The sex robots are coming

[hamblehumpty]

Just watched this - anyone else? Couldn't believe what I was watching - total vilification of women, objectification - and in the main sad old perverts who can only 'score' with a plastic object - disgusted. But frightening really as it's happening.

Gronky
Do you believe access to charcoal, sketch pads or word processors should be limited because someone might draw or write an unpleasant parody of you?

Nope because on balance they are mostly used to create art. Literally everything could be used against its intended purpose or be a danger in the wrong hands. Even the most innocent of objects.

Sex robots have one purpose. They can be made to order and that person does so for their own gratification regardless of the feelings of other people.

Also forgot to add....people don’t tend to fuck sketches they draw.

people don’t tend to fuck sketches they draw

The drawing might be of them doing unspeakable things to you. Ultimately, both are inanimate representations that are being used unpleasantly in private. Should access to the materials required to make a sex robot be limited?

Why are people on this thread so desperate to defend the men that use these? It's hilarious how right on some mumsnetters like to appear.

New sex robots have ‘frigid’ setting, allowing men to simulate rape

Absolutely hideous. Try explaining how that contributes to the experience of those who have sex with dolls purely for benign reasons? It's clearly of no interest to anyone apart from those who want to mistreat women (or a close, life like representation of one). Yet developers have thought to enable it? Ffs.

Why are people on this thread so desperate to defend the men that use these?

Personally, I'm not interested in defending the men who want them, I'm just against pointlessly criminalising something that, while extremely unpleasant, doesn't have an obvious victim in the same way that I'm horrified by how graphically violent some video games are but believe that the incredibly strange people who enjoy them have a right to do so in private.

It's clearly of no interest to anyone apart from those who want to mistreat women (or a close, life like representation of one).

It's not really been demonstrated that adults acting out violent fantasies against inanimate objects motivates them to perform similarly violent acts against other people.

Why not compare them, they are essentially both sex toys? Both masturbatory aids.

This us so silly. My vibrator is a bit of vibrating plastic. How can you compare it to a plastic doll the men talk to and take pictures with. There are imagining the doll is real. I don't imagine my vibrator to be a man ffs.

Stacey dooley did a programme about japan. There was a man who used a child sex doll because real children were hard to have access to. It was sickening.

The more men can objective and abuse a submissive child-like figure the more normalised it becomes.

That's just bonkers. There are thousands of video games where you can murder people of all shapes and sizes but all the evidence shows that this does not turn people into murderers. Similarly shagging a bit of plastic is not going to create rapists.

To those who have no problem with it what would you think if your female friend had a male doll and had a romantic relationship with it?

The drawing might be of them doing unspeakable things to you. Ultimately, both are inanimate representations that are being used unpleasantly in private. Should access to the materials required to make a sex robot be limited?

I will have have to disagree that both are inanimate. A drawing is yes. However the whole point of these sex dolls is to be as animate as possible. They speak and as posters above have mentioned have submissive settings. As technology evolves they will become more intuitive. Men that have used them have talked about developing feeling for them.
The comparisons you are making have very superficial links.

However the whole point of these sex dolls is to be as animate as possible

Apologies, inanimate in this context means 'non-living', rather than 'non-moving'.

Comparing a whole robot, built to look like an entire woman (or child), with a voice and a vocabulary straight out of male sex fantasy, to one small piece of shaped whatever-it's-made-out-of is completely disingenuous. A robot isn't just a sex-aid: it's aping an entire person.

I agree with Siletto it will further normalise abuse and abusive/misogynist attitudes...

Not sure if this is normal reading fare for Mumsnet, but this blogger has an interesting sidelight on the robots. Specifically that they didn't, after all, have to be built for a very limited male fantasy gaze.
www.girlonthenet.com/2018/11/13/sex-robots-dick-blankets/

and www.girlonthenet.com/2016/06/11/sex-robots-debate-better/

It's just another vile way to objectify women - and every time it's a vile looking man who wouldn't have a hope in hell of being with an attractive woman - freaks.

So if the only men using them are those you indiscriminately dismiss as ‘freaks’, why do you care?

It's not really been demonstrated that adults acting out violent fantasies against inanimate objects motivates them to perform similarly violent acts against other people.

That's not what I asked in that post though, was it? What possible reason could there be for providing a 'frigid' setting? If you don't want a reaction ie you see it as an inanimate object, don't turn it on! Can you give me one good reason the 'frigid' setting is included?

That's not what I asked in that post though, was it? What possible reason could there be for providing a 'frigid' setting?

You specifically asked for a 'benign' (I.e. non-harmful) reason. I have no interest in owning a sex doll so I can't speak to the motivations but, as unpleasant as those reasons may be, there's never been a sound demonstration that acting out unpleasant fantasies in private will lead to others being harmed.

Repeating the same thing still doesn't answer the question. Is there any benign reason whatsoever for a frigid function? I think not. So why include it? Because men like raping? Right....

And obviously that wasn't meant to be men in general. Just the ones who are that way inclined. And anything that encourages or enables rape is ultimately going to lead to issues of dome kind despite what you say gronky, as there has been evidence of increased porn and prostitution availability leading to an increase in related issues, as pp have said.
And how the hell are you going to demonstrate whether acting out unpleasant fantasies in private leads to others being harmed?

Is there any benign reason whatsoever for a frigid function?

Please clarify what you mean by 'benign'. I was answering based on it meaning not creating or increasing a risk to the safety of others.

I play a game called Kerbal Space Program, a space simulator. In it, your Kerbonauts can 'die' if your rocket is incorrectly designed. There's nothing preventing the game designer from simply reporting that they teleported to safety at the last minute but I characterise the ability within the game to kill little green creatures as benign because I don't think it's going to lead to anyone strapping frogs to rockets who wouldn't do so anyway and those crazy enough to do so are unlikely to do so at an increased rate as a result of playing KSP.

Repeating the same thing still doesn't answer the question.

This is ironic.

This is ironic.
Highly.

By using the term benign, I was trying to avoid asking if you could provide any reason whatsoever for the addition of a frigid setting, past that which most ppl would find offensive ie non consensual sex. A couple of replies in and you haven't answered. Just misdirected. Funny, that.

past that which most ppl would find offensive ie non consensual sex.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, thank you for clarifying. I can't think of an inoffensive reason for its inclusion and find the idea of someone simulating non consensual sex incredibly unpleasant so I believe we're in agreement there.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the fundamental difference of opinion is on whether people engaging in deeply unpleasant activities in private is sufficient justification, in and of itself, for said activities to be banned. I don't agree that it is.

I had not heard of sex robots before this thread. But OP I really cannot reconcile your outrage for womenkind on the one hand with your very unpleasant comments based on a male’s appearance on the other.

And you then comment about said males chances of being with an “attractive” woman. Is it ok for these “vile” men to be with plain women? Your double standards stink.