Help me figure out why sex with Robot 'females' is WORSE than paying for prostituted women

[LaurieFairyCake]

I'm massively on the fence and it's giving me splinters but my gut is telling me it's even slightly worse to have sex with robots which sounds completely ridiculous to my feminist brain

In case anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about it's this horrible article in the Mail here

What I've got so far is that it will increase dehumanisation of 'real' women as if they are lifelike and you can do anything to the robot including being violent then it will go some to way blur and confuse the lines between fantasy and reality.

I'm really interested in others opinions.

I think you are def on the right track.

But I've been sidetracked enormously by the pole dancing robot, and so I need to go and contemplate machismo and pooters whilst I find out wtaf. Can't concentrate on fembots for the mo...

Does it have to be an either or question? Can't we just say they are both awful for different reasons? I am not sure it is necessary to make a hierarchy.

Well and truly sidetracked.

Apparently the pole dancing robots replaced the real pole dancers that were at the trade show last year.

Made by a Brit.

Ya gotta be proud, really...

I'm not willing to read the mail article but I'd say anything that "dehumanises" sex is worrying.

Quite right Cat, I'm not trying to make a hierarchy at all, they're both shit prospects. The writers of the 'research' say that it will be better, less std's etc.

I think the problem with it is that it isn't addressing the real issue: the fact that there are certain men out there who feel so entitled to sex that they decide to have to stick their penises in either fake women or real but paid for women.

I don't have a problem with 'sex robots' at all. Why is it more unethical than using a sex toy? I suppose it could become problematic if you started getting into issues of Turing potential and machine consciousness (if the machine is so sophisticated that it can be said to feel pain, or fear, then that's a whole new ethical ballgame whether you use the technology for a sex robot or a bomb disposal device) but I am not terribly convinced that will ever happen.

It's about what's going on inside the man's head surely SGB.

Thought police?

What business is it of yours what is going on inside anyone else's head?

What business is it of yours what is going on inside anyone else's head?

How about if you are having sex with DH but he is fantasising about DD?

How about if someone is planning how they are going to kill you?

I'm not just being contrary. Its just that what's going on in someone else head can be deeply, personally someone elses business.

As to the original question, I don't think its worse than paying for sex, because in prostitution the John expects and receives validation whilst putting another human being through varying levels of torment and discomfort.

What disturbs me about it is what it says about how dehumanised the user already feels about sex with a female body. It is a lot llike necrophilia to me

Presumably if there could be fembots, there could be "manbots" too.

How do you feel about those?

Not worse, not better, just different. Both reinforce the objectification of women. In one case real women are objectified and sexually exploited. In the other, a proxy of a woman that's an actual object is used for gratification, making the woman = object connection patently obvious.

Masturbation, good old fashioned no frills, no bells, whistles, fake eyelashes or silicone masturbation. Why not just masturbation?

It's only your business when someone acts on what is inside his/her head. No one has the right to control or police another person's thoughts.
For instance, plenty of people plot, elaborately, how they will kill someone who has wronged them. THey don't do it. They don't even take the first tiny steps (such as buying the poison). Planning it out is a comforting sort of safety valve.

What a narrow view of sex you have, Foodunit. Even those who like to pay for it don't ineviably want to 'put another human being through torment and discomfort', many of them want the other human being to enjoy the experience as well, and those who would be interested in having sex with 'robots' may have plenty of female people in their lives who they like, respect etc, and simply want a bit of fantasy fun: I would imagine that if such robots were to exist, popular ones would be those who looked like whoever the sexiest celebrities of the day might be. Even women fantasize about sex with celebrities and might find the idea of having a go on an artificial Johnny Depp or whatever.

I've promised myself I'm not clicking on any more Daily Mail links so I haven't read the article.

On an individual level, who cares what men do and at least a robot will always consent (for now).

On a general, idealistic level, the idea that you can create a 'woman' purely by creating something with a vessel for someone's cock and flirtatious eyelashes - and especially that somebody might actually find it pleasurable to have sex with it - is repulsive. A woman is more than the sum of her sexual parts.

Some of the comments at the bottom of that article are unbelievable. You couldn't make it up.

It's only your business when someone acts on what is inside his/her head. No one has the right to control or police another person's thoughts.
SGB - you have gone from saying someone's thoughts 'aren't anyone else's business', to noone having the 'right' to 'control' or 'police' someone else's thoughts. Which case are you actually arguing for? They are both different scenarios - the first suggesting that noone should be concerned about what others are thinking (even if it is a sexual partner fantasising about abusing your daughter), to something akin to state intervention and Stalinism - its quite a leap!

For instance, plenty of people plot, elaborately, how they will kill someone who has wronged them. THey don't do it. They don't even take the first tiny steps (such as buying the poison). Planning it out is a comforting sort of safety valve. I would be very concerned if my husband was doing this about me, and would want an immediate divorce- if that was his 'safety-valve' for problems in our relationship, I think it would be a sign of having a deranged and potentially dangerous mind.

What a narrow view of sex you have, Foodunit. Even those who like to pay for it don't ineviably want to 'put another human being through torment and discomfort', many of them want the other human being to enjoy the experience as well SGB I am saying this. The Johns pay to subject women to unwanted sex (otherwise they would not be asked to pay), which (unwanted sex) causes the woman varying degrees of discomfort and torment (why else do they use vaginal anaesthetics and seek therapy for PTSD?), and on top of that they expect the woman to pretend to enjoy it to feed their delusion that they 'want the other human being to enjoy the experience as well'

I'd rather have 'narrow definition of sex' which requires both people enjoying it equally, than one so broad it includes abuse and financial coercion!

I think there's nothing wrong with having sex with a machine. No-one is hurt. If you are treating your partner like a robot then clearly that's bad, but there's nothing wrong with sex-with-a-robot in itself.

Foodunit: you're coming across as one of those who screams 'But there's PEEDAFILS' as a justification for policing everyone's communication, artistic expression and even their thoughts. You probably disapprove of horror films, fantasy novels, some or other form of popular music and LARP as well. Generally people who are comfortable with exploring unusual or impossible or indeed unethcial scenarios are pretty good at distinguishing between fantasy and reality, it's the unimaginative who have a problem with it.

Now now SGB - no need for the personal insults or assumptions about me and my imagination.

Erupting like this does not take away from the problem of you shifting your position in a way that makes it difficult to know quite what you are arguing.

So rather than follow you down the path you seem to be trying to lead this, I will ask again. Do you think people have no business being 'concerned' about what others are thinking? (Even if it is someone you are intimate with or has unsupervised access to your children?)

I kinda like the pole dancing robot now. It looks nothing like a woman, and makes a total mockery of what's sexy about writhing about a pole.

Partic as it was debuted at the show the real live pole dancers from last year. I'm not sure the mostly male clientele will have enjoyed it in the same way, lol, but I'm sure it have them jollies of a completely different sort.

I am really unsure about this. On one hand is it really any different from using a vibrator? I'm not saying everyone does, but lots of women do and I can't imagine that being condemned on here.

On the otherhand it makes me feel uneasy and I'm not really sure why.

WHat people are thinking is their business and no one else's. FFS you can't know what anyone else is thinking, you can only ask them, or make assumptions, and even if you ask them they have every right to lie to you or refuse to answer on the grounds that it is none of your business.

Well, in a robot you have the ultimate in objectivied woman- a hole that doesn't have an opinion or needs. In some ways it is better for men that are inclined to want to pay for sex to go to a machine in my view. On the other hand, it could also reinforce the cultural acceptability of meaningless transactional sex, which might have a knock-on effect on men's interaction with women in the long-term.

No: the ultimate in objectified woman is the way antichoice activists see women - as nothing more than walking incubators.