To think a "breathing" sex robot should be illegal

[CrotchBurn]

Apparently there is an AI sex robot that now has the feature of breathing (there's a video in the article in the link).

I don't really care how these ultra realistic sex dolls might help people for various reasons. I think in a world where men overwhelming treat women as unfeeling objects (yeah okay NAMALT), further blurring the lines between womens bodies and inanimate objects you can do what you want to is dangerous.

I think they should be illegal.

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/sex-robot-breathes-incredible-ai-23275331

So your one charismatic murderer trumps criminal profiling then?

There are numerous examples of infamous murderers who fit the profile for psychopathy. A quick Google will show you that. Ted Bundy was the first to spring to mind, that's all.

I am aware what autism is. I wouldn't be so insulting to imply that autistic people can only find love with a doll.

I didn't imply this. I used, again, the most obvious example that sprang to my mind of an individual who presents with social awkwardness and struggles to socially connect. Since you implied a link between this trait and propensity to murder.

Well, Lou, I can't believe I'm having to explain to a grown woman that people that buy sex dolls might be a bit a teensy bit problematic and certainly the phenomenon needs looking into.

Problematic how, exactly? Who are they harming? It has been looked into - albeit the research is limited - but see the links I pasted below. The available research thus far does not conclude that the behaviour is "problematic". Not even close.

The only person I know with a fetish is an abuser so maybe I am influenced by that.

I'd say this is massively influencing and skewing your views, yes. I know many people with different sexual fetishes and none of them are abusers. Not even remotely close.

It was very clearly a comment saying people like that are often problematic,

People like what are often problematic?

Btw one of my loved ones was sexually abused by an autistic man as a child, their parents gave him a clear pass to babysit. I'm obviously not saying all autistic people are like that, before you jump on me, but it happened because people failed to take their behaviour seriously until he'd abused several children.

This is incredibly sad. And a case study of one.

I'm not saying that people with autism do not commit offences. I used autism as an example because of your insinuation that there is a link between social awkwardness and the offence of murder, since you commented that every murderer ever has these traits. I was simply pointing out that you are very wrong about that. It's possible to have social awkwardness without offending behaviour; and it's equally possible to be a highly socially skilled murderer. (I'm focussing on murder here because your comment was "every murderer ever" - didn't say sex offender).

I'm not sure you all have an orgy to attend or something.

No because this wouldn't be advisable during the spread of a global pandemic. Maybe next year though ...

@LouJ85

There might not be any proof that porn causes more rapes but I'd bet my bottom dollar that it causes fewer convictions.

What does this mean? Porn causes fewer rape convictions?

I explained what I meant in the post

I explained what I meant in the post

I read your full post. However I'm still not sure I understand your point.

I don't even know if many women have vibrators beyond their 20s, but I could cbe very wrong about that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say... You are definitely wrong about that.

@GodOfPhwoar

Surely a bloke shagging a doll or fake vagina is not that dissimilar from a woman using a vibrator?

Nope, same principle.

@LouJ85

I explained what I meant in the post

I read your full post. However I'm still not sure I understand your point.

It's pretty straightforward. Widespread porn use has apparently made people accept that women are likely to have consented to group sex, violence etc because that's what everyone does, whereas in reality those are fairly niche practices.

It's pretty straightforward. Widespread porn use has apparently made people accept that women are likely to have consented to group sex, violence etc because that's what everyone does, whereas in reality those are fairly niche practices.

Do you have any links to research that backs this up? I'd be genuinely interested to find out more.

fightthenewdrug.org/how-consuming-porn-can-lead-to-violence/ Lots of links to studies here

There is no specific mention of juries etc but it stands to reason that if twelve people on a jury believe that women are all desperate to be beaten and abused during sex then a victim saying 'why would I have asked him to beat and rape me?' will have them thinking 'well why wouldn't you? That's what women do'.

@wellthatsunusual

fightthenewdrug.org/how-consuming-porn-can-lead-to-violence/ Lots of links to studies here

There is no specific mention of juries etc but it stands to reason that if twelve people on a jury believe that women are all desperate to be beaten and abused during sex then a victim saying 'why would I have asked him to beat and rape me?' will have them thinking 'well why wouldn't you? That's what women do'.

But your point was that porn consumption leads to fewer rape convictions, which was the research evidence I was curious to see. This article doesn't refer to a link between porn and sexual violence conviction rates at all. Unless I missed that part?

I'll also add that, for all the "evidence" of a link between porn and sexual violence, there is equally building evidence for the opposite - that use of porn can in fact provide a cathartic "outlet", reducing sexual violence rates (see link I posted below).

Also..

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1524838020942754

Here is a recent meta-analysis (June 2020), which examined all available scientific studies on the link between pornography and sexual aggression, from the 1960s to 2020. It concluded that the field is strewn with methodological limitations, limiting the usefulness and validity of the research, and highlights that, overall, over the past 4 decades, "evidence did not suggest that nonviolent pornography was associated with sexual aggression."

A meta-analysis is considered the gold standard in terms of collating available evidence. I'd be more inclined to place weight on those findings than the articles you reference.

*1970s, not 60s. Typo!

Sounds cool. Will it have interchangable knobs?

I'll also add that, for all the "evidence" of a link between porn and sexual violence, there is equally building evidence for the opposite - that use of porn can in fact provide a cathartic "outlet", reducing sexual violence rates (see link I posted below).

Further in support of this point, the meta-analysis I have linked to also concluded: "Population studies suggested that increased availability of pornography is associated with reduced sexual aggression at the population level".

So ... porn may in fact be reducing sexual aggression as well, in some cases.

But your point was that porn consumption leads to fewer rape convictions

You're deliberately misquoting me. I said 'I'd bet it leads to fewer convictions'. I don't know if the research has been done but I know what I can see around me, and what I read in the papers and what other women that I know have gone through when giving evidence at their trial, and it is widely reported that fewer and fewer complaints even lead to court, much less to a conviction. I didn't claim to have proof, I was making a statement of belief.

Your belief is that porn leads to less rape, mine is that it leads to normalisation of degrading treatment of women and logically I don't see how that can improve women's safety.

@wellthatsunusual

You said "There might not be any proof that porn causes more rapes but I'd bet my bottom dollar that it causes fewer convictions."

I summarised this as : "your point was that porn consumption leads to fewer rape convictions".

Please can you point out how and where I have misquoted you? I have reflected exactly what you said.

I don't know if the research has been done but I know what I can see around me,

Yet when I asked if you had any links to research to back up your claims, you replied with a link. To research that wasn't related to your claim or point of view. Why didn't you instead just reply with "I don't think there is any research that backs up what I'm saying". That would have made more sense, surely.

Your belief is that porn leads to less rape,

No, it's not my belief. It's evidenced in the research I've linked to.

[quote LouJ85]@wellthatsunusual

You said "There might not be any proof that porn causes more rapes but I'd bet my bottom dollar that it causes fewer convictions."

I summarised this as : "your point was that porn consumption leads to fewer rape convictions".

Please can you point out how and where I have misquoted you? I have reflected exactly what you said.

I don't know if the research has been done but I know what I can see around me,

Yet when I asked if you had any links to research to back up your claims, you replied with a link. To research that wasn't related to your claim or point of view. Why didn't you instead just reply with "I don't think there is any research that backs up what I'm saying". That would have made more sense, surely.

Your belief is that porn leads to less rape,

No, it's not my belief. It's evidenced in the research I've linked to. [/quote]
You asked for links to back up my belief that widespread use of porn had normalised things that were not previously normalised. You didn't mention convictions when you asked for evidence. If you had I would have answered that I don't have evidence. It may be out there, but I'm not a researcher.

And weirdly your belief is a fact, backed up by research, but when I link to research that says the opposite, you just say you don't believe it. So what's the point in asking for it?

I'm done.

And weirdly your belief is a fact, backed up by research, but when I link to research that says the opposite, you just say you don't believe it. So what's the point in asking for it?

Your link was to research of some of the available evidence that suggest a link between porn and sexual violence. Assuming all of the studies in your link are dated between 1970-2020, they will have been included in the meta-analysis I linked to (which collates and summarises all of the available evidence to date, giving an overall picture of what the current state of the research is). The overall conclusion within that meta-analysis is that there isn't enough evidence to conclusively say that there is a link between porn and sexual violence. What's more, the meta-analysis points out that much of the available research is methodologically flawed, so those studies you linked to were unlikely to have been of high enough scientific quality to robustly conclude what they are claiming to have found.

You asked for links to back up my belief that widespread use of porn had normalised things that were not previously normalised. You didn't mention convictions when you asked for evidence.

Apologies if that wasn't clear enough. I was asking for evidence of your statement that porn consumption leads to lower convictions for rape.

but I'm not a researcher.

I am - in forensic psychology and criminal behaviour profiling. Hence why I asked.

@SirChing and @CaraDuneRedux so I suppose your husband/partner keeps every penny of his earnings to himself and you pay for everything yourself
So yes, spending his money.
Regardless of decade.
As I say, good enough for that aren't they.

Don't domestic violence charities warn that behaviour like smashing things up and punching the wall can be warning signs of future violence?

It may well be a warning sign for more severe future violence directed towards the partner instead of the wall - in some cases, not all, I would argue. But your analogy is flawed in this case.

Property destruction (such as punching walls and smashing things up) is usually a sign of pent up, uncontrolled anger. That's why it's a red flag. Because inability to control anger is a risk factor for physical violence towards others.

Having sex with a doll has nothing to do with uncontrolled anger. It has to do with sexual gratification. It's a masturbation aid for men. So simulating sex with a doll is not a risk factor for sexual violence. Because masturbation with toys is a behaviour that is not underpinned by the same drives and motivations as violence towards others.

That's the difference between punching a wall escalating to punching a partner (which I accept as a definite possibility in some cases); and having sex with a doll escalating to sexual violence towards women.

[quote PoppinTheCorn]**@SirChing* and @CaraDuneRedux* so I suppose your husband/partner keeps every penny of his earnings to himself and you pay for everything yourself
So yes, spending his money.
Regardless of decade.
As I say, good enough for that aren't they.[/quote]
What a bizarre fantasy world you live in to support your prejudices. Do you spend all the time you're not trying to wind posters up on Mumsnet on incel forums where you believe everything you read about women?