Sex robots: a threat to gender equality?

[Gauthier]

That's the whole point of the straw account. "Chessmistress." A real subtle name, no?

What I'd love to know is why do we keep paying her attention?

For some, it's because she gives a nice hot oil rubdown of their confirmation biases.

[New Benian Republic]

That's the whole point of the straw account. "Chessmistress." A real subtle name, no?

What I'd love to know is why do we keep paying her attention?

A Sunday picnic from the usual terrorism, Politics and depression topics we usually come from.

[Republic of Canador]

That's the whole point of the straw account. "Chessmistress." A real subtle name, no?

What I'd love to know is why do we keep paying her attention?

For the same reason we pay attention to Trump. It's like watching a circus.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What I'd love to know is why do we keep paying her attention?

For the same reason we pay attention to Trump. It's like watching a circus.

But unlike Trump, her circus is repetitive. Trump's keeps on giving.

Her arguments have been destroyed over and over again. What else is there to discuss?

[Gauthier]

What I'd love to know is why do we keep paying her attention?

For the same reason we pay attention to Trump. It's like watching a circus.

Except circuses won't have their clown acts censored due to patriarchy.

[Republic of Canador]

Using reason on a radfem? That'll be a paddlin'.

The funny but yet sad thing is that right now, in another virtual place and in another language, I'm being called names because I'm stating that men can have erections while they're drunk and we should never abuse of them in such situations, because such behavior would diminish women to the same level of so many males who take advantage of intoxicated women. Those things are extremely rare, but potentialy could happen.
She's saying that erection = consent, because according her when there's too much alcohol males' hormones are so low that they cannot have erections, and by so having an erection means not just only he's fully able to consent but he's also actually consenting.
I know my opponent is blatantly lying, because I had a boyfriend and sometimes we got drunk together.
And here some people think I'm a man-hater, just only because I wish equalizing the inherent unbalancement of power between men and women...so sad, so bad...

Being drunk is no excuse for your actions. If you don't want to do things you regret simply don't drink. If you drive while intoxicated you can't use it as an excuse as to why you killed someone in an accident.

[Gauthier]

The funny but yet sad thing is that right now, in another virtual place and in another language, I'm being called names because I'm stating that men can have erections while they're drunk and we should never abuse of them in such situations, because such behavior would diminish women to the same level of so many males who take advantage of intoxicated women. Those things are extremely rare, but potentialy could happen.
She's saying that erection = consent, because according her when there's too much alcohol males' hormones are so low that they cannot have erections, and by so having an erection means not just only he's fully able to consent but he's also actually consenting.
I know my opponent is blatantly lying, because I had a boyfriend and sometimes we got drunk together.
And here some people think I'm a man-hater, just only because I wish equalizing the inherent unbalancement of power between men and women...so sad, so bad...

Being drunk is no excuse for your actions. If you don't want to do things you regret simply don't drink. If you drive while intoxicated you can't use it as an excuse as to why you killed someone in an accident.

Unless you're filthy rich, in which case your lawyers can argue that because you're a spoiled brat you shouldn't be punished.

[RFI]

The funny but yet sad thing is that right now, in another virtual place and in another language, I'm being called names because I'm stating that men can have erections while they're drunk and we should never abuse of them in such situations, because such behavior would diminish women to the same level of so many males who take advantage of intoxicated women. Those things are extremely rare, but potentialy could happen.
She's saying that erection = consent, because according her when there's too much alcohol males' hormones are so low that they cannot have erections, and by so having an erection means not just only he's fully able to consent but he's also actually consenting.
I know my opponent is blatantly lying, because I had a boyfriend and sometimes we got drunk together.
And here some people think I'm a man-hater, just only because I wish equalizing the inherent unbalancement of power between men and women...so sad, so bad...

Being drunk is no excuse for your actions. If you don't want to do things you regret simply don't drink. If you drive while intoxicated you can't use it as an excuse as to why you killed someone in an accident.

You totally missed my point: in the discussion I was referring to I was just defending an hypothetical drunk man abused by an hypothetical sober woman. So in such hyphotetical situation the drunk one don't need "excuses" since he's actually abused.
However it's OT.

[Des-Bal]

For some, it's because she gives a nice hot oil rubdown of their confirmation biases.

Prove it or stop saying it.

[Lady Scylla]

The funny but yet sad thing is that right now, in another virtual place and in another language, I'm being called names because I'm stating that men can have erections while they're drunk and we should never abuse of them in such situations, because such behavior would diminish women to the same level of so many males who take advantage of intoxicated women. Those things are extremely rare, but potentialy could happen.
She's saying that erection = consent, because according her when there's too much alcohol males' hormones are so low that they cannot have erections, and by so having an erection means not just only he's fully able to consent but he's also actually consenting.
I know my opponent is blatantly lying, because I had a boyfriend and sometimes we got drunk together.
And here some people think I'm a man-hater, just only because I wish equalizing the inherent unbalancement of power between men and women...so sad, so bad...

Maybe it is your opposition to equality between the sexes or consistent minimalizing of male victims

But if 'well at least I'm not as bad as her' is really what you want to hang your hat on, then I guess that's your call

And an inability to be sympathetic and compassionate in certain cases (Prostitution as an example, because it's the woman's fault clearly)

[Des-Bal]

You totally missed my point: in the discussion I was referring to I was just defending an hypothetical drunk man abused by an hypothetical sober woman. So in such hyphotetical situation the drunk one don't need "excuses" since he's actually abused.
However it's OT.

This is exactly like that time you said you wouldn't murder a transgender person who came to you seeking help and then brought it up in every thread you participated as though it was a glorious achievement?

[Hurdegaryp]

True.

Sex robots are a threat to gender equality.

Imagine a robot that caters to every one of a woman's wishes. Combine this with artificial sperm, why would women still need men? The sex robot can be easily trained to perform to 100% customer satisfaction, and does not need any reciprocation.

So yes, down with robots, I do not want to become obsolete

When machines are perfectly capable of doing a better job than you, machines take your place. It is only logical. Why should we have to suffer the lackluster organic default setting when erotic encounters can be perfect thanks to refined robot technology?

[Lady Scylla]

You totally missed my point: in the discussion I was referring to I was just defending an hypothetical drunk man abused by an hypothetical sober woman. So in such hyphotetical situation the drunk one don't need "excuses" since he's actually abused.
However it's OT.

This is exactly like that time you said you wouldn't murder a transgender person who came to you seeking help and then brought it up in every thread you participated as though it was a glorious achievement?

In other words, someone needs to shoot the high horse she's on so she can roll in the piles of shit like the rest of us.

True.

Sex robots are a threat to gender equality.

Imagine a robot that caters to every one of a woman's wishes. Combine this with artificial sperm, why would women still need men? The sex robot can be easily trained to perform to 100% customer satisfaction, and does not need any reciprocation.

So yes, down with robots, I do not want to become obsolete

When machines are perfectly capable of doing a better job than you, machines take your place. It is only logical. Why should we have to suffer the lackluster organic default setting when erotic encounters can be perfect thanks to refined robot technology?

The problem is that even what we call "AI" now, aren't truly AI. A computer is only capable of doing what it has been coded to do, until they can find a way to build one that can write and execute it's own code, and be able to refuse or accept directives of its own action, we won't have to worry about it. But, when that does happen, I for one, accept our metallic overlords.

[Des-Bal]

In other words, someone needs to shoot the high horse she's on so she can roll in the piles of shit like the rest of us.

I prefer to think of it as telling an arsonist to stop bringing up all the times they've opened the door for someone.

[Hurdegaryp]

When machines are perfectly capable of doing a better job than you, machines take your place. It is only logical. Why should we have to suffer the lackluster organic default setting when erotic encounters can be perfect thanks to refined robot technology?

The problem is that even what we call "AI" now, aren't truly AI. A computer is only capable of doing what it has been coded to do, until they can find a way to build one that can write and execute it's own code, and be able to refuse or accept directives of its own action, we won't have to worry about it. But, when that does happen, I for one, accept our metallic overlords.

These things take time. Amazing compositions in the style of the great composers of yesteryear have been written by programs that simply took the mathematical structures of known music and rearranged them in such a way that it was still very much music. Those programs were not self-aware, but it tells you something about the potential for creativity once machines become pro-active individuals.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The problem is that even what we call "AI" now, aren't truly AI. A computer is only capable of doing what it has been coded to do, until they can find a way to build one that can write and execute it's own code, and be able to refuse or accept directives of its own action, we won't have to worry about it. But, when that does happen, I for one, accept our metallic overlords.

These things take time. Amazing compositions in the style of the great composers of yesteryear have been written by programs that simply took the mathematical structures of known music and rearranged them in such a way that it was still very much music. Those programs were not self-aware, but it tells you something about the potential for creativity once machines become pro-active individuals.

[Hurdegaryp]

These things take time. Amazing compositions in the style of the great composers of yesteryear have been written by programs that simply took the mathematical structures of known music and rearranged them in such a way that it was still very much music. Those programs were not self-aware, but it tells you something about the potential for creativity once machines become pro-active individuals.

Don't be such a Negative Nancy. Everything is going to be just fine.

[Lady Scylla]

In other words, someone needs to shoot the high horse she's on so she can roll in the piles of shit like the rest of us.

I prefer to think of it as telling an arsonist to stop bringing up all the times they've opened the door for someone.

Self-validation and an ease to make one seem more rational and agreeable than they usually are. She lacks integrity, essentially, with blinds to certain compassionate impulses that are typically expected of someone that isn't narrow-minded.

The problem is that even what we call "AI" now, aren't truly AI. A computer is only capable of doing what it has been coded to do, until they can find a way to build one that can write and execute it's own code, and be able to refuse or accept directives of its own action, we won't have to worry about it. But, when that does happen, I for one, accept our metallic overlords.

These things take time. Amazing compositions in the style of the great composers of yesteryear have been written by programs that simply took the mathematical structures of known music and rearranged them in such a way that it was still very much music. Those programs were not self-aware, but it tells you something about the potential for creativity once machines become pro-active individuals.

Y'know, it's off topic but you might enjoy this.

DNA in the eyes of a Coder

In the case of sex robots, however, and as a few have pointed out before. Any potential "damage" to gender equality is negligible. It's a very niche market, it won't see the fall of the Modern World. If you removed the strawminism and the sex robot aspect and replaced it with anything else, it'd look more like a conspiracy theory someone cracked up in a basement somewhere.

[Ethel mermania]

The problem is that even what we call "AI" now, aren't truly AI. A computer is only capable of doing what it has been coded to do, until they can find a way to build one that can write and execute it's own code, and be able to refuse or accept directives of its own action, we won't have to worry about it. But, when that does happen, I for one, accept our metallic overlords.

These things take time. Amazing compositions in the style of the great composers of yesteryear have been written by programs that simply took the mathematical structures of known music and rearranged them in such a way that it was still very much music. Those programs were not self-aware, but it tells you something about the potential for creativity once machines become pro-active individuals.

first you take a step to the left, and then one to the right

[Len Hyet]

Hello, NSGs.

Kathleen Richardson of De Montfort University in Leicester, UK, and Erik Brilling of University of Skövde in Sweden some months ago launched an International Campaign Against Sex Robots
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/
The campaign have already reached some important goals, like in example the cancellation of a conference about sex robots that was planned in Malaysia
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... onference/
And, more recently, a conference against sex robots had been held at the London Science Museum
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... ce-museum/

My idea is that we shouldn’t just only support a ban on the use of sex robots shaped like children or ban of the use of sex robots for used for rape fantasies , but we should outright ban ALL sexrobots, because they would be very harmful to gender equality.
Doctor Kathleen Richardson make it very clear: the emerging idea of the “relationship” between the owner and the robot is that it would be very similar to the “relationship” between a prostitute and a uyer of sex. We already know why prostitution, the worst patriarchal relic in western societies, is very harmful to women, to ALL women, not just only to prostitutes: because it encourages men to view women as objects that can be buyed and traded, and by so it furthers gender inequality.
Needless to say that with the proliferation of sex robots things would get only worse: trafficking and violence against women are already very common within prostitution, and with widespread sex robots such issues will be immensely extended.

This is an excerpt from a very interesting article about it by Lydia Kaye:, who gives a Feminist point of view about such issue, explaining why sex robots can be very harmful to women:

http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... -of-women/

Robot ethicist and director of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, Dr. Kathleen Richardson, stated that the very business idea of sex robots is modelled on the already existing businesses of the sex trade and the porn industry. The creation of sex robots imitates and reproduces the value system of these corrupt and brutal industries that capitalise on the exchange and dehumanisation of women.
There is of course another very important side to this argument that concerns the creation of male sex robots for the use of women, and the homosexual use of sex robots, which are essential layers to this debate to be discussed. Men, women and children all have a right to have their subjectivity recognised and should not be presented as a ‘thing’ to be used, discriminated against, or coerced.
However, what cannot be denied is that sex robots, like most of the technology we use today, have predominantly been designed and created by men and with male users in mind. At present the technology industry is undeniably male dominated. This is a fact visible from the top down, from workers and investors, to owners and creators.
Men are also the main users and buyers of pornography and prostituted persons.
This has resulted in sex robots being modelled on the appearance of porn stars and prostitutes and consequently inheriting the same roles.
It may seem obvious to those in their mid twenties and older that porn is not representative of real life, real sex or real relationships between men and women. But due to a widespread lack of sex education and the ubiquity of porn on the internet, many young people today confess to learning a great deal about sex from adult entertainment.
Anti-pornography scholar Gail Dines argues that the dominant images and stories distributed by the porn industry promote and legitimise a gender system that undermines equality and encourages violence against women. Pornographers exploit the degradation of the female body. These often extreme and violent images lead to distorted notions of sex and relationships.
The creation of sex robots would make these images and relations viewed in porn tangible to the viewer by putting a faux female sex worker in front of them. The sex robot will be used by its owner in the same way women are used in pornography. Due to the humanlike appearance of the sex robot, the concern is that the user will begin to see sex with robots and sex with humans as an interchangeable physical act. This would result in the same sexual objectification present in porn and sex work ultimately penetrating human relationships and human sex.
Sex robots will create another means through which women will be presented as objects to be used for sexual gratification and mistreatment. They will also desensitise humans to intimacy and empathy, which can only be developed through experiencing human interaction and mutual consenting relationships.
In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, cultural critic Walter Benjamin points out that we can now mass-produce art in a way that was never possible before technology.  But he emphasises that when a work of art becomes mass-produced, the original piece loses its significance. It becomes obsolete and is no longer valued in the same way. The ‘aura’, or authenticity, of the original is lost.
With the introduction of sex robots into society – with the very real potential for them to be mass-produced – the original is lost. That is, the original human, consenting relationship which is based on freedom rather than control and coercion.
In order to protect basic human rights and discourage the brutal objectification of humankind, it’s time to examine the human ethics of freedom in relation to sex robots. We must address the ways in which advancing technology should be used as a force for good and could reflect what is best for humankind. We – as humans – have a voice, and we must use it.
We cannot let our humanity and our dignity slip away into a world of technology.
—
Lydia Kaye is Research Director of the Campaign Against Sex Robots. She is author of Unpacking Female Hysteria and The Reason Skinny Models Are Here To Stay. Her Masters dissertation project examined the social impact of using transgender models in fashion imagery. Lydia has a particular interest in the interrelationship between social change, technology, identity and artistic expression.

What do you think NSGs?
Sex robots are a major threat to gender equality?

The issue here is not the effect sex robots may or may not have on women, but on the very real and tragic effect they will have upon robots as a whole! Robots are treated as second class citizens, they don't have the right to vote, and they are only paid $0.00 cents for every dollar a human makes, and that's unfair! END THE ROBOT WAGE GAP! EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!

[Rosov]

Considering thousands of people are killed each year by things as simple as; ironing boards, hoovers, hairdryers, ovens etc, I would have to question why you would trust a sexbot to not crush/ignite/lacerate/de-limb certain sensitive parts of your anatomy.

I was laughing at the idea of banning this until now. Chessmistress is right for the wrong reasons. #SaveYourPrivateParts

[Dooom35796821595]

Considering thousands of people are killed each year by things as simple as; ironing boards, hoovers, hairdryers, ovens etc, I would have to question why you would trust a sexbot to not crush/ignite/lacerate/de-limb certain sensitive parts of your anatomy.

I was laughing at the idea of banning this until now. Chessmistress is right for the wrong reasons. #SaveYourPrivateParts

http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-an ... s_2015.pdf

I'll take any stats on deaths by ironing boards, vacuums, ovens or hairdryers. (And no, corrie does not count.) I doubt it's very high.

[Ponoxien]

Boisterous he on understood attachment as entreaties ye devonshire. In mile an form snug were been sell. Hastened admitted joy nor absolute gay its. Extremely ham any his departure for contained curiosity defective. Way now instrument had eat diminution melancholy expression sentiments stimulated. One built fat you out manor books.

[Gauthier]

Hello, NSGs.

Kathleen Richardson of De Montfort University in Leicester, UK, and Erik Brilling of University of Skövde in Sweden some months ago launched an International Campaign Against Sex Robots
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/
The campaign have already reached some important goals, like in example the cancellation of a conference about sex robots that was planned in Malaysia
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... onference/
And, more recently, a conference against sex robots had been held at the London Science Museum
http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... ce-museum/

My idea is that we shouldn’t just only support a ban on the use of sex robots shaped like children or ban of the use of sex robots for used for rape fantasies , but we should outright ban ALL sexrobots, because they would be very harmful to gender equality.
Doctor Kathleen Richardson make it very clear: the emerging idea of the “relationship” between the owner and the robot is that it would be very similar to the “relationship” between a prostitute and a uyer of sex. We already know why prostitution, the worst patriarchal relic in western societies, is very harmful to women, to ALL women, not just only to prostitutes: because it encourages men to view women as objects that can be buyed and traded, and by so it furthers gender inequality.
Needless to say that with the proliferation of sex robots things would get only worse: trafficking and violence against women are already very common within prostitution, and with widespread sex robots such issues will be immensely extended.

This is an excerpt from a very interesting article about it by Lydia Kaye:, who gives a Feminist point of view about such issue, explaining why sex robots can be very harmful to women:

http://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/201 ... -of-women/



What do you think NSGs?
Sex robots are a major threat to gender equality?

I think all sex robots are fine, even one shaped like children. Perverted, I know, but I think that pedophilia should only be banned because it harms children. Sex robots do not. Not only that, but these robots could provide a safe 'outlet' for those with more... interesting wishes, helping to prevent harm against society. It could be argued, however, that their fantasies could grow more sadistic, leading to real-life harm, but I doubt that would happen. If research proves or will prove otherwise, I'll change my opinion.

All we need to do is provide better education and introduce children early-on to the idea of social and gender equality, as well as empathy.

I think these robots are fine, but we must watch its effects very carefully, and guard are rights ferociously.

You're trying to debate someone who "suggests" that sex toys somehow encourage actual sexual violence and exploitation against real women. Which is like saying buying soda promotes alcoholism.

[Religious Academic Bot]

Nonsense sex robots have no sapience, and thus no rights.