Sex robots: a threat to gender equality?

[Celseon]

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.

No. Sexism is just the prejudice part, whether in word or deed. Power is merely the ability to act upon one's prejudices, and has nothing to do with whether one is sexist or not. If one is prejudiced on the basis of sex but not powerful enough to enact their prejudices they are merely an impotent sexist.

[Chessmistress]

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.

The case of some countries (like New Zealand, Netherlands and Denmark) is different from other countries: in Sweden, France, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland Feminists winned the battle against the legalisation of prostitution, supporting laws criminalising just only buyers of sex, and in most those countries that had been made without a strong religious camp oppsoing prostitution - also, religious approach is different, because they're for criminlising both sellers and buyers of sex, but in some countries, like in example in Northern Ireland happened, it's unwillingly useful: basically there were three factions, religious (criminalising both sellers and buyers), people pushing for legalisation, and Feminists (criminalising buyers but NOT sellers) - most politicians usually see the Feminist position as a good compromise, and that's why I'm pretty sure other countries will follow.

[Genivaria]

Well this is one of the sillier things to worry about.

[New DeCapito]

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.

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.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More
antonyms: sincerity
a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony

The dramatic irony is killing me.
You have power. The internet has given us all power to complain about how we don't have enough power. So go, be as sexist as you want. The internet knows no limits (except those the moderators place).

[Internationalist Bastard]

Are vibrators a threat to men?

[Chessmistress]

Are vibrators a threat to men?

It depends
Physically, they can be, sometimes

But, as said, vibrators cannot be inherently harmful to men at a societal level.

[Genivaria]

Are vibrators a threat to men?

I think of them as my best friends, they allow me a break.

[Celseon]

It depends
Physically, they can be, sometimes

But, as said, vibrators cannot be inherently harmful to men at a societal level.

Under a questionable definition of sexism that excuses misogyny as long as it's committed by women, of course. Men taking agency away from women? Boo! Hiss! Sexism! Women taking agency away from women? Hooray! Sisterhood!

[Chessmistress]

Are vibrators a threat to men?

I think of them as my best friends, they allow me a break.

A break from compulsory heterosexuality?
That's really funny! What a wonderful insight!

[Hurdegaryp]

It depends
Physically, they can be, sometimes

But, as said, vibrators cannot be inherently harmful to men at a societal level.

Under a questionable definition of sexism that excuses misogyny as long as it's committed by women, of course. Men taking agency away from women? Boo! Hiss! Sexism! Women taking agency away from women? Hooray! Sisterhood!

Hm. Yes. I see. This will undoubtedly make perfect sense after a few drinks.

[Kaztropol]

Are vibrators a threat to men?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_white_finger

I wonder, if such devices have ever actually been assessed for their capacity to cause that industrial injury.

If they were being used in a work environment, then in theory, they must be assessed for their potential to cause injury. Though, there are relatively few work environments, where such devices would be in use.

[The Rich Port]

... Prostitution has been one of the few professions that have allowed women to have any sort of power in the "good old days", and NOT JUST WOMEN.

This OP and this "doctor"are just spewing ridiculousness.

This is like saying that transsexuals are going to cause gender inequality if men start adopting children with their sterile male-to-female wives rather than putting them through the pain of childbirth.

Jesus fuck.

[Chessmistress]

... Prostitution has been one of the few professions that have allowed women to have any sort of power in the "good old days", and NOT JUST WOMEN.

This OP and this "doctor"are just spewing ridiculousness.

This is like saying that transsexuals are going to cause gender inequality if men start adopting children with their sterile male-to-female wives rather than putting them through the pain of childbirth.

Jesus fuck.

Why you're using "doctor" with quotation marks for Kathleen Richardson?
She's a Senior Research Fellow in the Ethics of Robotics, and the campaign against sex robots is very serious, so much that it's even in her academic profile

Personal profile

Ethical Campaigning Work

Director of the Campaign Against Sex Robots

Kathleen Richardson is Senior Research Fellow in Ethics of Robotics and part of the Europe-wide DREAM project (Development of Robot-Enhance Therapy for Children with AutisM). She is also affiliated with the ViR.AL interest group.

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/academic ... rdson.aspx

That isn't an "appeal to authority", it's just highlighting that such idea, that many of you seems so ready to ridiculize, is supported by people who actually are professors and senior researchers within universities.
That does NOT make it automatically right, of course, but it should be enough to take it seriously, without dismissing it so easily. saying "it's just spewing ridiculousness".

[Celseon]

Hm. Yes. I see. This will undoubtedly make perfect sense after a few drinks.

Sex toys modeled after men aren't a problem because the men who offer to model for them do so willingly, and so are objectified willingly. Men should continue to be able to make that choice. Women, meanwhile, shouldn't even be given the option of modeling for sex toys, and so shouldn't be allowed to decide whether to be objectified or not. This isn't really sexist against women though, because sexism can only be directed at women by men. Sexism is a combination of prejudice and power. Women don't have as much social power as men, so when women take power away from other women by making their decisions without their input it's not sexism.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! The room is spinning!

[The Rich Port]

... Prostitution has been one of the few professions that have allowed women to have any sort of power in the "good old days", and NOT JUST WOMEN.

This OP and this "doctor"are just spewing ridiculousness.

This is like saying that transsexuals are going to cause gender inequality if men start adopting children with their sterile male-to-female wives rather than putting them through the pain of childbirth.

Jesus fuck.

Why you're using "doctor" with quotation marks for Kathleen Richardson?
She's a Senior Research Fellow in the Ethics of Robotics, and the campaign against sex robots is very serious, so much that it's even in her academic profile

Personal profile

Ethical Campaigning Work

Director of the Campaign Against Sex Robots

Kathleen Richardson is Senior Research Fellow in Ethics of Robotics and part of the Europe-wide DREAM project (Development of Robot-Enhance Therapy for Children with AutisM). She is also affiliated with the ViR.AL interest group.

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/academic ... rdson.aspx

That isn't an "appeal to authority", it's just highlighting that such idea, that many of you seems so ready to ridiculize, is supported by people who actually are professors and senior researchers within universities.
That does NOT make it automatically right, of course, but it should be enough to take it seriously, without dismissing it so easily. saying "it's just spewing ridiculousness".

... You yourself have said the reason why, so... Yeah.

Nerds have been talking about this sort of thing for decades.

Robots are not a replacement for emotional warmth that you can only get from a person.

Now... If we're talking about A.I., which can engage with humans on the same level, you have a case... A anti-robot one, but a case nevertheless.

But sex robots causing an inequality between men and women is patently ridiculous, and when an uneducated dolt like myself can realize such a thing... You can understand why I put "doctor" in quotations.

A degree doesn't make one automatically intelligent or insightful.

[Chessmistress]

It isn't simply a degree.
Kathleen Richardson is an expert in ethics of robots, at a very high level, also part of this project http://www.dream2020.eu/
That doesn't mean she's right, but it's far away from "ridicolous".

Honestly, I think that many people here are so prone to ridiculise this effort towards gender equality just because the majority of people here are young males, not because it sounds ridicolous, but just because it somewhat hurts them.
Personally I think that doctor Kathleen Richardson is a good example about why we need to have more women in STEM: it's not just a matter of fairness but even, and even more, a matter of having a different way of thinking about some issues.

[Italios]

It isn't simply a degree.
Kathleen Richardson is an expert in ethics of robots, at a very high level, also part of this project http://www.dream2020.eu/
That doesn't mean she's right, but it's far away from "ridicolous".

Honestly, I think that many people here are so prone to ridiculise this effort towards gender equality just because the majority of people here are young males, not because it sounds ridicolous, but just because it somewhat hurts them.
Personally I think that doctor Kathleen Richardson is a good example about why we need to have more women in STEM: it's not just a matter of fairness but even, and even more, a matter of having a different way of thinking about some issues.

Before we worry about getting women into STEM, I think it'd be wiser to allow underprivileged girls in poorly-developed and legimately sexist countries to obtain some kind of BASIC education. Women in the first-world generally have the same amount of educational oppurtunities as men.

Admittedly the population of NS is mostly male, but I, however, am not male, and I do find the idea of sex robots a threat to gender equality as silly and untrue. The whole reason these robots would exist is that people who use them wouldn't have to engage in sex with others humans.

[Union Of Autocratic Empires]

It isn't simply a degree.
Kathleen Richardson is an expert in ethics of robots, at a very high level, also part of this project http://www.dream2020.eu/
That doesn't mean she's right, but it's far away from "ridicolous".

Honestly, I think that many people here are so prone to ridiculise this effort towards gender equality just because the majority of people here are young males, not because it sounds ridicolous, but just because it somewhat hurts them.
Personally I think that doctor Kathleen Richardson is a good example about why we need to have more women in STEM: it's not just a matter of fairness but even, and even more, a matter of having a different way of thinking about some issues.

I think the issue is more about how irrelevant (for most, at least) the whole thing is rather than the gender of our fellow forum users. The fact that ethics is such a subjective field doesn't helps matters, either.

I mean, let's be honest here, the way the good lady put the issue is reminiscent of the whole "games encourage people to murder other people". That argument isn't too popular among internet users.

[Korhal IVV]

Sex-robots should be banned

Everything should be banned.

Lol

[Celseon]

Honestly, I think that many people here are so prone to ridiculise this effort towards gender equality just because the majority of people here are young males, not because it sounds ridicolous, but just because it somewhat hurts them.

That's definitely why people question or oppose the idea of banning sex bots. It can't be anything else.

[The Rich Port]

It isn't simply a degree.
Kathleen Richardson is an expert in ethics of robots, at a very high level, also part of this project http://www.dream2020.eu/
That doesn't mean she's right, but it's far away from "ridicolous".

Honestly, I think that many people here are so prone to ridiculise this effort towards gender equality just because the majority of people here are young males, not because it sounds ridicolous, but just because it somewhat hurts them.
Personally I think that doctor Kathleen Richardson is a good example about why we need to have more women in STEM: it's not just a matter of fairness but even, and even more, a matter of having a different way of thinking about some issues.

... It's ridiculous, not ridicolous.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous

Also, it's ridiculous. How would some quack that has a degree in "robotic ethics" hurt me in any way other than the logic center of my brain?

Also... Ethics isn't a STEM field. It's a field of philosophy having to do with engineering... That doesn't make it a STEM field.

If she were an actual engineer as opposed to some philosophizing old bloke, maybe I'd be impressed.

[Pau Chiang]

Does this technology even exist yet?

[The Rich Port]

Does this technology even exist yet?

No, but it's projected to be possible in a few years.

We already have semi-realistic sex dolls... Who are creepy as fuck and I hope they don't use those for the outside skin.

But the technology to make them appealing is probably decades off.

So, yes, in case you were wondering, Dr. Richardson is complaining about nothing and no one.

Frankly, she's on par with the good old male anti-pornographers, as far as I care.

[Dooom35796821595]

Does this technology even exist yet?

No, but it's projected to be possible in a few years.

We already have semi-realistic sex dolls... Who are creepy as fuck and I hope they don't use those for the outside skin.

But the technology to make them appealing is probably decades off.

So, yes, in case you were wondering, Dr. Richardson is complaining about nothing and no one.

Frankly, she's on par with the good old male anti-pornographers, as far as I care.

Perhaps it'll be like terminator, starting with rubber skin, moving to semi realistic silicon before the possibility of real skin/liquid metal...at least they got something right.

[UniversalCommons]

Sex robots would be a means to keep population size under control and could be beneficial. Also, people constantly talk about pornography being terrible. Pornography is a substitute for prostitution. Sex trafficking is far worse than watching videos of sex. Reducing prostitution also reduces disease and unwanted complications. In the bad old days, there used to be a lot more houses of ill repute around to service mainly men. A sex robot could also reduce the general need for prostitution and abuse of women. It would be an easily identifiable fantasy experience.