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.

Thanks for that, DWH.

More discussion ...

www.richardherring.com/warmingup/15/9/2015/index.html

Meerkat, Voyage

Just because you're a NICE man who would only fuck the bot in a respectful way doesn't mean everyone else is. Although the fact that you can't see that fucking the replacement woman is problematic speaks volumes. RTFT. YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.

i just think the way it's worded and i have seen it various times on different topics is used just to negate any opinion someone of the "oppressor" kind has and dismisses it.

I said that because Voyage tried to imply I was leaving men-bots out of the conversation, and this is mostly a discussion about the implications for women, and I'm sick of man-splainers going on about leaving the men out of things, or #notallmen or some bollocks.

Women are still oppressed and mistreated, even in the Western world. If you can't get that through your head, don't bother commenting on this topic. And when the oppressed group (be it black people, or women, or native americans, whoever) tell you that they, as the oppressed, find something dangerous and offensive, you don't disregard THEIR opinions because you don't see the world the way we see it, because you haven't suffered the treatment that WE have suffered. When someone who has more experience than you on a topic speaks, you sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to their opinions.

Out of this thread. Trying to educate men on this topic on the internet is always always fruitless.

rying to educate men on this topic on the internet is always always fruitless.

I know. The sexism is unbelievable. As is the irony.

YANBU OP, I have no problem with anyone using inanimate objects to aid masturbation. These robots are nothing more than fancy blow up dolls that have been around for ages.

How a person masturbates, in the privacy of their own home and without hurting anyone is their business. I have no desire to police other people's wanks.

Buffy, I'm still unclear as to why you believe that people having sex with a robot would have an effect on their opinions of women. It's making an assumption as to mens perspectives vis-a-vis women being the same as inanimate objects that seems unspportable based on your own possible experience, which (and I apologise hugely if I'm wrong) would not include being a man.

It might seem to an observer that you are trying to construct a narrative that generates social disapproval for a form of masturbation that by it's nature includes no possible being who might experience suffering (what some might call post-authoritarian policing strategy). The basis for this narrative is that a woman could be perceived in the same way as a robot, which is possible because masturbating using a tool with a female shape would make them do so. That argument appears rather circular.

Perhaps it is a fundamental difference of perspective - I believe that men can discern the difference between the inanimate and sentient beings, for all that they could still mistreat sentient beings through prjudice or bigotry. I believe that it is possible (based on the experience of myself and others) for safe boundaries to be drawn between behaviour for play and for reality. Therefore I believe that the use of a robotic sex toy would not alter a man or womans opinion of the opposite sex either positively or negatively, or necessarily lead to inappropriate behaviour in those not already mentally misconfigured.

I apologise if you were offended by my joke - I had become rather more emotionally engaged in the debate than is wise and it appeared I had inadvertently caused you offence. I was seeking to defuse that slightly. I should remember that I have never successfully managed humor on mumsnet.

This paper has some pretty cogent arguments against the sex robot thing, plus some evidence for those asking for it.

The main points are:

We believe the development of sex robots further objectifies women and children.

The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).

The development of sex robots and the ideas to support their production show the immense horrors still present in the world of prostitution which is built on the ??perceived?? inferiority of women and children and therefore justifies their uses as sex objects.

We propose that the development of sex robots will further reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship.

We challenge the view that the development of adults and child sex robots will have a positive benefit to society, but instead further reinforce power relations of inequality and violence.

We take issue with those arguments that propose that sex robots could help reduce sexual exploitation and violence towards prostituted persons, pointing to all the evidence that shows how technology and the sex trade coexist and reinforce each other creating more demand for human bodies.

*

Which is what a lot of posters have been saying, really.

I can understand your position about how it might be perceived to reinforce a traditional sexual gender role and of course all this is purely speculation. I am perhaps more optimistic in my belief in what would actually occur; That the fact that it is a robot would reinforce the idea that the archaic sexual dynamic was fundamentally unnatural and unrealistic. People would still be free to engage with it for pleasure, as they are now in Dom/Sub games, but it would even further separate such attitudes from normal sexual practice.

My previous was to Buffy, to clarify.

I'd be happy with one that irons

If given the chance to have sex with a robot, I bet I could persuade it not to go skynet on us.

I'm simply that good.

But it's not is it. If you look back through the thread it's a few posters saying the same thing over and over.

I think it is, the bits about objectifying, reinforcing stereotypes and power dynamics. Maybe you read differently from me.

So how would people think about a humanoid robot that does the menial tasks women are often burdened with ? I assume by the same token they'd be discomfort at female shaped robots doing the household chores.

If it was female-looking, I'd be uncomfortable, yes (for the reinforcing stereotypes reasons). If it was robot-looking, not at all and I'd order one up asap cos I'm shit at housework.

YY to buffy's point about intention/ effect splits in these discussions.

Also, isn't there quite some irony in this process:

A) robot proposed that acts out damaging stereotypes of women as passive, sexless receptacles for male sexual activity, arguably continuing centuries of male policing of women's sexuality.

B) Some women object to A)

C) Some men denounce women for B), telling them that they're sexless, uptight creatures who want to police men's sexuality.