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.

question is would they want to do it.

Ker-ching

"I'll do it."

If Women dolls are just dolls and harmless what's wrong with one that looks like a child or baby? It's just a sex toy after all who is harming?

It'll be easier for us to pretend we have a headache with sex robots so I'm up for it.

I'll call mine kevin.

Anyone read a short story by Asimov about the TNE ("Tony") housekeeping robot ? Food for thought (it's in his "I Robot" collection).

Sex toys and sex robots are a great idea. People forget that it is not, actually, compulsory to have an 'intimate' relationship with another human being and that plenty of people simply don't want to do so. On the other hand, those who do are free to seek one.

The other objection would seem to come from this lingering and harmful idea that men, in particular, need their access to orgasm rationed and controlled - that there is something bad about anything that allows men 'easy' sexual gratification. It feeds into the idea that women don't like sex and use it only as a way of bargaining with men for what they want.

How's a fleshlight for a man any different from a vibrator for a woman?

Just like pornography has increased abuse of women so will sex-robots

yabu

not only does this give the message that woman exist for men to have sex with but also that men need to have sex it is not a need its a desire, so if they are unable to find a willing partner to have sex with they have to either pay for it or use a robot that will once again act the way it is instructed

How's a fleshlight for a man any different from a vibrator for a woman?

It's not, and personally I have no problem with them (although I understand how reducing people to "parts" is a bit crass) - it's more frightening to me when something that resembles a woman, that is trying to be a full woman substitute, is used as a fuck toy (for reasons mentioned in my first post).

I think the issue I have with a sex-bot is that, unlike most sex toys aimed at women, which are generally hand-held gadgets which usually look like gadgets, the sex bots look like women. Prone, unresponsive women. The message is that a man can go out and buy a woman to keep solely for his sexual pleasure.

There's quite a difference between a woman using a vibrator or a dildo, and any interaction she might have with a man. There's much less difference, however, between a man using a sex-bot, and a man having sex with a woman. Particularly a sleeping/unconscious woman, or a woman unable to fight back. It's just too close for me to be comfortable with, even if the likelihood of someone making the move from an easily accessible sex-bot to a more challenging human being.

I think I'm ok with fleshlights in that they're the male version of a 'realistic' dildo; it's something vaguely 'authentic' looking but specifically designed to do the job of stimulating the genitalia. Can't imagine how they keep them clean though!

I have no issues with fleshlights or realistic dildos. They are sex aids. I don't really have an issue with disembodied arses or mouths of ankles (vajankles, although I always thought wankles was a catchier name) - although I suppose they could lead to men being more vigorous when he has his dick in an actual woman's arse/mouth?

But a sex doll or sex robot is reducing the whole sex experience, the whole woman, to an inanimate (or at least non-conscious) doll. Women are no longer humans with needs and an equal part to play in sex, they are equated to lifeless sex objects whose job it is to receive a pounding from the penis and then go back in the box.

Instead of feeding into the idea that women don't like sex, SBG, it reinforces it - the sex dolls are marketed at men and perpetuate the idea that women don't enjoy sex, they are just supposed to receive it for the pleasure of the man.

I don't really understand why it would be ok to have an adult woman sex bot, but not a child or an animal. They are all non sentient. If the idea is it encourages men to go and have non consensual sex with the real thing, why is this bad if the victim is animal or child but not woman. Iyswim. Prob not put that very well. But saying anyone thinks rape is ok but more to do with underlying ideas about women and what they are for. Would a mannequin of an elderly woman be ok? A 16yo boy?

If it's "ick" then again what underlying attitudes is that revealing?

Also the point about "rationing male orgasm" or whatever it was. No one is trying to stop men wanking! But they don't NEED another body to do it with, whether that's a real woman or a robot facsimile.

Not saying anyone is saying rape is ok. Bloody autocorrect

How long do people think before we see laws to address the problem ?

(Notice the political language there. We haven't even agreed there is a problem, let alone what it is. But rest assured, we'll have some laws to deal with it. Whatever it is.).

Here's another thought. With 3D printing and digital image processing becoming extant, how long before someone hits on the idea of a way to take a photograph of your favourite person, and transform it into a 3D mask for your sexbot ?

In other discussions on this subject, it's been noted that some of the more visceral objections seem to surround the fact the robot will look like a human. To which the answer "well take it's head off" was given. Does this make things better ? Or much much worse ? (Clue as to where I heard that discussion ).

Bringing the discussion back to the present day, what is the difference between slapping a cut out picture of a face on a shop mannequin with integral fleshlight, and a sex robot ? Is it a gradual line, or is there a defining characteristic ?

Funnily enough, flipping through my work on "Social implications of computing" from 1987, I find no reference to sex robots at all. Mind you, Angry Birds wasn't in there either. Nor Facebook. It's a wonder I passed at all .

campaignagainstsexrobots.wordpress.com/about/

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51
I am confused by your post. Children and animals are living sentient beings, they are just not capable of consent for sexual intercourse. A robot is just a bit of metal and plastic. Lots of men enjoy masturbation and they don't become rapists.

A robot cannot suffer rape anymore than a vacuum cleaner. A man having "sex" with a robot is a representation of sex. It might be a representation of consentual sex. I have no idea how its makes intend for robosex to work.

A man having sex with a child shaped robot is a represenation of rape. I find the thought of someone having sex with a child ahorrant.

Since this is an AIBU, YABU, & this is fucking depressing.

I don't think there is any way to show that the availability of sex toys decreases instances of rape or sex crimes. I think introducing that idea is a red herring, a way to justify sexbots.

I'm of the mind that sexbots further pornifies our society and dehumanises sexual acts.

I find it best to keep my own counsel in contentious debates. .

Almost certainly.

Any law against these things will be about as enforceable as Prohibition on the USA 1920-33, Russia/USSR 1914-1914, Saudi Arabia the year dot-the present day. When it becomes feasible at a price which the mass market can afford it will happen. Better allow it and get VAT on it.