NSFW? Peggy Olson hung that in her office (after receiving it as a gift from Roger)
But of course it is just most commonly held up as an example of ZOMG WEIRD JAPAN SUPPRESSING WOMENâŚ
I can no longer find @shaddackâs post in question but âagainâ it seems he spoke of the individual not the whole gender.
Indeed but probably few of us here work for an ad agency in the 60s. Probably today that same agency would give her a writeup from HR about creating a hostile work environment.
These days when people sue their employer because there was artistic breasts on a screen, one canât be too careful.
Hrm⌠you are correct. Those comments are gone. Either ninja-edits or a dragon ate them (I didnât flag them, or anything in this thread, just putting that out there).
I have screen caps tho, because I frakking hate ninja-edits, Iâm happy to send them your way. 
1 Like
Correct. I read the article, made a hypothesis about author projecting own personal fears. Philosophy in general is an art of wrapping oneâs fears and prejudices into fancy words, ethics double so. Did an image search, hypothesis was bolstered. Watched the video as well, hypothesis was further bolstered, then published.
She seems to be projecting her own relationship insecurities into her work.
Itâs fairly logical. If your position is weak and you are on the supply side, you are likely to hate new competition. If your position is weak and youâre on the demand side, you are likely to welcome new competition.
Conversely, if your position on the market is strong, you will care much less about emerging competitors that are weaker than you.
Works for any kind of demand/supply situation, whether it is sex or food or consumer goods or anything else.
No ninja edits, I donât do these (with exception of single-character issues and minor grammar/punctuation that does not alter meaning).
I am honored.
No thanks. I donât see any need to pursue this further.
-
Relative availability is one of many ways humans decide the worth of things. The idea that it is an overriding concern that can be used to guess how people will feel about any situation just isnât supported by psychology.
-
The idea that men are consumers of sex and women are suppliers is a hugely sexist idea.
-
As youâve been pointing out this whole thread, the alternative to a sex bot is a hand or a fleshlight or whatever else is around. The idea that women are in competition with sex bots is foolish.
-
It may surprise you, but a large number of women would be extremely happy if guys who thought of them purely as sex objects would go away.
12 Likes
âsupply sideâ - didnât know I was a commodity! LOL
Edit to add: and now weâve come full circle where denial of the content of the missing comments comes into play. /eyeroll
5 Likes
This concern is not overriding per se but it is a rather strong one. There is also the difference between âneedâ and âwantâ; the former is biasing towards availability. You may want good food but you need food.
Fits the demand/supply paradigm. May not be entirely politlcally correct, but that is not a requirement for a model to be fitting.
Other approximations are possible, I favor this one for the simplicity.
Where I did say that? Where exactly?
And yes, men in a way compete with dildos, when it comes to satisfying oneâs sex drive.
A fleshlight or other simple user-operated instrument wonât provide much of a relationship illusion. Cf. the difference between a pet rock and a robotic dog. Canât be more accurate because in a hurry.
Not surprising, actually.
Have to run now, got to consult with some thermal measurements on a large CNC machine frame for thermal expansion compensations. Quite cutting-edge stuff. All-male team of coursem what to expect from an engineering field⌠[sigh]
1 Like
How exactly does it fit a demand/supply paradigm? If âit takes two to tangoâ, then how/why would either party be exclusively on either the demand or supply side of the equation? I suspect that this may be why @anon50609448 said it sounds like a sexist idea. Personally, it always bothers me when I hear people describe the âeconomicsâ of sex as being somehow innately non-mutual. If you are both doing it voluntarily, itâs not like either party is doing the other a favor.
5 Likes
I donât think supply/demand is even very strong. People make decisions of value based on all kinds of foolish biases (goldilocks effect, present bias, fear of loss, familiarity, overvaluing âsalesâ, and on and on), and we only notice availability when it is shoved in our faces very strongly. Supply/demand being a very strong factor is supported by the musings of some guy in the 18th century, not by reality.
As for wants/needs, thatâs a blurry line at all times. If you experience sex-with-another-person as a need, then I donât even see how robots matter to that since they are not people. If you experience sexual-satisfaction-but-not-necessarily-with-another-person as a need then I donât see how robots compete with women for that. If we are talking about a hypothetical future where robots are people then I think everyone should be free to love as they choose, but robots wonât be easier to date than humans.
If itâs simplicity we want, why not model all human relationships as a sphere? The supply/demand paradigm itself is a very bad model of human behaviour and this does not fit that paradigm.
Sorry, I guess others said that and I misremembered. But I think there is a difference between a sex-robot and a relationship-robot. If you are talking about a robot that you could develop real feelings for then thatâs a spectrum. If youâll forgive me a digression, someone I find very interesting in this regard is Davecat (who Iâll admit I first heard of on My Strange Addiction) who is married to a doll, and has another as a mistress. I found this quotation from an interview with him:
Since sexuality is pushed so much to the forefront in our culture, society has pushed imagination to the rear, and itâs really difficult for people to not simply concentrate on the physical appearance of something. My Synthetik partners are very attractive, but theyâre also devoid of any stress-causing potential. They bring comfort and reassurance, and beautify my home, as well as make it less empty.
I can easily find articles about him saying he is a loser and must be a misogynist, but to me it seems fairly obvious that this ability to see sentience in things is far higher than average, and I find it unlikely that he sees women as objects - he doesnât even see objects as objects. Any relationship you can have with a robot that isnât sentient (Iâm not going to pretend I can draw a line under what that means) is going to depend on your ability to project feelings onto them. I think synthetic companions can make a good alternative for people who feel too sensitive to have relationships with other people. I tend to find other people stress-inducing, sometimes even people I like, and I certainly find my spouse very stress-inducing some days (thatâs not a comment on my spouseâs behaviour).
More people will be able to love a robotic dog than a plush dog. More people will be able to love a robotic person that acts in many of the ways that a person acts than a real person. I still donât see how itâs a competition. A real relatioship is stress inducing, it includes the fact that the person you are in a relationship with may one day not want to be in that relationship with you anymore. Maybe theyâll even dislike you for precisely the reasons they once liked you. Maybe theyâll develop a gambling problem or do something to get themselves arrested. Maybe theyâll get diabetes or cancer. You will never have a competition between a compliant substitute person that some people can project personhood onto and a real person. Any apparent competition is false, and it is good that the people who never wanted a real relationship anyway are able to find something else that helps them be happier rather than shoehorning themselves into a relationship they donât want to be in (though it is bad if a lot of people think that relationship-bots are an âeasy way outâ and settle for something that isnât really fulfilling for them).
As I said above, at the point when the robot is capable of having a real relationship with a human, it will no longer make things easier for people who have trouble dating.
I certainly agree with what you are saying with one caveat: sometimes itâs nice to just do someone a favour.
5 Likes
When a sex robot leaks oil itâs a feature!
5 Likes
Who says sexbots have to be humanoid?
They could be built in any form whatsoever. Big ones, small ones, furry ones, metallic ones, two-legged, four-legged or tentacled.
How about all the men who support the development of sexbots post their picture, and all the women whoâve used a vibrator do the same?
Iâll begin.
1 Like
Since you brought up Anakin Skywalker, and we had a talk about sex slaves and sex robots⌠allow me to blow your mind.
Shmi and Anakin were slaves. In a galaxy where you have cheap, disposable droids doing work (even the SLAVES had a droid), WHY would you want a slave you have to house, feed, and clean up after?
Then I realize what KIND of slave Shmi was. She can perform one task a droid couldnât do. And when she got too old to âworkâ, she was sold off to some decrepit farmer.
I mean, the reality is the sex slave trade exists. But it is a pretty dark subject for what Lucas claimed as a kids movie.
10 Likes
More worried about an air bag inflating at the wrong time. Or sudden jerks in the transmissionâŚ
1 Like
Actually, Iâve never been impressed with the capabilities of droids. The humanoids look seriously arthritic and the wheeled droids are much more suitable for interacting with other machines than working in a human environment. Iâm going to ignore the times when R2D2 develops entirely new and implausible capabilities. Shmi could be a cleaner or cook, for all I know.
ETA: Jabbaâs slave dancer seems to make this element much clearer, IMO.
4 Likes
Yeah, dontâcha just hate it when your neighbor borrows things without asking?
(I foresee a whole new genre of comedy routines coming! Er, so to speakâŚ)
2 Likes
Since I donât know which you identify as, itâs hard to interpret that picture.
