Slashdot Mirror
Robotics Researcher Starts Campaign To Ban Development of Sexbots
Earthquake Retrofit writes: A robotics ethicist from the UK's De Montfort University has started a campaign to ban the development and use of sex robots. "She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical." The campaign was spurred by news that some companies claim to be fairly far along in development of such technology. One company even plans to start selling them later this year. The campaign's goals and concerns include "We propose that the development of sex robots will further reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship," and, "We challenge the view that the development of adults and child sex robots will have a positive benefit to society, but instead further reinforce power relations of inequality and violence."
What's worse is that De Montfort University has a Senior Research Fellow In The Ethics Of Robotics.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Exactly. Compare sales of fleshlights to sales of vibrators / dildos. Women are far more likely currently to be buying machines for sexual purposes. Why would the sexbot market be any different?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Lazy, lazy, lazy. Using her apprerence to denigrate her arguments is gutter tabloid tactics. Unless you're, you know, like 12 years old in which case carry on.
Men have the right to sex, everybody has a right to have their needs met. The bigger picture is limiting men's access to sex. You have an entire culture that's based upon artificial scarcity of female sexual partners. Slut shaming is at it's root an attempt to keep other women in line. Monogamy is written into law as far as divorces etc etc etc. Willing prostitution is generally illegal (and been correlated to large reductions in rape and general male violence where is available and reasonably affordable). Social stigma that is associated with open marriages poly relationships etc etc seem to primarily come from women. Divorce is still heavily tilted towards women due to 60+ year old assumptions.
At the end of the day a healthy relationship means everybody's needs are getting met, too many men an active sex life is a need. So that has to happen within the relationship one way or another for the relationship to continue and be healthy.
So I would say men do have a right to sex and women do deny men sex. That right is not to any particular women. Too many times I've heard feminists go on about how it's unfair for a man to pressure/coerce etc etc a woman to have sex especially in relationships. Few couples have the same sex drive at all times. To say that men have no right to press to have their needs met in a relationship is abusive to the core. At the end of the day if your partner is unwilling or unable to meet your needs you have to figure out how to solve the problem, in general that can't happen without negotiations and each side giving. Yes that means some women may have more sex than they want, that's not male oppression rather the effect of societal pressure that's primary from women.
No sir I dont like it.
Actually, a number of prostitutes have said that they are mostly therapists. Granted, a lot of it probably depends on what their clientele is, and I doubt that "crack whores" play typically play that kind of role.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I knew it had to be a chick raising these objections as soon as I read the reasoning.
Broadly speaking (no pun intended), females relate sex to emotional and relationship feelings and thoughts. While men do derive pleasure from combining "love" and sex, it isn't always necessary. Sex just by itself for physical pleasure is great and one doesn't always even need to know or remember her name.
Again, very broadly speaking, this isn't something in the female mentality, or at least it has not been....till recently I do see changes in female attitudes towards this..but I don't think it is still nearly as prevalent as with mens thinking and easy ability to separate emotion from the physical act.
It is often been said that one sure cure to world over population would be to perfect some sort of artificial sex, be it virtual or some type of robot, that is so real feeling.......and basically you'd have a ton of men who would have their physical needs fulfilled, without having to put up with the nagging, and emotional baggage that comes with women (not to mention potential unwanted kids). I fear female popularity would drop a good bit. Not saying it is a good or bad thing, but I could see it potentially happen.
I mean, there's an old joke that kinda sums it up....
"Why did God give women tits?"
"So men would talk to them...."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That is part of the marital contract...and if you don't have sex enough with your mate, that is grounds for termination of said marriage in most states.
Correct. You have the right to end your marriage, not the right to demand sex. The law does not force your spouse to open their legs for you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...If you look at something like escort service and prostitution it's massively dominated by male customers who pay for women to pretend to be their girlfriends/lovers or even dressing up RealDolls.
You bring up an interesting point: would a sexbot replace a girlfriend, or would it be more likely to replace a prostitute. I would guess prostitute. I would have a girlfriend (insert joke here) because I want a relationship with another human being, with mutually agreed-upon sex, with some conflicting issues regarding frequency and style. I would want a prostitute because I want sex when and how I want it without a relationship. A sexbot fills the second far more than the first. So, the end effect would be a decrease in prostitution / escorts and their knock on effects. This would seem to be a win for women, not a loss.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
It's not just the men; Women pay for feeling of protection, stability and companionship that men provide.
The trick is finding a happy medium where both parties are satisfied. In the past the balance was shifted towards men, now it has shifted towards women.
I personally think that the world overall would be a better place if men where allowed to meet their needs without having to either settle down with somebody they do not necessarily want to be with, or without lying/tricking women (ie being a player). Many studies have showed that in places where prostitution is legal there is a drop in rape and sexual violence in general. Also these places (like in a lot of European countries) people still seek out meaningful monogamous relationships.
Funny enough, up here in Canada, it is illegal to pay for sex (this is recent; it used to be legal, what was illegal was solicitation) , however if one pays for sex and records it then it is legal (exception made to keep the porn industry alive).
That kinda ad hominem nonsense just creates a faulty "argument" that her theories would have been more valid if she were younger and thinner.
Wind the time back and she's this nerdy chick with raven hair and pretty eyes who's into robots. How cool is that, right?
The woman is pushing 40(ish) and has excess weight.
Yeah... no one on slashdot has ever been or will ever be in those shoes. We're all fit and perma-young.
Should she lose weight and get sexier lighting, background and clothes - will her theories suddenly become more valid?
How about if she were a guy?
I know, I know... It's a joke.
But it's a lame one and it opens the door to the whole "her theory is laughed at on account of her being a woman" argument.
When the real reason it is laughable is cause it is based on a faulty premise of humans being nothing but sex-bots made of flesh and then making a bunch of logical leaps based on premises as faulty as that one.
I.e. This is some wonderful circular thinking:
The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).
Sex robots are like prostitutes. Which is bad. Cause prostitution treats prostitutes like robots.
Ergo, treating robots like prostitutes is bad - CAUSE THAT WOULD BE TREATING ROBOTS LIKE ROBOTS!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The abusive comments on the YouTube channel that featured Dr. Richardson were, in my opinion, uncalled for, and probably just reinforce her beliefs. We can have diverse opinions about issues like this, and I, for one, am glad someone's at least thinking about this. As robots come into general familiarity, we're all going to have to do some soul searching.
While I don't agree with the outright banning of this technology, I do understand her point - I just don't think technology, in and of itself, is good or evil.
This was my (somewhat lengthy response to her):
I think that we can have a discussion here without such personal derision. I wonder, Dr., how you feel about places like China where the men outnumber the women by over 30%. Or in Japan, where women's increased demands for an 'acceptable' mate have lowered their birthrate to non-sustainable levels. Already there are men there who use RealDoll-like toys - some who literally make them part of their social lives. What options are available to them that would be acceptable to you?
In addition, and closer to Western world, not all men are capable of having or maintaining a sexual relationship with women - but this doesn't necessarily limit their sex drive. Men with severe appearance deficits or low intelligence may never have the opportunity to have a mate.
While it is often easy for women to dismiss sex for men as being a disconnected act, this is certainly not always true (it isn't with me), and I believe there is an equally important biological need for acceptance and love. This is demonstrated differently with different men.
While I do believe there is some merit in your argument, I also believe that sexual expression IS different between men and women, regardless of relationship status.
Imagine the outrage over the removal of Disney 'Princess' movies, romantic novels (essentially word-based pornography), or sex toys for women would cause! And yet, these things unquestionably also color women's perception of relationships with men - and their expectations.
As feminists scream for equality, the truth is that women are the ones who do the choosing, as they feel the need to be specially selective about their mates. This can be seen in the animal kingdom as well. It is understandable (especially when the production of children is involved), but this is, at least, an example of how men and women are not only different, but unequal.
Doesn't this, in and of itself, color an unfortunate man's opinion of woman? How better to address that than by providing men with the next best thing?
Advanced robotics is going to even the playing field somewhat for those disenfranchised men, not among the lucky to be selected by a 'real' woman. Eventually, it may offer these rejected men another side altogether of women, providing them with a 'loving' partner, fulfilling their need to be loved. Obviously, the reality of the 'love' expressed will be proportional to the level of technology and the skill of AI programmers.
Certainly, early forms of this will be no more than machine-assisted masturbation, but this will be a short-lived period of time, as Moore's Law and the determination of science has previously demonstrated.
As with any technology, the possibility for good and evil will exist. I suggest letting things progress as they will until direct evidence against ANY positive use exists.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."