saying that in X years we will look back and think how weird and awful it was that there were question marks raised over whether sex bots would be a good thing or not.

Just clicked the link, I assume it was going to be something from victorian times! lol

Of course things are done to women in some countries in order to stop them masturbating, and in fact stop them being capable of any sexual pleasure whatsoever. That's the aim, anyway.

It's interesting that that is going on in one part of the world, while in another part of the world even a conversation about whether these are a good thing or not is being cited as an attempt to stop men masturbating.

It's kind of funny?

Although we did have someone upthread who said that this conversation was, what was it, retribution for the thousands of years of subjugation of women. To be fair to them though, they did then say they didn't mean it like that. But still!

"I think it's a version of the 'toy gun' debate or the 'grand theft auto' debate that crop up from time to time. I personally don't think they have any real cross over in to real life. Of course there will be some weirdos or criminals.
I don't believe watching punch and judy makes you more aggressive to crocodiles."

You're trivialising. Crocodiles FFS.

You don't have to look for parellels with other industries. This is porn. You only need to look at the pom industry now to see if it is something that will affect society.

Is increased access to porn affecting relationships between men and women today? Of course it is.

And of course sexbots will have an effect too.

Ahhhh, now we're angry, prudish, sex-forbidding feminists. Didn't take long for that particular bit of MRA bingo to crop up.

This is why I tend not to argue for women's rights on the internet. The men who take part in these discussions just don't see it and never will. So it's a pointless exercise. They only join these threads to tell us how wrong we are, read our arguments and then disregard them because they don't fit in their heads. There are men out there who understand, but they don't comment on these threads (and as AF pointed out, men so rarely pull up other men on their shitty behaviour or opinions).

Kudos to the women on this thread who continue to fight the good fight. I'm out of patience but cheering you on.

For those of you who think this won't happen in our lifetime, think again.

The cost of technology continues to plummet as processing power grows exponentially.

Many things we take for granted we can do with our smartphones would have seemed like an unobtainable sci-fi fantasy only - say- 20 years ago.

Within our lifetime these will be affordable, of course they will. People will create them at home very cheaply with parts made in their 3D printers. (There are already plans to make robots via 3D printers, sexbots will surely not be far behind).

Or people will choose to buy off the shelf models just like we buy smartphones now.

Unless we see serious climate change kick in this century (as predicted by many) then we'll be slightly too preoccupied with the resulting floods, famines, wars and mass movements of people to worry about designing sexbots.

I just asked DH and he said:

"My gut reaction to this is yuck. The only good thing I can see is if it eliminated or helped to eliminate the sex trade".

Then we had a bit of a conversation about it all which was quite interesting

"Unless we see serious climate change kick in this century (as predicted by many) then we'll be slightly too preoccupied with the resulting floods, famines, wars and mass movements of people to worry about designing sexbots."

Unless the resulting chaos and breakdown in society results in a swift reversal in the position of women and girls in society in countries where things are better, as often happens in apocalypse films, in which case any man who wants a female all of their own, to do what they want with, can have one, all they have to do is catch one! Happy days.

I just asked DH - 'I can see how it would help some people but I can also see how it's bordering on owning women.'

I think if you can have woman-shaped sexbots, you should be able to have child- and baby-shaped ones, sheep-shaped ones, mongoose-shaped ones, kitten-shaped ones, your-mum-shaped ones, whatever-shaped ones. If all this has no bearing, influence or effect on real life and real human beings and real abilities or inabilities to empathise with other human beings and living things, it shouldn't matter, should it?

Basic human needs - look under physiological, it includes SEX. Sorry to burst your prudish bubble Whirlpool

No, it doesn't. Try reading that again. From your terribly reliable wiki link:

Physiological needs are the physical requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body cannot function properly and will ultimately fail. Physiological needs are thought to be the most important; they should be met first.

Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans. Clothing and shelter provide necessary protection from the elements. While maintaining an adequate birth rate shapes the intensity of the human sexual instinct, sexual competition may also shape said instinct

It says that there is a human sexual instinct, but doesn't say that sex is a basic need.

It also doesn't say it under love and belonging.

Soz.

Quoting Maslow without understanding it probably isn't a good move?

There was a chart which didn't come through on the page - bottom section of the triangle Red with Physiological needs, listed including SEX. Sorry I thought it was in that link.

whirlpool - my reaction is 'yuk' as well.

I am sure most men would feel the same. I don't think any men on here think this is a great idea.

Beta, are you reading the same thread as I am ?

all of them, including the op (who appears to have fucked off)

beta why didn't you call out the guy who told us about his daughter's sex toys ?

would you talk about your daughter's sex toys on a public forum ?

Hand up here as someone who finds this whole idea of sexbots deeply creepy and sinister, spends an awful lot of time discussing the ethics of fictional representations of human life and experience, aka art, and has a deep love and respect for the human imagination. It's my full-time job, and my spare time hobby, and I've published works on both the creative and analytical side of art. I'm sorry if that sounds like a brag, I don't mean it to be, but it's just a set up for saying:

Are you shitting me?

People who express concerns here hate the human imagination?! We think all aesthetic activity is suspect? Are you seriously telling me that anyone who wants to question the ethics of representation here is some sort of Philistine who hates art and hates sensuality?

Maybe that burn worked in the 1890s amongst rich young men who'd read a bit of Walter Pater and thought they were terribly shocking to the boring people who had to live in the real world, but I'm afraid it's rather more than a century out of date.

Also beta read the thread. I don't want to be dismissive but this thread has only reached this length because of men who oh so totally neutrally want to explore why a malleable fuckable womanbot might just be an interesting idea if you think about it, why do you hate sex, etc etc.

I'm not, actually, that horrified by the man who mentioned that he believes his daughter owns sex toys. Is this any more of a terrible thing to say than that he believes his daughter sometimes has, or has had, sex with a partner? He didn't go into details or suggest that he got off on the idea, he just said that his wife has some and so does his daughter.

Of course, I don't know him or his family so it could be the case that he has a creepy attitude and embarrasses his DD by going on about how people ought to be 'open' about their wanking habits, but people do sometimes talk about sex toys in general terms, these days, even to their parents/children. There have occasionally been threads on MN from posters mentioning that they are aware of a son's masturbating habits (the vast amount of extra tissues they need to buy these days) and that's not percieved as unhealthy or disgusting.

I don't think anyone here is remotely surprised by your support of DWH's right to tell us about his daughter's sex toys, SGB.