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 the saddest thing, men wanking into a computer.
It proves a certain type of male moral, intellectual and sexual impotence.

It's that impotence which scares some men the most.

This may be so, but it alters my point not one jot. Lots of people wank with the aid of computers now - including women. What a victory eh?

What a victory eh
Anglo saxon male power is demographically, economically and intellectually on the slide, that's what all this new wave sexism is all about: impotence, figuratively and literally.

Anglo saxon male power is demographically, economically and intellectually on the slide, that's what all this new wave sexism is all about: impotence, figuratively and literally.

So once all this male, anglo-saxon power and impotence anxiety disappears then all the porn and the exploitation and the child abuse will go with it will it?

That is not how power works. I mean I agree, men won't have the power in the future. But power itself - that isn't going anywhere. Sadism and violence and victimisation are not going anywhere.

So independent are you saying that it's up to women to control men's behaviour by submitting to a moral code that controls their sexuality?

I am saying that everyone's sexuality should be controlled - men and women equally; that both men and women should be taught to control their sexual appetites, just as every other aspect of human interpersonal affairs should be circumscribed by morals.

If you think society should remove all moral restraints from sexual behaviour and from the ensuing anarchy female empowerment will bloom along with a more humane sexual culture then you are in for some disappointment.

Do you think women should have any restraints placed on their sexuality?

Suppose a woman gets off on child abuse videos. Would I be 'slut-shaming' her if I condemned her?

You don't seem like an idiot independent. You do know that there are laws against child abuse, don't you?

There are laws against child abuse, and the reason why there are laws against child abuse is that as a society we have decided child abuse is morally wrong. So the restraint on someone's sexuality in that extreme is not just legal but moral. Ideally, people should not just be thinking 'I'm not going to molest this child because I might get in trouble for it', they should find it morally repugnant. In other words, morality precedes legal criminality.

Thanks for the mansplaining. As far as I can tell, you expect women to do as men want because otherwise men turn into animals. Is that what you're saying?

Throughout human history there has been very little moral restraint on men's sexual behaviour - they rape millions of women. Funny jow, when women are no longer strictly controlled, they are the problem, despite the fact that what they do is neither illegal nor morally repugnant, eh?

No, it's not what I'm saying. I think there should be total equality when it comes to all moral standards that men and women live by. Total equality. That means neither men nor women should feel it is right to sexually use, abuse, objectify, degrade or exploit others. And that sex should rightly take place in a relationship of mutual respect and empathy.

And I think women can turn into animals too.

There has, completely wrongly, not been those restraints on men - and I am all in favour of them being imposed. Bring it on. I'd have the dolls, the porn and the prostitution banned if I had my way and the pornographers and pimps stuck up against a wall.

But my point remains that the huge growth in commercialised sex and an anarchic, immoral sexual culture which it is now impossible to regulate is partly the responsibility of the left. It is they who have advanced the right of the individual over all social norms and morals. Now women are not shown respect because there isn't any ethic of respect. There is, more and more, just loveless, utilitarian sex. These days you don't buy a woman flowers and invite her to a dance, you send her a pic of your dick along with 'wanna fuck?'. That's real empowering I imagine.

Your argument is very confusing independent - you suggested earlier that it was feminsts' desire to have sexual freedom that has caused problems - is unless women are controlled, things go wrong.

Just a reminder of the stats here. 90% of the people in prison for violent crimes in the UK are male. 98% of the people in prison for sexual crimes in the UK are male. Sexual crimes and violent crimes are overwhelmingly gendered in their execution. Yes, of course women who commit sexual crimes are heinous individuals who should be punished. But the fact remains that there are far less of them. To ignore the proportions of the two sexes committing these crimes is itself a form of distorting the truth, a wilful misrepresentation of reality, and, to be frank, a form of deliberate gas-lighting.

And surely men shouldn't have to be forced to treat women with respect?

Oh, and the other thing you're simply not getting is that there was no golden age when women were shown respect. Not for their own sake. They may have been afforded respect insofar as they were the property of other men, and conditional on their meeting certain standards of behaviour - but that is not genuine respect, not respect for them as human beings but simply deference towards their male owners.

immoral sexual culture which it is now impossible to regulate is partly the responsibility of the left.
How?

Can I remind you independent that back in the good old days when men bought flowers, once that man got a ring on his woman's finger he could then rape her, legally, as and when he wanted?

despite the fact that what they do is neither illegal nor morally repugnant, eh?

Is nothing women do illegal or morally repugnant? Len Pen? Thatcher? Vanessa George? The Countess of Bathory? Women are people, and there are female arseholes everywhere. Are you saying women can't be arseholes? That they can't hunger for power and domination? Is that that not what men used to tell them order to keep them in their natural place of the home - because they're the innately nurturing and caring and soft and cuddly fairer sex? Women are capable of doing everything men can do - all the good stuff and the bad staff. And they should be allowed to. They should allowed to do all the great stuff and all the bad stuff...well, no one should be allowed to do bad stuff but women should have the same choice to be as bad as men if they want to and they should be credited with the same level of moral responsibility for their behaviour. And they should be judged for it to the same degree as men. That is equality.

Who he saying women aren't morally responsible?

But women don't kill two men a week in domestic abuse, independent

Again your argument doesn't really make sense independent. Women are subject to law just as much as men. They don't commit crimes on nearly the same scale however.

Yes, and that was wrong. Some things have changed for the better. I'm not that stupid. I'm not saying 1955 was some sort of utopia and everything was so much better when we hung people and husbands legally raped their wives and there was 'no Irish, no blacks' signs on pub doorways. But then...look at the racism that exists online...the global sex trafficking of millions and the billions of children being raped in videos all over the Internet...are things in aggregate really much better?

I'm saying that rather than target the things that were wrong with the old moral order the liberals decided to tear the whole thing down. That isn't progress. The great march of progress and reform that went from the late nineteenth century to the 1970's in which female suffrage and civil rights were won and the death penalty repealed and the welfare state established...that was a great, moral movement. Over the last thirty years however the left have focussed more on the consumer rights and private desires of the individual tan any collective endeavour to make society more just an ethical. This is not progress. We are going backwards.

Straw man - you're shifting your argument from "women bear responsibility for sexual immorality by becoming easy to get into bed" (to which we have mostly replied "where's the sexual immorality in consensual sex, easily obtained or not?") to "some women do bad things in a more general sense."

To which I'd reply no one on here has said they don't - but this is a conversation about sexual morality. You think sexual morality involves some sort of pickiness and limiting of the number of sexual partners, or limitation on how soon a couple go to bed, or some other weird set of 1950s values, which you expect women to police because for some bizarre reason you don't think men can - yet men get a free pass so long as they "respect women like they did in the good old days" (where that respect seems to have involved holding doors open whilst being quite happy to accept a legal system which allowed marital rape to be legal). We on the other hand are arguing for a sexual morality which depends on both mutual consent and on recognition of each other's shared humanity, personhood if you will.

It is not the sex bots in and of themselves that are the problem. In some sort of utopian future free of sexual oppression - asymmetric sexual oppression in our current case where men are overwhelmingly the oppressors and women overwhelmingly the oppressed - in such a future sex bots would be as significant as vibrators. The problem with sex bots is that when one actually talks to the men creating and consuming them (as the writer of the original article did) those men reveal that the point of the sex bot is to be a perfected form of a real woman, without a real woman's flaws (expectation of reciprocity, expectation of some sort of recognition of her own personhood and needs and desires) because they see both the bot and the real woman as objects - it's just the woman has annoying software quirks which make it demanding.

The bot is not the problem, the problem is the attitude towards women as sexual objects whose primary function should be to service men revealed by the fact that some men want these things.

There's no doubt that society has problems. But your assertion that feminsts' desire not to be possessed by men caused the problems makes no sense to me.