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.

This might be a useless side-note, but is it only sex that is so separate and objective that it has no interaction with culture, and must be allowed total autonomy? If a company wanted to build a fleet of mechanised cleaning robots, and programmed them with stereotypically working class accents, names and language, programming them to cheerily address the user as "guv'nor" whilst they worked continuously all day and night, makng self-deprecatory remarks that they "knew their place", wouldn't we all find it rather distasteful and creepy?

I know this isn't an exact analogy at all (not least because of the way working class women's labour is under-recognised), and I don't mean it to be a thought experiment that proves a point - I'm trying to think about other "fuctions" which robots might carry out that are associated with real people.

Buffy

My apologies, I was unclear. I was speculating as to the mentality of people in a future where such sex robots existed rather than at present. Today, far too many people still equate women with with passive penetratable objects.

What has occurred to me is that we can already see examples where a distinction is drawn in the minds of abusive individuals between girl shaped objects and girl shaped people; and I do use girls deliberately here. There have been cases recently where a horrific amount of abuse was perpetuated against young children of one socioethnicity by men of another, justified in their own minds by the distinction between the 'real' young women of their culture and the unreal, 'unpersoned' nature of those young children of the other. I feel that if such a stark line for appropriate behavior can be drawn based on as nebulous a concept as religious difference, it will be enormously distinct when the comparison is between a living being and a genuine non-delightful.

Genuine non-being, wretched phone.

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

Agreed. That is where I think we need to work hard on educating young men and women. Making sure that there is a clear and distinct understanding of the difference between fantasy fuelled internet and AI device interaction and real people.

My fear is the distinction is being eroded all the time in the minds of young people who have yet to have had an experience of real positive human sexual relationships.

QuiteIrregular

I think the issue between worker bits in a company and sex bots would be one of the divergence between behaviour appropriate in public and behaviour appropriate in public.

Within the privacy of one's home I think 'working class' robots would be evidence of a peculiar sense of humour; odd, but acceptable. In public, it would be evidence of the incapacity to control the impact of one's sense of humour on others, an indication of poor socialisation that would rightly attract criticism.

Defining the boundaries between acceptable private behaviour and unacceptable public behaviour is, I feel, very central to this debate.

I can see the distinction you're drawing - or sketching out - between public and private behaviour, but I can't see how private behaviour has no effect whatsoever on public culture, and vice versa. Why would someone find "working class" bots amusing? Presumably because their sense of humour has been shaped by a public culture, and a certain genre of jokes. Also, are you suggesting that certain behaviour is reprehensible in public, but acceptable in private? That seems to vest an awful lot of confidence in the morally-altering power of doing things in secret.

but I can't see how private behaviour has no effect whatsoever on public culture, and vice versa.

I think one of the fundamental objectives of modern socialisation is to minimise the likelihood of ones private behaviour impacting on that of others. We are taught at a very young age that we cannot enact every fantasy that exists in the privacy of our thoughts, or enact behaviours considered appropriate for the home setting beyond it. Families have behaviours and in jokes that within their private sphere are acceptable - eating in the living room, for instance - but we're expected to learn not to make assumptions about what might be permitted in the houses of those we visit.

It's an ideal that falters, and failures of socialisation abound, but nevertheless building that barrier is a goal that people pursue.

That seems to vest an awful lot of confidence in the morally-altering power of doing things in secret.

There is a vast moral gulf between activities than involve people who do not consent and people who do, and a smaller yet still significant gulf between activities that involve consenting people and activities that involve no other people at all.

"My fear is the distinction is being eroded all the time in the minds of young people who have yet to have had an experience of real positive human sexual relationships."

On this, we agree. Can you see now what our concerns are? We know that increased availability of porn is fuelling the demands of, say, teenage boys on their girlfriends.

Most people challenging you, Beta, were commenting on you saying that you expected all the guys on the thread found the idea of robots yuk, like you did. Most of them had not said that, though, so it's interesting you drew that conclusion.

"Families have behaviours and in jokes that within their private sphere are acceptable - eating in the living room, for instance - but we're expected to learn not to make assumptions about what might be permitted in the houses of those we visit. "

This seems a pretty trivial comparator. What if cleaning bots get sold in South Africa, and the vast majority of those bought are black-skinned and say 'sorry, sir' if racially insulted by their owners? How can that possibly not carry over into 'public' behaviour? What if said family has two young children watching this happen to something that, to them, seems like a black person? How does 'education about private and public spheres' solve what they see around them every day?

There have been cases recently where a horrific amount of abuse was perpetuated against young children of one socioethnicity by men of another, justified in their own minds by the distinction between the 'real' young women of their culture and the unreal, 'unpersoned' nature of those young children of the other. I feel that if such a stark line for appropriate behavior can be drawn based on as nebulous a concept as religious difference, it will be enormously distinct when the comparison is between a living being and a genuine non-being.

I don't know what case you're referencing there, but that would seem to me to be men differentiating between permitted and non-permitted women and female behaviour. I would assume, without further information, that the women of their own socioethnic group conform to their own socioethnic codes, whereas the others may not. They're all still women (or girls, presumably). So men can already dismiss and disregard the humanity of a female human when it suits their own purposes. I don't see how this argument works. Giving such men actual non-human women or girls would only serve to reinforce this idea that some women deserve humanity whereas some don't.

In fact, if we create this divide between non-human women who are permanently available for sex and real women who aren't, the gap widens further. Human women who display sexual desires (like most of us do at some point) could eventually then be seen as non-human, just like the bots, because that's what sexbots are for.

NiNoKuni

A woman who is non-human is an impossibility. The divide would be between a non-human object and a human.

I'm very sorry, is it possible that my neural divergence is causing me to miss something here? I still don't understand why people are equating real women and things.

How can that possibly not carry over into 'public' behaviour?

The same way it does with most people - a commitment to the civilised behaviour required for daily interaction.

What if said family has two young children watching this happen to something that, to them, seems like a black person? How does 'education about private and public spheres' solve what they see around them every day?

By educating young children in the difference between an unfeeling object and a real human. An education I believe would be enhanced by the existence of non-human things that look human.

Here is a robot - that is a human. The robot cannot feel, cannot be harmed, because it has no capacity to do or be so. A human can.

If I can be taught the distinction, I doubt neuroptypical people would struggle to grasp it.

Meph

I'm kind of picking up my earlier argument about empathy. Men who abuse women have been shown to lack empathy with them. The men in your example lacked empathy with the girls they abused. They didn't see them as fully human and fully deserving of human rights. Whereas they can (presumably) see the women belonging to their own group as human, or at least the 'right kind' of women. Men can already make false distinctions about humanity and women's being deserving of it. While, to you, a non-human woman may be an impossibility, and for that I'm glad, this is demonstrably not the case for other men.

As to equating real life, real women and non-real things - lines blur, right? A bunch of teenagers watching porn, itself fuelled and driven by men's sexual fantasies (not reality), now think that anal sex is something girls and women routinely want/should want and that it should hurt. Sex is once again becoming something done to women by men, not a mutual thing. All driven by 'fantasy'.

I think QuiteIrregular's analogy is a good one, but let's take it a step further. If a bunch of white Americans bought a bunch of black-skinned cleaning or labour bots programmed to speak to them with 'yes massa' and 'no massa' responses, that wouldn't make you uncomfortable? You don't think African Americans would have a teeny tiny problem with that? It's not real, after all, is it? These bots wouldn't be actual humans, would they?

But there isn't agreement on what constitutes "civilized behaviour". Once we grow beyond the basic issues of not crapping in the middle of the living room floor, or not expecting everyone to treat us like their child, there are huge disagreement about what is acceptable public behaviour. Sexism, racism, and prejudice of all kinds are not individual aberrations from an agreed standard of objective niceness, they are (deeply corrupt) alternative standards. The idea that everyone is totally anarchic and "uncivilized" in their private life, and then objectively "civilized" in their dealings with other people is not borne out by basic observation of human life.

Also, as a historical note, the "public/ private" split was traditionally a very useful way for male citizens to justify the oppression of other people. All sorts of things were acceptable in the "privacy" of the household which we now find abhorrent. Except, of course, some people don't find them abhorrent. So it's not a universal trans-historical standard and it's not one that everyone in one period will accept.

Whereas they can (presumably) see the women belonging to their own group as human, or at least the 'right kind' of women. Men can already make false distinctions about humanity and women's being deserving of it.

I believe that when the distinction between groups will be as large as that between human and non-human it will make it difficult for false distinctions to arise between human beings. Of course, I am also making the assumption that cultural friction that produced the specific case has been reduced through further assimilation to our own societal mores, which is fundamentally what we are discussing.

The porn issue is one where I think an enormous effort needs to be made to teach a simple principle; Fantasy is fine. Willingly fulfilling someones fantasy is fine.* Expecting others to embrace your fantasy is not. The problem is we have relied on this message being implicit in other forms of socialisation, but it probably needs to be expressed as we move into a world that accepts a greater variety of individual expression. It is something that I believe is urgently required, but would serve equally in the case of sex robots.

If a bunch of white Americans bought a bunch of black-skinned cleaning or labour bots programmed to speak to them with 'yes massa' and 'no massa' responses, that wouldn't make you uncomfortable? You don't think African Americans would have a teeny tiny problem with that? It's not real, after all, is it?

It would make me uncomfortable, as I would question the motives of someone who did so until I could be sure whether or not they made the choice through humour I find distasteful or genuine antipathy. I think real African Americans would have an entirely legitimate right to criticise such an action - but if none of the bots was ever seen outside the home, or revealed to visitors or indeed simply never brought to the attention of African Americans I would wonder whether or not it would actually cause harm.

If the harm we imagine causing to people exclusively inside our heads is considered equivalent to real harm, I'm sure we're all monstrosities to one extent or another.

But there isn't agreement on what constitutes "civilized behaviour". Once we grow beyond the basic issues of not crapping in the middle of the living room floor, or not expecting everyone to treat us like their child, there are huge disagreement about what is acceptable public behaviour.

I would have to disagree. I do not perceive these huge disagreements which you state exist within the boundaries of our culture. I was also not implying that people are 'civilised' outside the home and 'uncivilised' within - the expectations of civilisation extend everywhere, but include boundaries wherein a degree of eccentricity can permitted as it does not impact negatively on others.

If we're talking the difference between socioethnic behavioural expectations then we are starting to expand the field of the debate beyond what I assumed we were discussing, which was the impact of sex bots on an anglo-centric occidental value structure. If we're starting to get into cultural imperialism and the existence of other structures things are going to get problematic very quickly.

You've never met anyone who thinks it's fine to be racist or sexist? Then you're very lucky. I'd call that a pretty serious disagreement in values.

I believe that when the distinction between groups will be as large as that between human and non-human it will make it difficult for false distinctions to arise between human beings.

So is what you're saying that once we have female-looking, AI-capable sexbots, society will say to the men 'Hey! These are the female human-looking things you can use and abuse, not the ones with a heartbeat', and all will be well? This will curb men's abusive behaviours and not fuel them? Hmm. I don't share your belief. I don't think it's borne out by past examples of the sex trade, which absent actual sexbots is all we have to go on.

You've never met anyone who thinks it's fine to be racist or sexist?

Considering how people react to being called racist or sexist, have you?

What I have encountered are people who disagree as to my definitions of racism and sexism, but they were outside my socioethnic community and prevailing moral orthodoxy is that value comparisons between such groups are inherent with obfuscatory dynamics that make judgements unsafe.

Yup, I've met sexist people and racist people. And they weren't outside my "socioethnic community", whatever that's supposed to insinuate.

NiNoKuni

I think we've arrived at the point were we must simply admit to a difference in perspective. I recognise that your argument is fundamentally sound, but our assumptions differ as to whether or not pre-sex bot behaviour could be used as an predictor of post sex bot behaviour. I think the departure would be larger than you are speculating, but I can understand why you would think otherwise.

YY to NiNoKuni's point that it's unlikely all men will suddenly decide that they respect women at the point at which they are handed incredibly realistic sexbots which imitate women perfectly and are for the express purpose of sexual exploitation. And that we should raise an eyebrow at any attitude which thinks "here, have a more convincing thing to abuse" is an answer to men's sexual violence.

QuiteIrregular

I don't think it's possible to abuse a thing. I think this might be where your perspective and mine is fundamentally divergent.

OK, I could rephrase it as "Here, stop abusing those women and do exactly the same thing to this simulated woman, designed to look as much like a woman as possible"

"Here, stop abusing those women and do exactly the same thing to this simulated woman, designed to look as much like a woman as possible"

As long as the individual in question stops abusing actual women, I'd call it a positive outcome.

Of course, it is entirely possible that yourself and NiNoKuni would turn out to be correct - this is all speculation - but I believe that it would be less harmful to society through the removal of an actual human being from the equation.

It would do little to improve the behaviour of those who are unrepentant sadists as they rely on genuine suffering, but such loathsome beings are essentially beyond redemption by any method.