Are upcoming sex robots going to normalize male aggression?

[Combine City-17]

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: No, that's stupid

[Blasted Craigs]

This.

How much do they cost by the way?

Is this a rich only privilege or can anyone reasonably afford?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/2084051/robot-sex-doll-cost-samantha/
tens of thousands of pounds for a top of the line model, per the article.
So say, 20,000 pounds.
That's 26,543.90 US dollars, give or take.
So about the price of a new car.
So, you gotta decide which you want to drive more, a car or a doll.

[Ethel mermania]

How much do they cost by the way?

Is this a rich only privilege or can anyone reasonably afford?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/2084051/robot-sex-doll-cost-samantha/
tens of thousands of pounds for a top of the line model, per the article.
So say, 20,000 pounds.
That's 26,543.90 US dollars, give or take.
So about the price of a new car.
So, you gotta decide which you want to drive more, a car or a doll.

get a used one, the price will come down

[Cedoria]

Sex robots are unreal. Men will just grow tire of it just like porn.

Sex robots look unreal, but still quite similar to a real woman, right now, but even looking "unreal" as it is right now, a sex robot at Linz's tech fair have been sexually assaulted by a bunch of men: it seems a quite worrying event to me, don't you agree?
Even worse: sex robots are going to look more and more real in the next years, and that's going to exponentially increase the problem.

A robot being assaulted is better than a human being assaulted.

I don't see why that alone should worry you if your concern is preventing assaults on people. If anything, it might get some of the poison out.

[Sovaal]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/2084051/robot-sex-doll-cost-samantha/
tens of thousands of pounds for a top of the line model, per the article.
So say, 20,000 pounds.
That's 26,543.90 US dollars, give or take.
So about the price of a new car.
So, you gotta decide which you want to drive more, a car or a doll.

get a used one, the price will come down

Ew.

[Gauthier]

Sex robots look unreal, but still quite similar to a real woman, right now, but even looking "unreal" as it is right now, a sex robot at Linz's tech fair have been sexually assaulted by a bunch of men: it seems a quite worrying event to me, don't you agree?
Even worse: sex robots are going to look more and more real in the next years, and that's going to exponentially increase the problem.

A robot being assaulted is better than a human being assaulted.

I don't see why that alone should worry you if your concern is preventing assaults on people. If anything, it might get some of the poison out.

Of course the moment sentient AI is developed and sexual assault on a robot is dismissed is when The Matrix stops being a movie.

[Blasted Craigs]

And no....this line of reasoning is the same reasoning that says games make people violent or sexist.
Sexist and violent people play games sometimes. The games don't make them so.
And the majority are not violent or sexist.
The problem was that the owners put the doll on display with no restrictions whatsoever, and anytime you do that, people as a mob let you down and the baser specimens of our race run forward and mess it up for the rest.
Also, if it belongs to someone else, and repair costs don't come out of their pocket, the majority of people have a "Fuck it, it ain't mine" mentality and don't care about damaging the property.
Like when I was a correctional officer, people driving the vehicles for patrol complaining the vehicles suck often were the same ones that would run over curbs and keep driving the vehicle when it should be switched out, because they can't be bothered to take the time to fill out paperwork as to why they switched the vehicle out, they would rather run it into the ground, then complain.
Most people, if they were to buy their own "doll", more than likely would take care of their own property better.

In the immortal words,
"This is why we cannot have nice things."

Personally, like trusting someone else to pack your parachute, I wouldn't trust the owners to keep the doll clean, and would rather wait until I can afford my own "doll", if I was inclined to use one. At least then I would know it was clean.
But although I see no problem with this tech, I will likely never use it myself. More power to those that do, however. Just.......Don't share. Too many STD's out there, same reason prostitution is a bad idea.

[AiliailiA]

Don't worry about it. Like violent video games which some imagined would "normalize" real violence, but did the opposite, sex robots will provide an outlet for what you insultingly call "male aggression". Like a video game, the men (or women btw) who use robots for that will always know it's fake, it is roleplay with a THING not a person and the "violence" is a self indulgence they're permitted only with things, not people.

You think men will rape something that struggles and cries and then calls the police? When they can rape something that struggles and cries then goes off to the bathroom to clean out its tubes then makes Master a sammitch?

Though it disgusts me to even think about that, and maybe I'm not putting myself properly in the head of a rapist, I really can't see it. The underlying idea that obtaining an inferior substitute which fills the need and is relatively cheap and convenient will LEAD TO the person seeking out "the real thing" is just counter to observed human behaviour. People (not just men) actually do the opposite: they get to prefer the substitute in its own right, even preferring it if the choice is available, and they're actually LESS likely ever to take the risk and expense of the "real thing" as long as there is a substitute.

Dunno why I bother really. This is just the debunked "porn will normalize bad this and bad that" argument, moved away from the inconvenient evidence that it does no such thing, and into the relatively untested field of sex robots. Isn't it?

[Gauthier]

Don't worry about it. Like violent video games which some imagined would "normalize" real violence, but did the opposite, sex robots will provide an outlet for what you insultingly call "male aggression". Like a video game, the men (or women btw) who use robots for that will always know it's fake, it is roleplay with a THING not a person and the "violence" is a self indulgence they're permitted only with things, not people.

You think men will rape something that struggles and cries and then calls the police? When they can rape something that struggles and cries then goes off to the bathroom to clean out its tubes then makes Master a sammitch?

Though it disgusts me to even think about that, and maybe I'm not putting myself properly in the head of a rapist, I really can't see it. The underlying idea that obtaining an inferior substitute which fills the need and is relatively cheap and convenient will LEAD TO the person seeking out "the real thing" is just counter to observed human behaviour. People (not just men) actually do the opposite: they get to prefer the substitute in its own right, even preferring it if the choice is available, and they're actually LESS likely ever to take the risk and expense of the "real thing" as long as there is a substitute.

Dunno why I bother really. This is just the debunked "porn will normalize bad this and bad that" argument, moved away from the inconvenient evidence that it does no such thing, and into the relatively untested field of sex robots. Isn't it?

I wonder if the same argument was made for onaholes, dolls and other sex toys in history?

[Philjia]

People (not just men) actually do the opposite: they get to prefer the substitute in its own right, even preferring it if the choice is available, and they're actually LESS likely ever to take the risk and expense of the "real thing" as long as there is a substitute.

Hence why people get addicted to pornography and end up not actually having proper sexy times.

[Chessmistress]

You think men will rape something that struggles and cries and then calls the police? When they can rape something that struggles and cries then goes off to the bathroom to clean out its tubes then makes Master a sammitch?

Though it disgusts me to even think about that, and maybe I'm not putting myself properly in the head of a rapist, I really can't see it. The underlying idea that obtaining an inferior substitute which fills the need and is relatively cheap and convenient will LEAD TO the person seeking out "the real thing" is just counter to observed human behaviour. People (not just men) actually do the opposite: they get to prefer the substitute in its own right, even preferring it if the choice is available, and they're actually LESS likely ever to take the risk and expense of the "real thing" as long as there is a substitute.

This is actually a quite good reasoning, the best I've read so far among those supporting (not opposing in you case) sex robots.
Then why the men at Linz's fair did take the risk and attacked the sex robot that they didn't legally own?

I wonder if the same argument was made for onaholes, dolls and other sex toys in history?

Someone said that I'm for a ban on vibrators.
I'm not supporting a ban on vibrators and their male equivalent.
Because I'm a realistic and pragmatic person: it would be impossible, and it would be even harmful to try to do it.

However my opinion about the matter is that using an object designed to simulate a single body part for a purely sexual function is the text book definition of sexual objectification.
I'm always honest and coherent, at least I try to be so.

[Albrenia]

Honest question here, not trying to be snide or anything, but wasn't the robot or whatever set up so the public could 'interact' with it? I doubt anyone risked harm by doing so.

Secondly, is objectifying an object bad?

[Blasted Craigs]

I just had a funny thought that made me chuckle...
I was discussing this with my wife, and we have differing views.
She thinks it may be bad, I think it is fine.
Then, I said if she died, I would rather invest in a doll (If alone time didn't cut it) instead of risking the expense of a possible divorce if I remarried.(As she is the only person I want romantically in my life)
Then... I thought about what would happen if I died.
My kids would go through my house, sifting through the property, seeing what they want as inheritance...
And upon opening the closet they see, smiling a macabre smile in the dark, waiting to serve her "master", my doll.

"Hello master, is the lingerie to your liking today?"

I could imagine the "Oh my GAWD!"'s that would be uttered, the utter look of disgust as the realize....their dad....
My ghost would probably either be mortified in embarrassment, or howl in laughter.
Then other scenarios popped into my head.

Family feuds over who gets to inherit Grandfathers beloved collectable "Alice" doll take on a whole new meaning.
After moving into the family farm, the new owner is awakened by what he thinks is an intruder, but is actually a doll following a pre-programmed set of instructions to clean and serve at night from a hide away hidden compartment.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Now...on a serious note, the funding for servile robots a la Mr. Handy would be supported by deviants wanting them for lewd purposes, and by making them better at lewd services, the customer base would demand and pay for advancements in other areas, like making a sammich.
This will open up other servile roles the robots could fulfill, like domestic, janitorial, taking care of the elderly, recycling, the list goes on.
The main problem I can foresee is the displacement of labor...but...many world leaders already say their is a shortage of labor due to a shrinking population...so this would make a shrinking population a good thing as less people are needed in servile roles.
For roles that require critical thinking and human oversight, like finance or urban planning, humans will still be needed unless robots are imbued with sentience level AI, as robots will not be suited for these types of jobs, and if imbued with sentience level AI, they should receive full citizenship rights (as they would be sentient, thus a new form of life....but we are generations away from this feat).
So.....let the pervs pay for the development of the future I say. (It could be argued VR would not have been researched for generations yet except for the investment of gamer dollars.)

[Albrenia]

Mr. Handy will never look the same to me again...

[Blasted Craigs]

Mr. Handy will never look the same to me again...

AAAAAAAnd...
My work is done.
He does have a lot of "arms".....
(To be honest, my point was this could lead to purely domestic robots, like Mr. Handy)

[Tybra]

I've been staring at the postion paper of Richardson several times which is the basis of the 'campaign against sex robots' and i still have no clue what they're trying to say.

From what i gather:

Richardson states that Levy’s understanding of the place of sex robots in society is similar to that of a prostitute. The relationship between the sex robot and user are similar to prostitution with a buyer and seller of sex. In prostitution the sellers of sex are not seen as a person but as an object. Men show a lesser ability to show empathy than women, {therefore the use of a dildo is ok but the use of a sex robot that looks like a woman is not?}. Sex robots are therefore seen as an object with which a user can live out his fantasies. The sex robot takes shape of a young attractive woman or potentially a child (as treatment for paedophilia).

Therefore because sex robots are similar prostitutes it’s bad? Honestly I’ve been trying to make sense of Richardson’s argument on multiple occasions. I have tried to make a schema of her arguments and still this was the best I could make of it. It hinges on the fact that human-robot relations will be similar to prostitution as proposed by David Levy (a scholar in favour of sex robots).

From what I gather because men can’t show empathy they’ll transfer their (harmful or dangerous) views and fantasies about women from the sex robots onto the women that would look [similar?] like the robots and because of that robots are a threat to woman.

Problem with this argument is two-fold. First Levy made a rebuttal in which he calls Richardson’s understanding of his argument is slightly misplaced. (link here, skip to 3:13 to avoid some cringy stuff). Funnily enough from Levy's point of view a robot consents and can even love (or emulate it) and be loved.

Second the relationship is so flimsy you could replace sex robots with cars and you get the same nonsensical argument. I still don’t understand how it’s similar to prostitution except for the “it’s like apples and I don’t like apples that's why it's bad too” argument.

If anything I’d argue in favour of sex robots. Currently we’re seeing a trend where young adults experience social interactions at a later date, potentially missing out on crucial development of social skills. Not only are they having sex at a later date but also showing less eye contact, which is crucial in interactions. The adults grow physically more isolated as they retreat into the digital world. In a world where social interactions increasingly done through the digital world sex robots might become an aide of sorts. A safe practice tool of social skills.

There’s also other benefits such as experiencing a larger variety of experiences people were not able to experience before, due to a lack of a willing or capable partner. And the use of sex robots as a potential treatment for paedophilia is an interesting notion.

[Hirota]

Because I'm a realistic and pragmatic person:

I'm always honest and coherent, at least I try to be so.

I'd say you need to try harder with both. Maybe stop indulging in bullshit as a starting point.

[Costa Fierro]

Then why the men at Linz's fair did take the risk and attacked the sex robot that they didn't legally own?

It was not an "attack", the company that made it invited people to touch it, fondle it and apparently use it as intended. It's not as if it was set upon by a bunch of sweaty, smelly, bespectacled morbidly obese men breathing heavily.

I'm not supporting a ban on vibrators and their male equivalent.

Men do not have vibrators. Men have fleshlights.

However my opinion about the matter is that using an object designed to simulate a single body part for a purely sexual function is the text book definition of sexual objectification.

So would you be of the opinion that women using dildos are sexually objectifying men?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Men do not have vibrators. Men have fleshlights.

Not if you're a good sissy.

[Zottistan]

They're not going to "normalise aggression" or lead to violence on a large scale but I do find something about the idea of them creepy in the extreme.

[Dumb Ideologies]

This is instructive in showing how radical feminists' insistence in portraying all male sexuality as potentially violent and dangerous reaches deranged heights - desire is a problem even when sexual activity doesn't involve actual women.

I've not really got any words. The entire foundations underlying the thing are a ridiculous and sexist narrative. Radfems whizz straight out of reality without so much as a hello, past parody and into the realm where sociology and political activism is the thinnest of veneers overlaying the trauma-based mental illness and/or misandry of its main advocates. Like all extremists, they prey on and suck in life's victims, the vulnerable, and the gullible.

Utterly bonkers - the gender studies equivalent of putting pencils up your nose and underpants on your head and repeatedly saying "wibble" in the hopes of getting sent home.

[Blasted Craigs]

It makes one wonder.....If they started out with "male" versions of these sex dolls, if the outcry would have been
This will normalize female aggression against males!
Or if it would be seen as empowering women.
I mean, with toys (dildos, flesh-lights, the like) they started with the male equivalent, dildos.
No outcry(except by butt-hurt religious fanatics), yet they did come out in a different era.
These people remind me of religious fanatics....screaming wolf at anything that might undermine the dogma they are pushing on society.
As I stated, I might think it is creepy and weird, but I think blow up dolls are creepy and weird, and their hasn't been a "normalizing" effect on violence towards men or women due to the availability of the dolls.
If anything, the advent of blow up dolls gave those that were too undesirable a chance to find some semblance of happiness in their otherwise lonely lives.
And robot sex "dolls", as I stated, can lead to advances in technology for automated servile robots, making everyone's lives easier overall.
And I can see this as a tool for Asexual people, that may want a relationship, but do not wish to engage in carnal relations with their partner.
(Often Asexual people do not know they are asexual when entering a relationship, and once they engage in relations, discover they do not like it. Then their are hurt feelings all around, as they cannot or will not "please" their partner, or hurt feelings from them engaging in an activity that turns their stomach because they feel it is wrong to be in a romantic relationship with no carnal activity, or hurt feelings when they realize it won't work and end the relationship, even though they may be in love with each other. By having a "doll", it would be a way for the asexual partner to not feel bad due to not engaging in sexual relations and their partner will get the carnal relations that they desire from a relationship. Not perfect, but a far cry better than the current likely result, which I outlined above.)

[Polvatsiya]

i love how people think that a realistic sex robot is the same as a real woman.

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't worry about it. Like violent video games which some imagined would "normalize" real violence, but did the opposite, sex robots will provide an outlet for what you insultingly call "male aggression". Like a video game, the men (or women btw) who use robots for that will always know it's fake, it is roleplay with a THING not a person and the "violence" is a self indulgence they're permitted only with things, not people.

You think men will rape something that struggles and cries and then calls the police? When they can rape something that struggles and cries then goes off to the bathroom to clean out its tubes then makes Master a sammitch?

Though it disgusts me to even think about that, and maybe I'm not putting myself properly in the head of a rapist, I really can't see it. The underlying idea that obtaining an inferior substitute which fills the need and is relatively cheap and convenient will LEAD TO the person seeking out "the real thing" is just counter to observed human behaviour. People (not just men) actually do the opposite: they get to prefer the substitute in its own right, even preferring it if the choice is available, and they're actually LESS likely ever to take the risk and expense of the "real thing" as long as there is a substitute.

Dunno why I bother really. This is just the debunked "porn will normalize bad this and bad that" argument, moved away from the inconvenient evidence that it does no such thing, and into the relatively untested field of sex robots. Isn't it?

Well put.

"Will mccdonalds and knock off meats lead to a hunting epidemic that will make cows go extinct?"

No, not really. That's not how people work, chess.

A cheap and risk free substitute for a risky behavior, available on demand, is obviously going to reduce that behavior.

[Purpelia]

Speaking of these sex robots is there anywhere I could find out more detail about the actual machine in question as opposed to insane feminist ravings on the subject?