25 points | by domofutu10 hours ago
Glad that the article does take the whole subject to task but I’m just kinda ready to move on to something more useful. It’s a continued media engagement over things that were vacuous to begin with.
(Granted I work in the industry so this is also a case of massive overexposure heh.)
There’s interesting stuff happening in sex tech, but sex with robots sure ain’t it.
They are LITERALLY objects.
I think this is obviously not about protecting the female robots, but about eliminating competition.
Let's be honest about it: affordable high-quality sexbots could dramatically upset the current balance between the sexes. And it's not the men who are afraid of that.
How much sexual power each woman has, that is highly individual. Some women are more attractive than others. Some women have many other qualities, but for some this is the greatest leverage they have. Therefore, if that power suddenly dropped to zero, because of abundance of cheap robotic sex, different women would be impacted differently. Some of them might be even happy about it, as you suggest.
But it seems that many women are concerned, because when similar topics are discussed in the news, there if often women who insist on policing male sexuality. Sometimes, like when discussing prostitution, porn, or just too much free sex, this is done under the pretext of protecting the exploited women. And yes, there is also that aspect. But when the debate moves to e.g. computer-generated porn, where there are absolutely no real women involved... still, some women are concerned about that, too. This article was about robots, and - quite predictably - some woman was publicly concerned about that, too. So it seems like worrying about the exploited women is not the full story here, because the problem remains even if there are no real women involved.
As a contrast, imagine the discussion instead being about slavery (in a parallel reality when Confederation won the war). Someone would ask "what if in future the robotic slaves will replace the labor of black slaves?". Probably everyone who opposes slavery would say: "great, the sooner that happens, the better!" If we care about humans, then the same thing happening to robots instead of humans is an improvement. But when we talk about how male sexuality is somehow inconvenient for women, when someone says "what about robotic sex instead", the response is always "nope, that would be problematic, too." Which suggests that the problematic part is not about what happens to women, but about what men are allowed to do (even to objects).
That women have "leverage" by being more attractive is an insane take considering that by being more attractive (whatever we assume that to mean - people have different types) means that in the eyes of the patriarchy you are perceived as MORE of an object, and treated more like one. This can literally start younger than you remember. Perhaps the worry you see by many women around you is more likely attributed to, well... how the introduction and popularity of literal objects made purely for the sexual desire of men just makes the fact that those same men see you just like they see a sex doll far more obvious.
But again, we are discussing literally ~50% of the planet. There are women who likely thrive off of objectification (as you assume all women do). There are women who do probably want to be affirmed based off of other qualities about themselves. There are women who aren't attracted to men sexually or romantically. There are women who don't want any validation/affirmation from men. There are all kinds of people.
"Women have been policing sexuality" is literally bonkers. It's like we've suddenly forgotten about living in patriarchy? I'm not surprised considering this is a forum for predominantly male and terminally-online tech people, but still. This comment makes you seem uncomfortable about your own sexual desires. Men have been taught to see women as objects, and it is expected that you would desire someone purely based off of looks. You are probably self-aware that such desires are pretty shallow, though.
I'm not saying that sex robots are bad. I think its... a little weird honestly, but you do you. People deserve whatever sexual gratification they want. But, if you're wondering WHY "the response is always 'nope, that would be problematic, too.'..." maybe consider the possibility that its not about what men are ALLOWED to do, but what THEY ALREADY DO. I'm still not convinced that this really is the response all the time though, in the first place. Again, people are different.
A vibrator is a robot, in many ways. It maybe isn't a full personification of a human, but that hasn't seemed to hurt their popularity.
The difference is that women, don't seem to be looking to replace a human partner with a robot, but men who are not able to attract a female, seem to be willing to make this exchange.
I think we need to be honest about what people are getting out of these interactions.
A woman wants sexual gratification. As far as I know the relationship with the vibrator doesn't go much beyond that.
A man wants ego gratification. I suspect that's why it is important that it be a physical embodiment. If it was just about physical gratification, that is possible without having to make a humanoid robot. But for him to feel like he is king of the hill and has attracted the ultimate (in his mind) feminine, he needs that person looking/feeling thing. They even go so far as to make them talk to build up the man's ego even further.
Projecting much or where did you learn about this distinction?
When media become available showing robots "having sex" with other robots, will it be classified as porn ? And, what form will the uncanny valley take ?
Doesn't appeal to me either, btw; I spend enough time glued to computers.
Can't see it doing much to cure loneliness; but who knows, people in general seem to get a lot more out of their souped-up Elizas than I do already.