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.

I'm more than slightly disturbed how many feminists lack the capacity to distinguish the difference between human beings and machines.

It seems the only explanation for their belief that men would be unable to tell the difference themselves.

Sex with a robot who looks like a woman is still sex with a robot. How on earth could that be transferred to anything else? If we're talking full on, post-turing androids then sure, but if we're at the point of AI then it's a sentient being with the right and capacity to consent or not - fundamentally distinct from a robot.

And Buffy, the movement wherein one gender polices the sexual behaviour of another beyond the principles of mutual consent is the one that is engaging in hatred - like the patriarchy with misogyny, for example.

Because men are uncontrollable sexual beasts who'd have sex with a wooden stump if they thought it would oppress a woman.

Obviously.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dildonic

Buffy, you're literally against men masturbating with a type of sex toy because it looks too realistic. And beyond consent what other possible boundaries are there? If you're going to bring up the cannibalism or self-mutilation issue, that's a case of those suffering from profound mental imbalance being unequipped to consent - again, that is a fact that's socially negotiated.

Everything else is just personal preference and a discernible stink of bigotry.

I can't summon the energy to care much. But one solution occured to me. Design the FemBot so that she doesn't put out until her user has cleaned his own bathroom and folded all his own laundry.

I'm trying to imagine all the guys who would try and treat women like the fembot.

"She's.... she's not doing anything."
"What do you mean?"
"Do you think she's broken?"
"What... what's that in your hand?"
"The remote."
"You're pointing a remote at a woman on the other side of the room and you're expecting something to happen?"
"But this is how women work, right?"

Somehow, I don't find this a plausible scenario.

I'm with Buffy, I have a fairly visceral negative reaction to this - obviously not going to be the sex toy police either, and I'm far from sex-negative, but I think it reflects a particularly sad view of male sexuality where women are things you do sex to/get sex from rather than have sex with.

What actually immediately sprang to mind was a particularly horrible article I read about date rape drugs where some vile rapist was going on about how great they were, you could do anything you wanted to drugged women, you could bite them, hit them, they don't talk back or want anything.

(I suppose a more positive association would be Lars and The Real Girl, which is actually kind of sweet, but doesn't focus much on the sex aspect...)

I'm kinda disappointed that you'd try and deploy the no-fun-feminist hating the sex trope...

I was about to say exactly the same thing to you.

It is not impossible for someone to compartmentalise the symbolic narratives they find erotic or exciting and those behaviors and principles appropriate to reality. The belief that it is impossible is shared by serial killers, delusional rapists and religious fundamentalists who are, though you may doubt, a minority. Why the insistence that all men must share such similar psychopathy?

Sorry, I don't intend to be disrespectful. The policing of sexualities (male or female) is a trigger for a lot of anger, mostly on the behalf of others (though also myself).

Umm we do have sex robots. There are different kinds out there, it's just easier for us to find a real life one than a robotic one

ReallyTired I think you answered your own question here:

"Even if it could be proven to reduce child sex abuse in real life ?"

I think that someone having sex with a robot child would normalise child abuse. Its hard to explain my revoltion.

I agree. But then surely it also follows that adult-size sexbots would normalise objectification of women?

When we watch "Humans" the Sci find series mentioned by previous posters, when the husband character switched on the sexbot functionality of the housekeeping android my initial view was that it was an over-reaction for the wife to be so horrified - I saw it as analogous to masturbation. But my dh disagreed because the act of objectifying something that looks human is damaging to the perpetrator's ability to act humanely. It doesn't matter that the thing isn't human - if it looks human you have to switch off a bit of your own humanity to treat it as less than human and that isn't something that's going to be good for you or for society (or, in the TV show, for your marriage).

Anyone recall "Mudds Women" - a Star Trek (original series) story ? In particular the ending ?

if it looks human you have to switch off a bit of your own humanity to treat it as less than human

I wondered how long until religion got involved ...

I do remember Mudd's Women, but I'm not sure of the relevance here - aren't the women in that story just real women who have been made artificially irresistibly beautiful? Was the ending something like the guy fell in love with the woman even without her artificial beauty, or something? And again, relevance?

I'm a high functioning autistic. One trait that's occasionally part of the diagnosis is a tendency to get overly attached to inanimate objects, and difficulty distinguishing value differences between people and things. The danger for me is I'd try and take the bot out to meals, listen to it's feelings and help it sign up for assertiveness training.