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."
when they pry it from my cold, dead hands...
"She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women"
Millions of gay men will hate you and your bigotry, because your arguments sucks more than a sex robot would do.
Every bit as doomed as banning porn. I'd be angry at her for trying, but since she'll accomplish precisely nothing, I think her failure will be a thoroughly satisfying punishment for the attempt.
Looking at the woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's no surprise she fears competition from robots.
How does choosing to have sex with a robot reinforce stereotypes about women or relationships with women?
Sexbots for women and men might be the ultimate chance to remedy one humanity's greatest source of conflicts, ranging from the Troian War over annoyingly crazy teenagers to sexually frustrated housewives. They could finally stop men from objectifying women for purely sexual purposes. The effects of this change could be more beneficial than the pill and the invention of the vibrator taken together. In an age in which in-vitro fertilization is easy, it would be crazy to take away this unique chance for the evolution of humanity.
I'll support her movement as long as she also pushes to ban dildos, vibrators, clitoral stimulators, teledildonics, "fucking machines" and other female masturbation aids. No, I don't use masturbation aids, and I don't have a problem with female masturbation aids. I just have a problem with the horrific double standard. Feminists tell us that women who use masturbation aids are strong, independent and empowered, while at the same time claiming that men who use masturbation aids are disgusting perverts.
human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship
So what does she have to offer or suggest to those people (men particularly) who have no opportunity to develop such an experience? In the West at least, a significant proportion of women have rejected men entirely, possible after one fling and a child. Equal wages and opportunities for women, as well as social attitudes, mean that it is no longer "essential" for a woman to find a husband as it was as recently as two generations ago. There are too many men seeking for the number of women available.
Where is the campaign to ban dildos. Aren't they simple sex robots that depict men who's only purpose is to sexually furfil women and then to be thrown in a draw?
"She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women"
Sounds more like "women will lose the powerful tool of sex deprivation to control men".
Not that anyone here will suffer from that a lot.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong choices. Once the freedom to make such choices is taken away, ethics ceases to be involved. That is, if you outlaw sex bots, then the choice not to obtain a sex bot is not an ethical choice anymore, it is a pragmatic or utilitarian choice.
We have addressed the "points" she makes elsewhere. Here, we are discussing the contradiction inherent in an ethicist advocating authoritarian policies.
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.........
Again, very broadly speaking, this isn't something in the female mentality, or at least it has not been....
The existence and popularity of dildos invalidates both your position and hers.
Pedos want to fuck, too.
And bluntly, if some small plastic sex toy spares one child that experience, I do WANT them to exist!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I knew it had to be a chick raising these objections as soon as I read the reasoning.
BINGO, this was my thought exactly. I wish I could mod you up to a million.
I knew it was a woman making the comments in the article the instant I read them. She wants to ban this sort of thing not because it's wrong, but because she's offended by it. Anything that gives men pleasure is viewed with suspicion, and doubly-so anything that might make guys less dependent on women for sexual gratification.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Y'know how you can tell women are crazy?
They used to do things that men liked. Then, they all got together and set their bras on fire, and marched in the streets, and said "WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT YOU LIKE".
And, in an effort to get them to shut up, we agreed. Now, they don't do things that we like any more, and now, outside of fucking them, we don't particularly like them.
And now, having excised every character trait they had that made us like them for their deeds, they say that we've reduced them to sex objects.
They reduced themselves to sex objects.
On a completely different note, here's a wikipedia link to a newspaper advertisement selling sex robots for women in 1913.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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..."