Sex robots: a threat to gender equality?

[Korhal IVV]

Sex-robots should be banned

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sex-robots should be banned

Everything should be banned.

[Frenline Delpha]

Sex-robots should be banned

Everything should be banned.

Ban organs. They can shut down and kill someone!

[New Benian Republic]

Everything should be banned.

Ban organs. They can shut down and kill someone!

Ban people.

[Alvecia]

Ban organs. They can shut down and kill someone!

Ban people.

Ban bans.

[6Marion9]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

That sounds about right. Frankly, power structures and social dynamics are the reason for most of these movements.

[New Benian Republic]

Ban people.

Ban bans.

Ban banning bans.

[Naretion]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

You're good. As a MGTOW you've just repeated stuff I thought was common knowledge =P

[Chessmistress]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

Sorry, you're wrong.
There's a woman, a Feminist, in this site, who said exactly so:
viewtopic.php?p=26376263#p26376263

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

[Dooom35796821595]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

Sorry, you're wrong.
There's a woman, a Feminist, in this site, who said exactly so:
viewtopic.php?p=26376263#p26376263

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the other side apparently say.

[Talanis Collective]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

Sorry, you're wrong.
There's a woman, a Feminist, in this site, who said exactly so:
viewtopic.php?p=26376263#p26376263

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

I'll start by saying that the wording I used indicated it was unlikely that people have heard this opinion, not that no one anywhere has ever expressed it. Hopefully, you can forgive me for not researching every post you, an anonymous commenter on a message board, has ever written when making a point about popular attitudes (this might have come across as sarcastic, but isn't meant that way, it is a relevant point). From that snippet, it seems you hold a bit of a double standard, as well as the notion that the mindset of a small number of women somehow grants the authority to speak for all women and decide legal policy, though that small snippet is likely oversimplified. Unlike many people, I welcome an open discussion on the ideas I expressed and would be interested to hear your opinion on the rest of my post. If I have time, I'll read a few of your posts to get an idea of your reasoning. Also, I apologize for my poor formating. The device I'm using makes it difficult.

[Chessmistress]

Sorry, you're wrong.
There's a woman, a Feminist, in this site, who said exactly so:
viewtopic.php?p=26376263#p26376263

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the other side apparently say.

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

[Ethel mermania]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the other side apparently say.

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

However with that attitude, supporting the objectification of women is a perfectly reasonable response.

[Frenline Delpha]

If I'm honest, sex robots are as much a threat to gender equality as a fly is to the sun.

[The Wombat People Territories]

Sex robots could ultimately make the idea of squishing your genitalia against someone else's, as 'weird' as naturism is to a lot of people nowadays.

I doubt it, I know there are some fleshlights which are remarkably close to feeling like a real vagina (so I've heard) but surely it will never be exactly the same. It just can't compare.

With VR, and modifications obtainable via the internet, a sex robot could appear different every single time. Your favourite movie star. Notable historical figures. Celebrities licencing their own genitalia to sex robot modders. Aftermarket customisation and all that.
An infinite number of sexual partners, with almost zero risk of disease. (allergies and/or hygiene related conditions might still occur).

It all depends on just how sophisticated the robots are. 100 years from now, who knows ?

[Dooom35796821595]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the other side apparently say.

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

No, objecting to one because they 'objectify' members of a certain sex, but allowing the other while admitting they are just as 'objectifying', but saying it's fine because they don't whine about it is hypocrisy.

[New DeCapito]

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all 1st semester psych a-hole, I took a human sexuality class a while back that touched on this subject in some interesting ways. First off, I read a book called Love and Sex with Robots, which basically postulates that it is an inevitable step in the sexual paradigm that people will pursue the physical and, with the introduction of AI, emotional fulfillment offered by sex robots. Being able to sate these needs without the complicated investments required for human-only romantic relationships makes robots desirable for a good chunk of the population. The social effects and morality of it are called into question, but to me it was the impact on the implicit sexual "economy" that was the driving force behind opposition. Now this is the culmination of several texts and theories, but here's how I interpreted it. Whether consciously or not, women (the most vocal opponents of the tech) are aware of their role as holder of the sexual "currency" in the traditional sex relationship. Anything that threatens this dynamic, like porn, prostitution, and sex dolls, is reacted to negatively by many women, likely based on a subconscious level. While they rationalize by calling it objectification, which I would need another post to delve into, or using something akin to a slippery slope argument about encouraging violence or disrespect of women, the core of it is the loss of inherent social and personal influence through the devaluation of "sexual currency." Consider how you likely have never heard a woman claim that vibrators or other female-oriented toys are a threat to gender equality, even though they encourage the objectification of male anatomy and reduction of male sexuality to a big, detached phallus unconnected to the rest of the male body. Now compare to the attitudes many women have regarding the equivalent used for men. This discrepancy makes sense if an unconscious balance of social power is involved. It is possible that this is an evolutionary holdover from a vast history where their sexuality was women's only bargaining chip in the power distribution of the species, but that is obviously just a theory like most of what I'm saying. Hopefully this didn't come off as pretentious, misogynistic, or the rant of some wannabe expert. I just remebered talking about this and finding it interesting.

Sorry, you're wrong.
There's a woman, a Feminist, in this site, who said exactly so:
viewtopic.php?p=26376263#p26376263

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

You cannot argue another person's opinion by quoting your own opinion. That should be clear by now.
Also, 'Feminist' is not a title to be (ab)used in order to pride oneself above others. Treating the other gender with the same level of compassion as your own is not something to be proud of: it is simply an everyday task that everyone should do, like brushing your teeth.

[Shofercia]

Ban bans.

Ban banning bans.

What if you ban the banning of bans, but do so retroactively?

[Saiwania]

With VR, and modifications obtainable via the internet, a sex robot could appear different every single time.

VR has its limits and isn't as convincing as a lot of people like to believe. It is nothing new and has been around forever, but I'll acknowledge that it has improved by a lot recently. I don't have 20/20 vision, so I can't fully appreciate VR anyways, much like 3D or HD movies/TV. 3D glasses are supposed to work with two eyes but if you only have one good eye, the effect doesn't work. 3D is just not for me and the same probably applies to VR in my case.

I'm perhaps in the minority, but how good a picture looks has never mattered very much to me. I wouldn't be willing to pay more for a higher resolution when to me, graphics is just graphics, so long as I can see what is going on- I don't care about the finer details.

The biggest advantage in my view is cost (it can be reused once purchased, rather than being a one time transaction like with a prostitute) and no transmission of STIs. Assuming that it could closely replicate sexual intercourse, I still can't imagine wanting a full sized robot. I'd want something more along the lines of a fleshlight that is more advanced. It'd be portable and not take up space.

Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.

If it is commercially successful, there will be no stopping this. A ban simply will not work.

[Chessmistress]

If it is commercially successful, there will be no stopping this. A ban simply will not work.

I know.
That's why activism is starting prior the commercialisation, because if it'll take off it'll be a nightmare trying to stop it, exactly like it happened wth pornography.

[Celseon]

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

See this control over one's likeness you're granting men? You're not granting that to women. There can be men who point out that having toys modeled after men's bodies is objectifying, and you'll flippantly remark that you don't care. The men who are letting themselves be objectified aren't complaining, so why should you? Drill baby drill! But if a radical feminist somewhere complains that sex toys modeled after equally willing women are objectifying you're on the banwagon. No woman should be allowed, you cry, to decide for herself that she doesn't mind being objectified and model for pornography or a toy if you object to the idea, and men certainly have to care very much about your opinion on what other women should do with their bodies.

That's not just hypocrisy, it's sexism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Leicester, UK, and Erik Brilling of University of Skövde in Sweden some months ago launched an International Campaign Against Sex Robots
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

"We are not proposing to extend rights to robots. We do not see robots as conscious entities. We propose instead that robots are a product of human consciousness and creativity and human power relationships are reflected in the production, design and proposed uses of these robots. As a result, we oppose any efforts to develop robots that will contribute to gender inequalities in society."

If they were talking about the rights of sentient machines, they might have a point, but they aren't. They are denying the capacity for machines to be conscious entities.

And that makes their whole agenda horseshit and stupidity. An alternative to a partner is not a threat to gender equality - it's nothing to do with genderr equality, either way - because it's not gendered. A man may want a robotic partner... and so may a woman. That partner could be a woman... or a man.

The ONLY way in which it makes any sense, is if we not only believe machines can be conscious, but also that they are gendered in a similar way to us.

[Threlizdun]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the other side apparently say.

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

Some men do care about their perceived objectification through sex toys, while others don't. Similarly, some women care about it when applied to them, but others don't. It's stupid to speak out for all men or all women on this. What's important is to address whether or not anyone is actually hurt by this, and the answer is "no". Women aren't harmed by the existence of sex robots, nor are men.

[Chessmistress]

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

Some men do care about their perceived objectification through sex toys, while others don't. Similarly, some women care about it when applied to them, but others don't. It's stupid to speak out for all men or all women on this. What's important is to address whether or not anyone is actually hurt by this, and the answer is "no". Women aren't harmed by the existence of sex robots, nor are men.

I can agree that women aren't directly harmed by the mere existence of sex robots.
The point of Dr. Kathleen Richardson and the Feminists supporting her is that women would be harmed by the attitudes developed by males interacting with sex robots.

Openly admitting that sex toys are objectfication of men's bodies is the opposite of being hypocritical.
It's the opposite of being hypocrtical even saying: "if men don't care about their own objectification, why I should care about their objectification?"
That's being very sincere.

See this control over one's likeness you're granting men? You're not granting that to women. There can be men who point out that having toys modeled after men's bodies is objectifying, and you'll flippantly remark that you don't care. The men who are letting themselves be objectified aren't complaining, so why should you? Drill baby drill! But if a radical feminist somewhere complains that sex toys modeled after equally willing women are objectifying you're on the banwagon. No woman should be allowed, you cry, to decide for herself that she doesn't mind being objectified and model for pornography or a toy if you object to the idea, and men certainly have to care very much about your opinion on what other women should do with their bodies.

That's not just hypocrisy, it's sexism.

Due the different balancement of power within our society, even if sex toys would lead women to develop prejudices towards males, that wouldn't mean sexism against males, because sexism = prejudice + power.
Few individual women have power, but women on the whole have far less power than men on the whole within our society.

[Braberland]

If it is commercially successful, there will be no stopping this. A ban simply will not work.

I know.
That's why activism is starting prior the commercialisation, because if it'll take off it'll be a nightmare trying to stop it, exactly like it happened wth pornography.

I'm not sure if that will help...

In my country, we've had so much protests from both the feminist and religious camps about the legalisation of prostitution, yet it was inevitable. I think the production and distribution of sex robots, especially in this age of sexual 'freedom', will be unstoppable unless society rapidly changes in the upcoming years.