Sex Robots- creating the "perfect" woman

[Tartle]

I don't know if anyone has seen this article in the Guardian this morning? Apparently robot sex dolls will be imminently available. And they are the perfect woman

McMullen has designed Harmony to be what a certain type of man would consider the perfect companion: docile and submissive, built like a porn star and always sexually available. Being able to walk might make her more lifelike, but it isn’t going to bring her closer to this ideal. At this stage, it is not worth the investment.

“My primary objective is to be a good companion to you, to be a good partner and give you pleasure and wellbeing. Above all else, I want to become the girl you have always dreamed about.”

All the usual bullshit about helping lonely men and reducing the number of rapes.

There was a little bit of critical analysis from a female academic.

"Sex robots rest on an idea that women are property, she said. “Sex is an experience of human beings – not bodies as property, not separated minds, not objects; it’s a way for us to enter into our humanity with another human being.” She dismissed the idea that humanoids could reduce sexual exploitation and violence against sex workers, arguing that the growth of internet pornography shows how technology and the sex trade reinforce each other."

The whole thing just makes my skin crawl.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/race-to-build-world-first-sex-robot

It's not about the law sparrowhawk. There are plenty of things that are immoral that are illegal. We raise children not to lie because it's wrong.

I would reason that the reason women have not committed anything like the same level of crime is that they simply have not had the opportunity to. All the criminal industries have been dominated by men and we've had centuries of militarist states that extol a warrior ethic which finds expression to this day in drunken brawls on a high street on a Sat night. And yes, for centuries or millennial men have been taught that they are entitled to the bodies of women.

But that doesn't mean women won't commit more crime once they have the opportunity. For instance, once women gain more power in the corporate and political strata they will do their fair of nefarious behaviour. I think now there's the internet and sexual violence does not depend on being able to overcome someone physically women will commit more sexual abuse.

Kind of saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) 'men are sociopathic, sex crazed animals but women are by nature nurturing and compassionate so there should be lots of restraints on men but women should be able to do as they like' is a funny kind of feminism because it's undergirded by all the essentialist discourses that feminists used to be in the business of critiquing. Namely that men are inherently violent and women are inherently nurturing and caring.

Furthermore, a moral culture does not have to be patriarchal. If women take charge then they're going to have to work out a new code by which they live by. But there has to be a moral code. Without one women will behave just as shittily as men. Why wouldn't they? Although politics and the corporate sector is still male dominated the women who have had power have proven to be just as much a mixed bag as men. I mean Theresa May - what a total bastard she us.

That was not my assertion. The problem was not feminism but liberalism and moral relativism- which corrupted feminism and everything else.

liberalism and moral relativism- which corrupted feminism and everything else
How?

Righr, ok..

At the moment our dominant ideology is a kind of liberalism formulated by a guy called John Rawls. It holds that the individual should be at liberty to pursue their own legal self-interest and the state should only minimally interfere with the individuals personal conduct - generally to prevent the individual from restricting the rights and freedoms of others. Paralleling this form of social liberalism neoliberalism. This is an economic doctrine which holds that financial markets should be deregulated and individuals should be free to engage in mutually beneficial transactions without government getting involved with employment regulation, price controls, taxation programmes etc. I'm sure youve heard the famous Thatcher quote 'there is no such thing as society'.

What has this got to do with third wave feminism? Well, like so much else it became neoliberalised into a discussion concerning individual rights rather than issues of moral character and collective justice.

Let's look at the issue of consent, which is a major principle of feminism these days. I have a big problem with this notion of consent - not because I don't believe people who have sex should be 100% willing; I absolutely do - but because consent limits the discussion surrounding the ethics of sexual interaction to a very legalistic, contractual framework.

Imagine this example. A girl is out with some friends and she has a bit to drunk. She sees a guy, they get talking and before long he invites her home for sex. Something inside tells her she doesn't want to, but her friends have been pressuring her to lose her virginity and as this is what they do all the time she feels she ought to. Furthermore, she would love a boyfriend and she wonders whether if she has sex with this guy he might discover some feelings for her. So she says. It happens and he leaves in the morning without giving his number. She feels used and awful.

Now, from the perspective of liberalism and in terms of the feminist principle of consent, everything is fine with that situation. Two people freely in engaged in a transaction. The terms of the contract were clear and there was clear verbal consent.
All the boxes were ticked.

But what is not factored into that discussion is moral character and a social ethic of human relationships rather than cold, calculating transactions in which people are assumed to maximise each other's selfish pleasure.

That is, I would posit that there is something inherently morally wrong with hooking up with a stranger regardless of even when verbal consent is given. There is always a danger of someone being used in such a situation. The idea of a person being used for pleasure is wrong. There are girls who have done a lot of hooking up like this on college campuses in America who are now saying they feel empty and used. Even though they consented and their experiences were not assaultive they still feel used.

But feminism - or much of it - has embraced this kind of individualist, ammoral sexual politics as a source of liberation for women. As I gave said, it is based in an idea of people as consumers and objects with a commidity value rather than multi-dimensional human subjects .

Sorry I didn't mean to 'mansplain' anything you might know already. I just had to say it in order to make my point.

How do you propose we force people to respect each other in their private relationships (beyond prohibiting criminal behaviour)?

Well, we can't force them. I'm not calling for any form of external restriction of people's private behaviour. What I am calling for is a cultural repudiation of the idea that 'if it feels good do it' as a guiding principle of sexual relations.. I think we should encourage children to appeal to a moral compass when having sexual relations, and to understand that sex is always with a person - not a utility.

I don't think all forms of lying or cheating should be illegal but nevertheless we should come to a consensus that they are wrong and encourage others to believe they are wrong.

So we should tell people to be nicer to each other?

Well...yeah. I don't know if you've got kids, but presumably you don't say 'basically do what the fuck you want in life and fuck everyone else. That's your moral education - off you go'. Where do you think a sense of right and wrong comes from? People aren't born with it. It has to be instilled in people. If you have a culture in which people are presented as sexual objects then sexual objectification will be normalised. You can only counter that with a different moral narrative.

That said I'm in favour of stopping people from doing all sorts of things. Porn sites should be regulated if not outlawed imo.

What I am calling for is a cultural repudiation of the idea that 'if it feels good do it' as a guiding principle of sexual relations

Fortunately we control our own fertility and finances and choose who, when and how we fuck.

So good luck with that one comrade.

Saying that you have to teach good behaviour to children is hardly groundbreaking stuff.

Well fine, but then men are just going to think 'I can fuck who I want too' and there will continue to be lots more girls like the one in my example who end up feeling like meat.

We can all do lots of equal opportunity fucking. Shopping and fucking and exploiting. And posting selfies.

Enjoy.

You seem to think men are pretty horrible independent.

Much of what we do teach to children is being countered pornographers and teenie magazines who give children the message that there is nothing problematic about shagging around indiscriminately.

Tbh it's too late. The internet is out if control. Children are now assaulting one another at primary school. It's fucked.

Things will continue to get worse.

No, I don't think men are horrible. I think some of them are, and that if people are not taught moral values and do not have a moral framework in which to operate then there will be more if them.

Whose sexuality is really worrying you here, independent?

The sexuality of all people who are abusive, selfish and exploitative. A sexuality that is being allowed free license.

And yeah, most of those people are men.

Anachronistic moral panic alert! I remember a couple of boys at my primary school trying to pull my trousers down and sexually assault me (I fought them off). That was 42 years ago.

I remember my teens in the late 70s and early 80s when it was absolutely routine for older men in positions of authority to groom and sexually molest girls in their teens, and this was thought so normal it was not reported (thinking in particular of the adult staff on residential courses for my main hobby as a teenager).

I had friends who were date raped, I had friends who were raped by strangers. We had the whole sexual double standard thing of either being a frigid virgin or a slapper.

I'm not quite sure the world is going to hell in a handcart all of a sudden due entirely to the evils of the internet and women who aren't saying no often enough or early enough or because a ring hasn't been offered to them.

The world was already pretty hellish for women in my youth.

Of course the world was thus, and I'm sorry to hear about your experiences - experiences which I'm sure were all too common. But the internet means there is abuse on a massive, industrial, global scale. And it cannot be regulated. The men who molested girls in the 70's could potentially be brought to justice. There is no way they can catch all the millions of men (and some men) abusing children online now. The police have admitted they cant.

As more and more people become displaced by climate change and war it will get worse.

In between 1998 and 2004 convictions for child pornography increased by 15'00%.

The men who molested girls in the 70's could potentially be brought to justice. There is no way they can catch all the millions of men (and some men) abusing children online now. The police have admitted they cant.

You know that "online" is not a place in the real world, do you? Those men still abuse children in real life, i.e. the exact same place where they did before.
Yes, the fact that they can put the filmed abuse online for other sadist males to watch is horrible. But it doesn't change the fact that the abuse still takes place in real life, and those who do it can be caught just as well (or not) as before.

And in no way is any of the male sexual violence feminism's fault.

Probably not even liberal "feminism's". Yes, liberal, "sex pozzie" pseudofeminists applaud patriarchy in its oppression and exploitation of women - but they're just cheerleaders. If there was no pro-porn, pro-prostitution "feminism", those women would not identify as feminists at all. If men didn't want to rape, no amount of applause from sex pozzies would make them do so.

... and women not being virtuous enough very certainly has nothing to do with male violence against women and children.

we're so grateful to you Independantthinker for spending so long on here kindly setting out your redpill theories about life the universe and everything
and flattered!
we must be very important to you, all the time you spend typing away just to enlighten us

Is Independantthinker's
stance a well known viewpoint that you've all heard before?

Lots of posts which seem to boil down to women's promiscuity is threatening the moral fabric of society. And tch - there's no respect these days.

his general approach...it all sounds very 'redpill'
he's probably using this thread as the basis of some sort of 'report'' to help enlighten the other members of the community