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.

Do you think there's any difference between film, music and games, and modes of art or aesthetic activity which involve live performance? Your sweeping denunciation of everyone who hates the human imagination seems to move rather quickly from mass-produced art objects (books, films, etc) often called allographic, to the more involved situation where the art object is a one-off or autographic, and then skip to modes of live interaction.

Is a sexbot a mass-produced allographic object, an autographic item rendered meaningful by the owner's investment in it, or an ongoing performance project which exists in the activities carried out by a person with a prop?

Because if you're sure people who're worried by this hate art and the human imagination, you'd better have a great explanation of how it sits within the spectrum of those activities. Not to mention why we've tradionally been more careful around art which involved 'liveness', or to borrow someone else's phrase 'art that is made of people's own bodies'. It's reasonable to be a bit more wary in that area, isn't it?

Can't see these taking off unless they invent some sort of super advanced artificial intelligence. Most of what is fun with sex is the psychological and emotional interaction e.g. making someone happy, dominating or being dominated, feeling loved, anticipation etc. Otherwise it is just a really complicated wank..

I've been reading quietly for a while.

Some questions.

what if the doll was made in your likeness or someone close to you?

Would you like the idea of someone essentially fucking an inanimate version of someone close to you. mum, wife, daughter?

With the tech available that is entirely possible. I've seen folk sculpt amazing likenesses of celebs from photos (for art NOT these dolls) if people are willing to pay thousands for a doll its not beyond the realms of possibility they would pay for the 'perfect' doll.

Would you still be OK with these dolls if that could happen. That someone could choose a random person and say 'I want one like that' complete with interchangeable genitals.

That thought alone is very very unsettling aside from the fact people want, to put it bluntly, fuck a realistic yet inanimate female form and actually get pleasure from that.

I find it a little weird you can choose which of your fave pornstars and select a toy moulded on them.

I still feel realistic toys are just as bad but this is in part down to me not wanting to use another man's penis in dildo form. (I'm still 100% for sex toys/aids and Encourage everyone to try them!)

I can't believe some think this is a women hating sex thing. Far from it. So many have voiced their own personal concerns over it.

The pros still do not outweigh the benefits.

I'm still trying to get my head around the whole idea mostly the effect on society when it is seen as normal to opt for a doll over a real relationship because that's what it is.

Buffy,

Just checking in as a male previous poster and Personally I wouldn't use a sex robot, I'm an intermittent user of MN at best and I saw this post whilst lurking and as it was something that was inherently targeted at males (the title states men) I thought I would give my opinion and in a sense yes play Devils advocate as I did state in my original reply that there are machines that are available to women although basic (a dildo on a hydraulic machine) it wouldn't be hard to make that more lifelike to look like a man, as well as some other points in which Whirlpool have a good answer unfortunately I made another post in which I misread a post fully and worded a reply badly and it didn't really represent what I meant. Things soured a bit and I had other things to do so could not reply in time.

AnyFucker

I left the thread for many reasons, the main being severe lack of sleep over the last few days which has already made me make one thread in which I misread and went on a random tandem which was not what I actually had to say, and therefore by the time I came back to MN it has been rightfully vilified and the conversation had moved on. There are many intelligent and reasoned responses here and whilst I have opinions in my current state I don't think I could put my view across properly and as intelligently as others, which with a misinterpretation already under my belt I don't think would be conducive to the conversation.

As for the guy who posted about the daughters sex toy of course it was inappropriate and by the time I had registered it and caught up you had already pointed it out hours ago and i don't know you personally but in such situations in real life I have heard many of times " you don't mean it, you're just saying it now because I pointed it out" and I wanted to avoid that (again you may not have said that and I apologise for making an assumption but it has been a response I've heard many say and again I don't think it would be conducive to the conversation so late on.

But to clarify he was wrong and should have been vilified by everyone at the time.

Sorry for the long post and there is probably some repetition, I struggle to keep things short normally but I'm aware I'm worse when j have had little sleep. Which is a testament as to why when I have checked in to see replies to the thread I haven't replied as mentally I'm in no state to converse in the high level as others and didn't want to be a nuisance

I've just caught up with this thread and I half wish I hadn't, I think it may be time to hide it.

Before I do just want to send out a solidarity fist pump to the opinionated feminists fighting the good fight. Thank you, you are the reason I am half glad I RTFT.

also... I hope no one checks my search history after googling things related to this thread

Happy your response is what I should have been able to expect as a matter of course, but I am nonetheless glad you took the time to type it out, even belatedly

AF/Whirlpool - I am a little unclear why you are arguing with me.

I am agreeing with the BBC article. I have in particular highlighted the combination of life like inanimate objects with artificial intelligence. These are central issues to the article.

The closer these sex bots become in artificial intelligence and physical form to real women the greater my concern. I do not know whether it will increase violence towards women (ie toy gun effect') but my concern is in the effect on our grandchildren. There is a real possibility that these hyper real sexbots will become so easily accessible that they will become the first real sex experience many teenage men have.

You might think that far fetched but look at how the internet has impacted our children already.

I did a PhD involving substantial amounts of machine learning (a component part of artificial intelligence) and I have therefore a significant understanding of the potential capability of even quite simple algorithms to simulate complex human behaviour.

My reaction to this on an emotional personal level as a man is 'yuk' but on an intellectual level I think we need a reasoned response to the real possibility of artificially intelligent life-like robots in our lives very soon.

I don't think the constant sniping is helpful - which mainly seems to be just because I am a man and you are determined to disagree with me even when I am agreeing with your basic stance and commenting from a base of significant knowledge on the subject of the article.

QuiteIrregular - it's so nice to see someone who is fond of long words. I'm not entirely sure what you think you are asking me, though.

The difference between music, films and games and live performance - well, a recorded performance can be enjoyed again and again, a live performance differs on every occasion (even when the performers are hugely experienced and intensively rehearsed) - not sure of the relevance of that question.

I realised that the last paragraph could sound as though I think I'm famous. No, I'm not famous. As you were.

Honestly I am not sure, i think it is odd but at the same time it is only a machine. I will have to see if there were any facts which showed there would be a negative affect on society at all.

As for DWH post it's just weird to causually mention your daughter has a dildo and without any more info I can't really say if it is sinister or not. Not mention there have been entire threads dedicated to peoples sons masturbatory practices so why should one be attacked and the other not?

I am not arguing with you, beta

I am simply making an observation that in your haste to educate us all you missed something rather basic.

It's not a question of liking long words, I was just staggered by your claim that anyone who had a problem with this was suspicious of the human imagination and hated art. The relevance of the question about performance is that clumping all forms of art together is deeply unhelpful in this context. Again, I'm not sure why you leap straight from ethical concerns to 'superstition' - it seems a bit missing the point.

I thought the guy who mentioned his daughters sex toys was joking, but I believed that pointing this out would lead to assumptions that I was being condescending, or that I was accusing feminists of not having a sense of humour.

The fact that no other poster (male or female) seemed to be fazed by it at the time seemed to bear out my joking hypothesis. If it was a real statement then it would be a bit creepy, as is often the case with jokes on sexual topics.

No Meph.

And yes, very creepy.

Buffy - no you don't need post doctoral understanding of AI. You just need to read the article which has AI written all over it. How we interact with Ai is central to the response we make.

AI cannot be banned. Robots cannot be banned. Combining AI and robotics is inevitable. That is where us the 'real humans' need to get ahead of the curve.

Nothing on this thread actually addresses the issue. Its just an unintelligent tirade about 'men' in large part - ignoring the fact that women will interact with these sexbots as well.

This could cause huge damage to normal human sexual relationships as the internet has. Slagging off men is not going to address the issue.

I'm not sure anyone's mentioned wanting to ban them. I'm not sure anyone's slagged off men in general (maybe one or two specific ones). The main points of concern seem to me to be the effect this could/will have on women in general. But maybe that's too 'unintelligent' or we didn't NAMALT enough.

The paper I linked to above points out that creating sex tech generally drives more demand for all manner of sex-related stuff (porn, prostitutes etc.). It doesn't just satiate a need, it drives it. We could therefore assume that these sexbots will take off and drive ever more sophisticated technology, yes. And there may well be repercussions on real life people, both users of said tech and sellers of sex. The main point being that people (usually men) who abuse (usually) women lack empathy. A sexbot that you can program with your chosen personality traits and responses, that doesn't have needs or desires of its own, that will do what you tell it and that you can switch off whenever you're bored - does that create and encourage empathy? I doubt it. If we teach men to have even less empathy with the objects of their sexual desire, I for one can see that having consequences in real life with real life women. Or children. Or anyone else typically vulnerable. It doesn't go anywhere near encouraging respectful, empathetic, sensitive human relationships.

On a more philosophical level, doesn't the way we program and treat these bots say something fundamental about the way we see and treat women (and any other sexual fantasy objects)? Isn't this saying that men just want women to exhibit permanent sexual availability and nothing else? No voice? I'd wager this is precisely one of the reasons why feminists and other women have such a problem with it, because we've seen it before and we know what it feels like and the problems it creates.

Women tend to buy sex toys that work on certain areas of their bodies, not things that look like people. If I saw a sexbot with a piston-action penis, I'd probably fall about laughing rather than jump on in a haze of lust. YMMV.

So no, I don't have a PhD in robotics. I have seen Blade Runner and the pleasure GELF episode of Red Dwarf though.

I wonder if that poster wants his daughter to live in a society where what many men want is a passive penetratable object to own.

Without wanting to place words in the gentleman's mouth, perhaps he wishes a world were owning a penetrable (autocorrect really doesn't like that word on my phone either) is acceptable, but equating a real woman to such an object is unthinkable.

I fundamentally believe the distinction between the two would grow, rather than shrink.