Wow. This lady is every bit as bad as religious conservatives trying to police people’s personal lives. I really don’t get what it is with people who think they’re entitled to make laws about what other people do in their personal lives. Next thing you know, some moralistic asshole will be telling me it’s illegal to smoke DMT. Oh, wait…
Arpeggio of Blue Steel, that sort of thing? (Not sure if those girls count as kawaii, though: bit too fanservicey.)
We’ve been ready since 2000. What happened?
Big Hero Sex.
Good lord, lady, what kind of sex robots populate your fertile imagination?
Do I have to do everything here, people? Gal-AX-y!!
what’s odd is that the same two pics keep reappearing.
oh…it’s a gif
Oh, God, I’m going to get banned for bringing a conventionally unattractive feminist into this, aren’t I?
The reason I brought it up was to
a.) bring a dissenting opinion into the thread. There are people out there who feel like sex robots would make life more miserable, especially for women. I’m not sure I totally agree; if you’re worried about men being obsessed with sex, be angry at evolution, and you might as well ban hand lotion, tissues, and hands for all the good it will do.
b.) it seemed like one of the most Puritan pearl-clutching responses to anything ever. Oh, my God, people might use androids to have sex? Better ban them!
And as an aside, there’s always something a little funny about being angry at feminists for approaching everything from a woman’s perspective. They’re feminists. It’s what they do. You might as well be angry at sports reporters for having a primary focus on sports. If you want someone to also be focused on men’s issues, find some egalitarians, or maybe try to boot the crazies out of the MRA movement (good luck).
As for me…eh…sex with androids sounds like a miserable substitute. If you just want to get off, there’s ways of doing that without shagging something that’s simulating a sexual response.
Why would you be banned? You didn’t say you think she’s ugly therefore she’s against sex robots did you?
@Humbabella can back me up, I would say I’m “not ugly” (and a feminist) and yet in general, I am also against sex robots. Mostly I don’t care, but I do veer more towards do not want.
I’m just curious what this woman’s appearance has to do with anything. Because apparently, if a woman is [quote=“Mal_Tosevite, post:59, topic:73492”]
that is a signifier on what her position will be about sex robots.
I wonder if the inverse is also true? All you men in support of sex robots, put your head shots up here so we can have a gander and see if its the “attractive” men or the “unattractive” men that support sex robots
I’m assuming that, as with robotic weapons systems, the ones that don’t squick us out won’t be classified as ‘robots’(presumably remaining ‘toys’ or ‘marital aids’ depending on the market); while the ones that do squick us out will be classified as robots.
This will probably lead to some…dubiously consistent…judgments where users of exhaustively-detailed but technologically rudimentary humanoid dolls will be classified as sexbot-abusing freaks; while users of more conventionally shaped(but more sensor-studded and algorithmically sophisticated with each model year) hardware will clearly not be using robots at all.
And that’s why the peddlers of such judgments can stuff them where they belong.
Under ideal circumstances, the tendency for such judgments to build up is why we have conceptual clarity professionals on staff. Some philosophers are actually quite good at this(if largely invisible compared to ‘pundits’ and other epistemic black holes). I just get the strong impression that these are not ideal circumstances; and philosophers as a class can be pretty uneven in their expertise.
What I personally find somewhat curious about the ‘zOMG sexbots!’ reaction is how it simultaneously seems to require a belief in customer depravity(since the robots are supposed to contribute to detrimental relationships between humans, the humans have to be malleable enough to get unpleasant ideas from using the robots); but also require sufficient optimism to dismiss the possibility that making robots the easier and more legal option for a variety of already-quite-common detrimental relationships is likely to be a net win for the humans who otherwise would have been involved.
Based on the literature surrounding assorted sex crimes and human trafficking, it appears that there is already a robust demand for compliant and basically disposable sexbots; it’s just that it is currently being filled with whatever humans are cheapest or most readily available. Unless one thinks that they have some very clever plans to address that, opposing actual robots as a philosophical continuation of that market, rather than giving them a shot as a practical palliative for it seems like questionable judgement.
This is why sexbots are opposed. The basis of that demand. Why are we catering to the very worst of humanity? Do you think the people that are already involved in human traffiking can be redeemed through robots? Cuz I don’t. Nor do I think we should be catering to the lowest of the low of human desires. Or would you actually be comfortable making a sexbot look, act and feel like a human four year old child?
I would certainly find it distasteful either way; but given our limited success in policing the suppliers or reforming the buyers; I’d definitely examine the strategy of trying to use robots to fulfill the demand and make abusing humans to do so relatively less attractive and more risky.
It’s not that catering to the worst of humanity is an attractive goal; it’s that it starts to look like the distinctly lesser evil when the current situation isn’t one where it goes uncatered-to; but one where it gets catered to by means of whatever people are most vulnerable. If one could keep that demand occupied with robots, it would redeem nothing and no one; but it would displace a really, really, ugly supply chain currently in operation.
Feb 14th this year is Pris’ inception date.
This sort of thing never happens to me, I must be doing it wrong.
I am less concerned about when we will get sex robots, than when the sex robots will get us.