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

I thought there have been some studies that have shown that there are some genetic components to violence?

What studies? Do you know that black people are statistically more likely to commit violent crime in the US? Now, there are two different ways of explaining that. The first is with the abject social and economic conditions many black people live in, which can lead to criminal ghetto economies in drugs and gang culture (not that this excuses black people of violence but it serves as an explanation). The second is that black people have epigenetically developed an inheritable propensity for violence and therefore it would be worthwhile getting them all sterilised.

That is why that idea is very, very dodgy.

This sort of thing:

www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2015/december/the-genetics-of-violent-behavior#

I thought there have been some studies that have shown that there are some genetic components to violence?

There are. Dozens.

One doesn't have to have read them, though.

The male duck is one of the most notorious rapists in the animal world. It has a penis that evolved to rape more successfully.

Unless one argues that humans are not animals whose genes work roughly the same as those of other animals, I really don't see how one could deny that there's a genetic component to violence.

I don't really care whether male violence is genetic or otherwise caused. I want a society where it is strongly discouraged. Either male violence is social conditioning, then it will cease within one generation of discouraging it, or it is genetic, in which case it will take several generations for men to stop being violent.

As long as the violent men are locked up in prison (and away from females, that's very important) I really don't care what causes their violence.

Dervel argued with evolution, so I pointed out that if evolution to be less violent can take place, it obviously hasn't happened yet. That's all.

It's all kinds of assumption really.

Also everything else mentioned up thread.

I do think for those who lack mental capacity or those with certain physical conditions might benefit from this.

But I can't see a majority of men going for this as boys don't look and act quite human enough. It wouldn't feel realistic, would it?

To be honest if I knew a bloke who got one of these I'd feel really sad for him because he obviously doesn't know what to do with a real woman.

I can't see many females going for the male equivalent though. Already lots of sex toys that would do the job without making us feel like domesticated animals.

I'd be all for a bit that could be your best friend though - that may be investment worthy. Or one that makes me breakfast and coffee and would bring it up to me.

I am surprised that everyone so far seems to have ignored the fact that regardless of how society is, for the most part men are taller and stronger than women and that's, fundamentally, what gives them power. When all else fails, if I am able to knock you to the ground, I win. That is one genetic difference that isn't going to be going away any time soon.

independentthinker21 thanks for that.
VestalVirgin
Patriarchy still exists.
If men can be conditioned to particular responses, men can be conditioned to other responses. It takes all sorts.

The patriarchy, like 'white supremacy' exists because it suits a soon to be extinct species. Demographics is the key, and that's why white supremacists in the US and NI are so keen to control women's fertility.

Scared groups try to control, and this wank doll is another example.

If they have plastic orifices and handmaids or laboratory enabled reproduction, they think they can.

You're a feminist? And you're saying violence is genetic?

This point was not made regarding the Finnish study:

"So is this finding the beginning of genetic testing for all and a Gattaca-like pruning of people into genetic haves and have-nots? Not so fast. A large portion of the population has the so-called “warrior” gene (depending on race, around 40-50%). Most of the extremely violent offenders didn’t have the highly risky combo of genes found in the study"

www.psychologytoday.com/blog

In other words, they cherry picked a few Crim's who had this combo and ignored all the others who didn't.

for the most part men are taller and stronger than women and that's, fundamentally, what gives them power

They think.

I have today this feminist embrace of evolutionary theory is quite staggering. Feminism was not like this twenty years ago. Evolutionary psychology was seen to justify the patriarchy.

It's not just in the west that violence is on the decline its worldwide:

ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/title-slide

There are many potential factors that correlate with this decline: increasing literacy, the spread of democracy, women's rights etc.

War itself correlates extremely highly with how children are parented. Beating up children in the name of discipline leads to more warlike and violent societies. Also it is not hard to understand that a little boy who learns that those who are bigger than him get to hit him if they want goes on to grow up to hit and abuse those smaller than he is once he is bigger.

I'm pretty convinced that if no little boys get hit you'll see a massive down tick in both general violence and violence towards women.

I'm not saying that all violence is genetic. I'm saying there is some research that shows some connection to genetic factors.

You can have a gene that predisposes you towards cancer, however avoiding smoking massively reduces that risk. You may have this warrior gene, but without the environmental factors you don't have to be violent.

I think we can reduce violence by treating our kids properly. In addition a father who nurtures, experiences a testosterone drop. We are not slaves to our biology.

Yes, exactly that Dervel. Genes don't force us to behave in certain ways, they may make us more prone to certain things though. I don't know why everyone has assumed I meant otherwise.

'I think we can reduce violence by treating our kids properly. In addition a father who nurtures, experiences a testosterone drop. We are not slaves to our biology.'

I agree with this to an extent. However, there are always going to be some violent men and women are always going to be aware of how vulnerable they are around men due to the fact that they are smaller and weaker. That's not something that's going to change any time soon. To an extent, a threat of violence is enough to maintain the status quo - actual violence isn't always necessary.

As an example, well-meaning people will warn women not to walk in certain areas or to get a taxi home late at night. In that way they're advising women to restrict their lives based on the threat posed by violent men - they're extending the reach of the violent men, even though they themselves aren't violent.

I'm pretty convinced that if no little boys get hit you'll see a massive down tick in both general violence and violence towards women.

I am pretty convinced it is the other way round: Once there is no violence against women, or even intention to be violent against women, and/or wage war, little boys will not be hit as much.

The violence at boy's boarding schools was/(is?) horrible. In a warlike society, boys are taken away from their mothers, locked up with a bunch of older boys and men, and violence is inflicted on them. That makes them better future soldiers, which I think is the intention, however unconscious, behind the whole thing.

Expression like "make men out of them" are employed to describe this.
There's frequently a worry that a boy who spends too much time with his mother and sisters will become "soft".

Patriarchy knows exactly what it is doing. And I don't think there's any chance of ending violence against boys in countries where patriarchy is not ended first.

(Yes, there was a massive reduction in the violence against children even though we have not ended patriarchy yet, but there's still epidemic sexual abuse of children of both sexes - enabled by patriarchy. See all the church scandals.)

How would patriarchy explain women who abuse children Vestal?

Actually I went to two boarding schools. I most certainly wasn't trained to be violent there. In fact at my second I was encouraged to volunteer and I went round an elderly ladies house to help clean it, went to chat and run games for the elderly at a local hospital and volunteered at a school for special needs children. All valuable experiences none of them violent. We had girls attending in the last two years at a level. There was no suggestion they were lesser than we were.

The focus at school wasn't so much on prizing physical strength but on academic excellence and critical thinking. It didn't feel like a soldier factory at least to me.

Vestal sounds like we want to steer society in mostly the same direction. I'm very happy to dismantle what holds women back in addition to promoting better parenting.

You may be keen to 'dismantle what holds women back' Dervel but it's my experience that in general men range from having little to no interest in what holds women back to being actively hostile to the idea that women are held back by anything.

I watched a documentary on sex robots the other day.
None of the robots were remotely lifelike or useable.
The men interested in them, were pretty sad and bitter lonely people, who fuck sex dolls anyway.
I'd imagine you'd have to be a little bit disturbed to own one, and how on earth would you dispose of it when it breaks??

sparrow I think by definition we men lack understanding of what it's like to be a woman.

how on earth would you dispose of it when it breaks
and who cleans the thing