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

A

Sexual liberation and whatever assertion of sexual autonomy women make has only led to greater opportunities for men to abuse and objectify women, with a commercial sex industry that dwarfs anything that has existed in human history.

I'd argue that the same amount of abuse and objectification is happening, it's just more out in the open now. Previously men would have had "their" woman (wife) to abuse and objectify in secret. And there would always have been some poor woman trying to survive who can be exploited via prostitition.

Also, in an earlier post you paint a scene of a girl encouraged to lose her virginity by friends. There is really not the same pressure amongst adolescent girls to have sex as amongst adolescent boys.

Look, I don't believe that kind of behaviour should be regulated in any kind of statist sense. People masturbate. That is hardly in itself some massive moral problem unless you're a religious crank with a sexual neurosis. That said, sex should not be divorced from morality. I am not calling for external restraints, but I am calling for a social environment that encourages greater self-reflection so that individuals can appeal unselfconsciously to their own “inner judge” for moral guidance. That means refusing to accept, for example, this prevailing attitude to casual sex of 'if everyone says yes and is only mildly intoxicated then it's fine'. People should not be stopped from going out and screwing loads of people who they barely know if that's what they really want to do; but they should be encouraged to ask themselves 'Is this fulfilling or am I responding to social pressure?' and 'Am I causing any harm to the people I'm sleeping with...people who I see as objects?'.

I think people should think in a morally self-critical way about all their actions - and think about themselves not just as individuals with choices but as belonging to a wider social, economic and political environment. But today people are culturally trained to just think about themselves and maximise their own pleasure. I'm saying that's a very problematic viewpoint that we should question. A lot of people don't question it because they think to do sois morally conservative. But really it is liberalism which has become the new oppression. People - and particularly young girls - feel they gave to give their bodies to whoever because the prevailing view is that power lies in emotionless sex. Many don't feel they have a choice. So in a sense one oppressive orthodoxy has been replaced with another.

I'm curious about who you think should define actions as 'immoral' independent? And who should then enforce the shaming of the guilty parties?
Do you think it's immoral for men to use prostitutes?

Independent, why do you avoid answering people's questions by asking them questions?

'But today people are culturally trained to just think about themselves and maximise their own pleasure.'

Where is the evidence to support this?

I'm not really sure what the word 'immoral' means. I think it's criminal for men to use prostitutes as they are using money as a means to rape women. Many don't agree with me. Who gets to decide?

I did answer. You make moral judgments. We all make moral judgments. Who decides that it's immoral to murder children for kicks? We all do as a society.

As for the second point, just look around you. In case you haven't noticed we live in a system of unrestrained, predatory capitalism. That system has as it's ideal the morally disengaged, free floating individual adrift in a marketplace of desire. Part of that is the internet, much of which is a swamp of commercialised sex and narcissistic selfie culture.

The evidence is all around you.

But it's not at present criminal for men to use prostitutes. On what basis should be decide that it should be criminal? Because it's immoral. Once it was legal to own slaves. It became criminal on the basis that people decided it was immoral. Morality precedes criminality. Something cannot be criminal first and only decided to be immoral second. That is a nonsense.

Can we ignore independent's derailing and get back to the topic?

It is getting boring, all the repetitions of the same arguments with the goalpost-moving again and again.

Jenni Murray was funny about them on Women's Hour, she asked if you could put the bits in the dish washer.

Some links on campaigns to ban them ( I'm aware not all posters want to, but thought some might be interested)

www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/12747

campaignagainstsexrobots.org

www.wired.co.uk/article/campaign-against-sex-robots

1) The criminalisation of anyone using prostitutes
2) The regulation of the porn industry - making it accessible only to adults with credit cards. If any of the hubs are found to host illegal material, they are fined and shamed

Isn't 2 just 1 on film?

btw Murray was shocked, into silence about the killing robots, but that's for another day.

Above links includes a research paper, from Leicester Uni which I can't access, but might be interesting.

Isn't 2 just 1 on film?

Indeed it is. I'd happily see internet pornography criminalised in total, but unfortunately the porn empire is now so vast that that would now be nigh on impossible. We could however regulate it to the point where it is very difficult to access by children and any adult who wanted to use it would risk fraud.

It's criminal to murder children but people still do it, in spite of there being a punishment. How do you propose we stop people doing non-criminal things? I suspect you're going to say by making them feel guilty but how do you do that?

You teach children the difference between right and wrong. They are not born with an idea of right and wrong inside of them. People are taught it - by their parents and their society. If, for instance, children grow up exposed to violent pornography then their is a danger those children will become dysfunctional adults. If children are taught to respect others and that such representations are ugly and invidious, then hey are more likely to develop sound moral character and a healthy attitude to sexual relationships. Mistreat a dog and fail to train it properly and you've got a dysfunctional dog. Same goes for people.

Even though people kill children and will always kill children we still all agree it's wrong and express our condemnation of it.

But we don't agree when it comes to rape. When a rape happens we blame the victim, make every excuse in the world for the perpetrator. If we're going to start on sexual immorality let's get that one sorted first shall we?

Well, quite. We should condemn rape and we should not blame the victim. That is a moral injunction.

Most parents already teach their children right from wrong. Regardless, some of those children go on to be destructive. Some parents are criminals themselves.

I find it a bit ridiculous that your whole argument seems to centre around parents teaching children some sort of moral code that you won't define.

Yes but you would rather point fingers at sex positive feminists. I'd also like to know which standard of morality you are applying? If you are proposing a set of moral rules you need to establish your reasoning for what precisely they are, and how we implement them.

Vaguely waving around these concepts without producing your method is suspicious.

I'm reading Richardson's paper now. She says 90% of prostituted people are dependent on a procurer.

It's probably a stupid question, but what does she mean by a procurer?

Yes but you would rather point fingers at sex positive feminists. I'd also like to know which standard of morality you are applying? If you are proposing a set of moral rules you need to establish your reasoning for what precisely they are, and how we implement them.

It's not about moral rules, but moral character. The cultivation of the right kind of feelings, thoughts and an attitudes in a person. One should not refrain from hurting others because it breaks an abstract rule, but one should not want to hurt in the first place.

Are you saying people should not have morals? This is the problem with the liberal left - they can't recognise moral concepts. They can only think in terms of power. Anything that transcends power means nothing to them.

This is starting to look exceedingly like 'waste the feminists' time' goady fuckery.