Thread: Sex robots - should they be banned? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029522
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It is apparently a thing: Sex robots will be 'detrimental' to society, ethicists say.
But it leads to a wider question: is sexuality that doesn't involve a relationship with another human problematic? If a sex robot was available, would using it or "having a relationship" with it be appropriate.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
It would be sad if a person were to avoid a relationship with another human being in order to have sex with inanimate objects. In the world as it's currently constructed, however, I'm fairly sure that there are already people who would rather masturbate than deal with another person. Do we spend a lot of time worrying about such people?
It seems much more likely to me that these ethicists have invented a problem in order to get their names in the newspaper.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Roughly as many households contain vibrators, as contain a dishwasher. I think the ethicist maybe many, many decades too late.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Roughly as many households contain vibrators, as contain a dishwasher. I think the ethicist maybe many, many decades too late.
Well, a vibrator may be used in conjunction with a physical relationship. Hands and the creative use of other objects existed long before the battery regardless.
However, a robot is still a different matter. Without personal experience in this, I would assume the currently existing sex dolls have a use component which is beyond merely mechanical assistance. The form is an important part of the experience.
A robot, which could mimic behaviour, much more so.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is already something similar in existence, in Japan. Where men(it is always men) can buy a long pillow, and put a pillow case on it imprinted with the image of an anime character. There are men who carry their pillows with them everywhere. (There is a Japanese word for these pillows, and these men, which I can't recall, alas.)
Your reaction, I am sure, is laughter, contempt, and possibly pity. I suggest that a sex robot will elicit a similar response. (And those things will cost big, much more than a pillow and a pillow case. Think car.)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Where men(it is always men) can buy a long pillow, and put a pillow case on it imprinted with the image of an anime character.
No, it isn't always men, or the boyfriend pillow wouldn't be an easily searchable term.
Most of the people I know (even the ones who are married) are lonely sometimes.
The lack of a viable partner doesn't make most people's sex drives or desire for non-sexual touch disappear.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Pillows, at least, don't cause much trouble. (And the cover is machine washable.) It would be a brave man who would put his organ into a machine. There must be some chance of failure, after all.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Pillows, at least, don't cause much trouble. (And the cover is machine washable.) It would be a brave man who would put his organ into a machine. There must be some chance of failure, after all.
TBH, where some men put their dicks always amazes me.
I am in two minds about sex robots. On the one hand, if that is what people want to spend their money on, and get their sex without relationship, why not. If it thereby reduces the number of women who are driven into prostitution, it may be a good thing. It is relationship-less sex that doesn't damage another individual directly.
At the same time, I remember watching "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" (and blogged on it, if you are interested), in which Belle De Jour explained that for many of her clients, it was not the sexual act at all, but the company, the openness, the lack of pretence that they wanted. Maybe, a sex robot could help some people in this - like the Japanese pillows, but slightly less weird. Some people struggle mightily with making relationships, but need the company.
The other part of me says that accepting sex as something distinct from a relationship is damaging. By making them more engaging (i.e. less of a blow up doll), there is a danger that some people will then not develop any ability to have a relationship with a real human.
Watching Humans, which did address this in some detail, has mainly helped me see both sides of the issue.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Qualitatively, is the disaggregation of the sexual act from human contact any different to something like this?
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/14/no-stigma-single-mothers-denmark-solomors
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think we need to get worried when sex robots start saying "Not tonight darling, I've got an headache."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Phew, I just broke out in a sweat at the thought of putting my dick in a machine, as somebody said, even if it is all padded rubber, or whatever.
And it was not a pleasant sweat.
Banning them is absurd though.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
I'm just wondering where you put the oil. I get quite concerned regarding the fact that 'sexual experience enhancers' are getting more advanced as our technology progresses. Some computer software technology came about due the possibility of its being used to view pornography online. What you have is a cumulative separation of the physical and brain chemical side of sex, from the encounter with a real human - with all the reality and vulnerability which that entails. I'm really not sure how it can be prevented though.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think we need to get worried when sex robots start saying "Not tonight darling, I've got an headache."
Or Daleks invading earth with the cry of "Fornicate! Fornicate!"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If I say 'Not tonight darling' to the robot, will she get in a huff and refuse to knit me a jumper?
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Roughly as many households contain vibrators, as contain a dishwasher. I think the ethicist maybe many, many decades too late.
I think there are ethical issues arising from a sex device that looks human. Not just looks like a body part but a person.
How does it affect the way men* interact with real women if they become used to using things that look like women for sex?
What will happen when you can have one that looks like Angelina Jolie? Or your ex-? or the woman you're stalking?
How young looking will they be allowed to be? Someone could, and therefore probably will, argue that a child shaped robot is a "safe" expression for paedophile sexual desires. I imagine those will be banned but I equally imagine there'll be some boundary blurring. Someone already mentioned Anime characters, which can often be a mix of adult sexual features with child-like faces.
I'm really not trying to invoke moral panic, but I think there are implications that need thinking through. I'd be against outright banning but I suspect some sort of regulation is in order - health and safety if nothing else.
--
(*obviously the question could be asked re: women-men or men-men or women-women but I think men will be the biggest users and given gender issues as they stand it's also a more worrying scenario)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Apple's next unveiling will be the latest in hands-free devices, a flexible tablet made of latex which industry insiders are calling "The Sexible". Apple may call it iSex or iFU. It hooks up wirelessly to a Google Glass type of interface, ear phones and a butt plug. They will also be teaming up with Google's driverless car, which will interface with heated and lubricated seats. Reviewers commented that long trips seem to last forever in the car, but they don't care.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Apple's next unveiling will be the latest in hands-free devices, a flexible tablet made of latex which industry insiders are calling "The Sexible". Apple may call it iSex or iFU. It hooks up wirelessly to a Google Glass type of interface, ear phones and a butt plug. They will also be teaming up with Google's driverless car, which will interface with heated and lubricated seats. Reviewers commented that long trips seem to last forever in the car, but they don't care.
If the late Steve Jobs was still alive, perhaps he'd change his first name to 'Hand'.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There's been a lot of talk among MRAs about the advent of sexbots, and how they'll be great for putting us uppity women in our place. Personally, I've always felt that anyone who thinks that a robot is an acceptable, even superior replacement for a human being, is better off not trying to date other humans, and those other humans are certainly better off without them.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Definitely yes. I don't need a machine moaning about how crap I am at it. I get enough of that on the front cover of women's magazines.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sticking the word 'banned' in the title of this thread is a bit strange. Why would our governments ban these robots? They haven't banned pornography, which in some cases also provides a replacement for sexual relationships with real people.
Our political leaders in the West don't appear to be very interested in limiting the sexual behaviour of their people, and I can't see how they would succeed if they tried to do so now.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is apparently a thing: Sex robots will be 'detrimental' to society, ethicists say.
But it leads to a wider question: is sexuality that doesn't involve a relationship with another human problematic? If a sex robot was available, would using it or "having a relationship" with it be appropriate.
Is it any different from a sophisticated vibrator?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is a long long history of authority -trying- to limit the sexual behavior of people, and mostly not succeeding. At some point (as with clothing regulations) whacking your head against a brick wall becomes futile, and you seek a better way.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Does it mean that whatever genetic, epigenetic and nurtural influences lead to men who would prefer something mechanical that would show us uppity women our place would cease to be passed on, and the users would become a diminishing part of society? (I can think of many, many reasons why homosexuals can be a valuable part of society and why families that produce them would not lead to a diminution of their number, but men who prefer silent inhuman recipients probably don't serve any obvious societal need that needs to be passed on. I'm sure that any skills they have could be adequately provided by others.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What about women who like vibrators? It's interesting that the discussion has veered towards 'the dick in the machine' as if robots would be for men. Yet a vibrator is already a mechanical dick, isn't it? Granted, it is used by both men and women.
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a long long history of authority -trying- to limit the sexual behavior of people, and mostly not succeeding. At some point (as with clothing regulations) whacking your head against a brick wall becomes futile, and you seek a better way.
Would you please explain this to the morality police, AKA the Republican Part, here in the USA. They seem not o have gotten this memo.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What about women who like vibrators? It's interesting that the discussion has veered towards 'the dick in the machine' as if robots would be for men. Yet a vibrator is already a mechanical dick, isn't it? Granted, it is used by both men and women.
Ah yes, but unlike a robot, it can't mow the lawn.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a long long history of authority -trying- to limit the sexual behavior of people, and mostly not succeeding. At some point (as with clothing regulations) whacking your head against a brick wall becomes futile, and you seek a better way.
Would you please explain this to the morality police, AKA the Republican Part, here in the USA. They seem not o have gotten this memo.
In reality, though, the USA is probably one of the most sexually liberated countries on the planet. Despite its anxiety over gay marriage (which appears to be a struggle about legalities, more than sexual behaviour) what it represents to most of the world is unbridled sexuality, not sexual restraint or abstinence.
If the Republicans really wanted to control sexual behaviour they'd have to do more to influence popular culture. Focusing on the legalities of DH issues seems to be starting from the wrong end.
[ 18. September 2015, 14:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What about women who like vibrators? It's interesting that the discussion has veered towards 'the dick in the machine' as if robots would be for men. Yet a vibrator is already a mechanical dick, isn't it? Granted, it is used by both men and women.
Ah yes, but unlike a robot, it can't mow the lawn.
I am hearing talk of a de luxe Swiss Army Knife, complete with vibrator, a variety of other sex toys, and miniature lawn mower. It should appeal to all sexes and classes. Price, TBA.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
In that case, you'd better be damn sure the right tool is out, before it's put into action.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
In that case, you'd better be damn sure the right tool is out, before it's put into action.
This is turning into 'Live at the Apollo', but I had a girl-friend who used to say that. Apologies, (that's for the joke, not the sex).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What about women who like vibrators? It's interesting that the discussion has veered towards 'the dick in the machine' as if robots would be for men. Yet a vibrator is already a mechanical dick, isn't it? Granted, it is used by both men and women.
Well, since this hasn't been yet addressed, I shall take a stab.*
Though there are likely people who have romantic attachment to their mechanical accessories,** they would be rare.
ISTM, a sex robot would be substantially different. The Japanese pillow phenomenon hints at this. Otherwise it would just be fleshlights and vibrators those folks are carrying.
*Pun intended, oh hell yes.
**by the way, vibrators come in innies as well as outies
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
In that case, you'd better be damn sure the right tool is out, before it's put into action.
This is turning into 'Live at the Apollo', but I had a girl-friend who used to say that. Apologies, (that's for the joke, not the sex).
If you'd apologised for the sex, may she wouldn't be an ex.
[ 18. September 2015, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
This article is fairly long and 4 years old, but it has stuck in my head because of its depressing theme about young men who, after growing up on internet porn from about age 14, find that real women just don't do it for them.
The real women have flaws, and their timing and actions don't perfectly fit the ideal in the young men's minds, so they either choose not to date at all, or marry and live to regret the decision when their wives rudely intrude on their sweet, sweet alone time with their beloved computer screen.
I don't think the robot women will be able to compete with the infinite variety of the porn channels.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Why on earth don't you think a sex robot won't be connected to online porn?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is it any different from a sophisticated vibrator?
Perhaps. A vibrator is clearly a mechanical device, and can perform its mechanical function. A sex robot, on the other hand, is an artificial person who could (presumably, eventually...) be programmed to fulfill your every sexual fantasy without regard for its own pleasure or comfort.
Basically, the sex robot is interactive porn. The issues that Twilight refers to about people expecting porn to represent reality, and so not being able to form a proper relationship with another actual real person would I expect only be magnified if these people had a programmable compliant artificial sex slave instead of videos on their computer.
So I think they're unhealthy, and generally a bad idea.
But should they be banned? No, I don't think so. I don't generally subscribe to that kind of nasty illiberal control-freakery.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In reality, though, the USA is probably one of the most sexually liberated countries on the planet. Despite its anxiety over gay marriage (which appears to be a struggle about legalities, more than sexual behaviour) what it represents to most of the world is unbridled sexuality, not sexual restraint or abstinence.
I don't think the USA is especially liberated. I think it is the most sexually commercialized country on the planet. Selling things is the core value, not being liberated. Doffing one's clothes and going to a public spa or on a nude nature walk in Germany sound more liberated to me. And countries where good food is more important than good sex.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Liberation through commercialisation, you could say. 'I shop, therefore I am'.
These 'sex robots' may be made in prudish China, but you can guarantee that they'll be branded and commercialised on the global market via American popular culture - pop and rap videos, Hollywood movies, etc. Nudism among a wrinkly ageing population in Germany won't be the thing at all!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I'm with PennyS. Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn will do just that. And they will be gone in a generation.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm with PennyS. Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn will do just that. And they will be gone in a generation.
I strongly suspect that "Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn" is nurture, not nature, and so this won't help.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm with PennyS. Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn will do just that. And they will be gone in a generation.
You can do a lot of damage in a generation.
I don't think it'll be that clean and tidy. Just like there are (young) women today having to deal with men brought up on porn, and just as plenty of partnered men use prostitutes, there will be men who use both sex robots and date/partner/have kids with real women.
I also don't believe it's a genetic trait anyway. I believe that there's a lot of learned behaviour that'll be re-learned by the next generation if the machines exist.
Slightly tangentially, but related: someone posted a micro-SF story on Twitter today. Para-phrasing,
quote:
We didn't mistreat the intelligent machines, they were too expensive to do that. The robots decided to rebel when they saw how we treat one another.
[edit: beaten to the punch by LC!]
[ 18. September 2015, 16:52: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm with PennyS. Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn will do just that. And they will be gone in a generation.
I strongly suspect that "Men who can only get it up with sex robots and porn" is nurture, not nature, and so this won't help.
Absolutely. It's the fact that young, neuroplastic brains can see unrealistic pornography which is the problem. That is nurture enough that lack of procreation isn't going to make much difference.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don't know.
Maybe, like all wankers and porn watchers, they will simply compartmentalise their behaviour. (Mind you, a life size robot linked to porn won't be as easy to hide from whoever they are hiding from)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Just because most people probably think something is tacky, tawdry and rather grubby, and some people are saying it might be capable of having some unexpected detrimental side effects, why does it immediately follow that it must be banned? Why this urge not just to tell other people what to do, but to compel them to do so?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Indeed.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't know.
(Mind you, a life size robot linked to porn won't be as easy to hide from whoever they are hiding from)
H'mmmm very true.
Let's face it how's a fellow going to get a robot out of the cupboard in the middle of the night without waking the other half.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I was just reading an intriguing Cracked article about male prostitutes, and a couple really sweet sounding guys talked about their function as sex surrogates-- in countries where it is legal, they often get referrals from sex therapists. They talked about women who suffered from vaginismus who needed help gradually relaxing enough to be penetrated, rape and molestation survivors who needed a safe place to learn to enjoy sex again, women who had just suffered through so many inattentive partners that they needed an opportunity to get off once in a while. The response to " bs, women can walk into a bar and get laid for free by just asking" was met with " -- but well? Can she be laid well with just anyone?" (interestingly, they said that a woman who books a male pro usually goes through with it, while male clients disproportionately chicken out.)
It got me thinking-- sexual or sensual services-- whether it be a pro or a full body massage, even cuddle buddies! --are traditionally marketed for men. ( I looked up a local cuddle buddy site out of curiousity, and the recruiting manager flat out told men not to apply. )
First this pissed me off-- women are mammals too, dammit, and lack of cuddling carries actual health risks-- but then I recognized a lot of women would find it pretty scary to just invite some stranger into their house, for cuddling or sex. I bet a lot of women who do use prostitutes/ masseurs/ whatever require firm references before the guys even get in the door.
The sex robot, however, is risk free- it doesn't carry STDs, will not force itself on you, and will not leave you orgasm-less. You get complete control of the experience.
I guess I'm saying-- boy is there a huge niche for this product, and if they don't figure out a way to market it to women, they are idiots.
Amy Shumer can be the spokes gal--"Last f***able day? I'll be the judge of that!"
[ 19. September 2015, 00:15: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on
:
I don't see it being much of an issue. We have blow up dolls, fleshlights (don't ask) and stuff I don't think I even want to know about. All the above seem to see more punchlines than climaxes, so to speak, and I imagine sexbots would be the same once the novelty wore off.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(BTW, here is the article I was referencing. Took me a while to get of suckacious, browser crashing iOS.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If it thereby reduces the number of women who are driven into prostitution, it may be a good thing.
I'm not sure women are driven into prostitution by the demand so much as by lack of alternatives. (I mean alternatives for THEM, not for their clients.)
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Our political leaders in the West don't appear to be very interested in limiting the sexual behaviour of their people,
Can't agree here. The GOP in the US has spent a great deal of money and political capital to demonize unmarried women who have sex, to make birth control difficult or impossible to get, to specifically make it legal to fire women for using birth control, and so forth. They seem to be VERY interested in limiting the sexual behavior of their people. Or of the female ones, at least.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the Republicans really wanted to control sexual behaviour they'd have to do more to influence popular culture. Focusing on the legalities of DH issues seems to be starting from the wrong end.
You are confusing what they want to do with how good they are at it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure women are driven into prostitution by the demand so much as by lack of alternatives. (I mean alternatives for THEM, not for their clients.)
It is both. Desperate women (and men) and a demand for those services.
quote:
Originally posted by ProgenitorDope:
I don't see it being much of an issue. We have blow up dolls, fleshlights (don't ask) and stuff I don't think I even want to know about. All the above seem to see more punchlines than climaxes, so to speak, and I imagine sexbots would be the same once the novelty wore off.
Yeah, I think you are wrong. As I've stated several times, current sex toys are not in the same class as robots can be. I think the link Kelly has about male prostitutes is telling. Though it focuses on women, ISTM, men also use prostitutes for more than just a warm set of orifices. Probably to a lower percentage than women, but likely more than you think. Sex robots, once they become sophisticated enough, will fill the same role. Perhaps to a greater degree, because of the disease issue and because they will be machines. Like enough to fuel the fantasy, unlike enough to remove a host of social and moral issues.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If it thereby reduces the number of women who are driven into prostitution, it may be a good thing.
I'm not sure women are driven into prostitution by the demand so much as by lack of alternatives. (I mean alternatives for THEM, not for their clients.)
What I meant was, a reduction in demand would mean a reduction in supply, eventually. If the pimps can't sell real women, they won't recruit them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The GOP in the US has spent a great deal of money and political capital to demonize unmarried women who have sex, to make birth control difficult or impossible to get, to specifically make it legal to fire women for using birth control, and so forth. They seem to be VERY interested in limiting the sexual behavior of their people. Or of the female ones, at least.
[...]
You are confusing what they want to do with how good they are at it.
They seem to be very bad at it even when the Republican party is in office. This suggests to me that only a small portion of them really agree with this agenda. They don't seem to be giving it their all.
The capitalists among them are probably in conflict with the moralists.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This suggests to me that only a small portion of them really agree with this agenda. They don't seem to be giving it their all.
The capitalists among them are probably in conflict with the moralists.
I think the capitalists among them are callously and deliberately using/ manipulating the moralists.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, I think you are wrong. As I've stated several times, current sex toys are not in the same class as robots can be. I think the link Kelly has about male prostitutes is telling. Though it focuses on women, ISTM, men also use prostitutes for more than just a warm set of orifices. Probably to a lower percentage than women, but likely more than you thin. .
This is the thing-- most sensual services-- be it massage or sex-- are marketed to men, and mostly provided by women.Whether a hetero man needs a woman to give a foot rub, a cuddle, or a blow job, he has a bounty of options aavailable to him.
After I wrote the above, I checked the Cuddle Buddy site again, this time being directed to their FB page. The admin had posted an article stating men liked cuddling more than women.
First of all, I would love to see who participated in that study, and how the questions were phrased, because I bet there was a factor of women downplaying their cuddle needs in order not to appear prudish about sex, because ( second of all) women are mammals. Eveything with skin on needs to cuddle. It's not up for debate, healthy cortisol levels depend on skin to skin contact. Women usually get this by providing it, but it seems like people struggle with the idea that they actually need it too. And IMO this was just the CEO's bullshit justification for not figuring out an effective way to provide this service to women.
(I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about survey takers and Cuddle Buddy CEO's, and a Larger Public Attitude. Although it is interesting that my defense of robot surrogates for women spins right back into a discussion of men's needs.)
[ 19. September 2015, 14:33: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This suggests to me that only a small portion of them really agree with this agenda. They don't seem to be giving it their all.
The capitalists among them are probably in conflict with the moralists.
I think the capitalists among them are callously and deliberately using/ manipulating the moralists.
This. And if they completely eliminate the behaviors they claim to stand against, then they lose that leverage. But the moralists are, indeed, dead set against women enjoying sex. When the moralists gain the upper hand, which tends to happen at the state level rather than the national level, women suffer.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The moralists are, indeed, dead set against women enjoying sex. When the moralists gain the upper hand, which tends to happen at the state level rather than the national level, women suffer.
Well, I suppose the immoral majority (as it were) need to stand up for their freedoms and refuse to be cowed. They must have some comfort in the knowledge that most of the country doesn't share the moralists' agenda.
I wonder if the moralists would see any mileage in trying to ban sex robots? In this case, it's hard to see how the capitalists would let them win, since if these robots became popular there'd be a huge amount of money to be made.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
A sexbot would be a great way for a couple to have a three-way. Two bots and you have a real party.
And let's face it, we're perfectly happy with robotics doing all sorts of other things for us. We want them to clean our houses, do the shopping, drive our cars, and look after our elders. ISTM the main reason anyone wants to draw the line at sexbots is because we also make a distinction between sex work and every other kind of work for humans. In other words, if we think it is bad for humans to prostitute themselves, then it is bad to make robots do it. But most of the time we're perfectly happy to have robots do all sorts of other stuff that we don't want to do.
So let's picture a future where care facilities are staffed by a few people and lots and lots of robots who can monitor patients and be programmed to do all sorts of activities with them - sing songs, exercise, read a book, do crafts .... Where's the outcry that eldercare robots will mean that nobody will visit their relatives and we will lose our humanity? Oh, wait. That happens already.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
If you want legislation to ban sexbots, then the morality/dehumanzing angle is not the way to attack the issue. The clue is upthread -- the wincing, when a man contemplates putting his personal organ into something like a Waring blender. Safety, that's the ticket. One horrific accident with a mis-programmed sexbot and the cry will go up for stringent safety regulation. Imagine it, the YouTube video, the interviews on web sites illustrated with horrid color photographs, the outpouring of rage. And from there to limit marketing and distribution is easy.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The moralists are, indeed, dead set against women enjoying sex. When the moralists gain the upper hand, which tends to happen at the state level rather than the national level, women suffer.
Well, I suppose the immoral majority (as it were) need to stand up for their freedoms and refuse to be cowed. They must have some comfort in the knowledge that most of the country doesn't share the moralists' agenda.
I wonder if the moralists would see any mileage in trying to ban sex robots? In this case, it's hard to see how the capitalists would let them win, since if these robots became popular there'd be a huge amount of money to be made.
But again, the capitalists are gaining far more from their exploitation of the moralists than they could make even from the lucrative sex robot market.
Look at the abortion debate. The GOP has managed to maintain this reputation as the "pro-life party" for decades, based entirely on a line in their political platform. A couple of words. They've never done a single thing to actually back that up with any real action, legislative or otherwise. In fact, the economic policies of the GOP have been shown to actually increase abortions, while those of the DNC (like, say, funding contraception, child care, WIC, etc) decreases abortion.
No matter. The reputation for being "pro-life" has garnered the GOP the undying loyalty of a large cadre of conservative Christian moralists, without them having to lift a finger to support it. Leaving the capitalists free to do quite a lot of very not-very-pro-life things like wage wars, increase poverty, and block access to health care-- no matter. The capitalists have enticed these mostly working-class moralists to vote against their own interests, giving them (the wealthy capitalists) huge tax breaks again and again at the expense of the working class.
Quite brilliant actually.
And because the profit is really in the conflict, the capitalists don't really want to end anything. The worst thing in the world for the capitalists would be if abortion were outlawed tomorrow-- not because of economic interests but because they'd lose that leverage which allows them to do anything they want as long as they are still "pro-life" in name only. So the capitalists would never actually go so far as to outlaw sex robots. Their goal would be to keep them legal-- and controversial. In fact, the more ubiquitous and creepy/ icky they are, the better. Just like with the abortion debate, they will scream loudly against them, vilify those who use them, and do nothing whatsoever to actually get rid of them.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Is it worth over-thinking this.? I mean we are just talking about a bunk- up with a bot after all .
These things often tend to be associated with dirty old men, so I glad the matter of vibrators has been mentioned with the possibility of sex-bots for females.
The health and safety issue sounds rather minimal to me, unless we're getting into the realms of robots short circuiting while in use, or some such fantastical catastrophe that never happens. I should have thought H&S issues surrounding inter-human sex are far more real.
The psychological issues are as yet untested. Maybe there will be the odd case of some folk forming unhealthy relationships with these things, pleasuring themselves to the point of starvation. But aren't there already cases of this with youngsters playing computer games contiuously for days on end til they drop dead?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So let's picture a future where care facilities are staffed by a few people and lots and lots of robots who can monitor patients and be programmed to do all sorts of activities with them - sing songs, exercise, read a book, do crafts .... Where's the outcry that eldercare robots will mean that nobody will visit their relatives and we will lose our humanity? Oh, wait. That happens already.
What do you mean, future?
It's happening right now.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And there are lots of new tech things for sex:
A Fitbit for Your John Thomas
Or this:
Recharge your gadgets in an x-Rated way
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
These things often tend to be associated with dirty old men, so I glad the matter of vibrators has been mentioned with the possibility of sex-bots for females.
While the three or four nods in this conversation toward "women might like this, too" are an encouraging sign, the idea I was proposing is a lot stronger. I am suggesting that women should be the primary target group for this product.
I'm really not joking. Hear me out:
1. Women tend to outlive men by (pokes around on internet) roughly ten years. That means, a lot of heterosexual women will spend a fair amount of time without partners. simply down to biology alone.
2. (But they can remarry, you say!) The average 40+ woman checking out Match.com or the like is looking for someone roughly her own age., The average 40+ n is looking for someone significantly younger. Do the math. More unpartnered heterosexual women.
3. Casual sex has risk,but women will have more heightened concerns about assault and pregnancy (I now some men are assaulted via casual encounters, too, but as far as I know the risk of male pregnancy is nil.) Also, unlike with the paid options that men have, casual sex has no "get off or get your money back" guarantee.
4. Engaging a male prostitute (who doesn't come with a resume an inch thick) carries nearly e same risks as the above. You don't know what you are getting until the guy shows up. (famously, a man advertised his "services" on Craiglists as a way to lure them into being one of his murder victims.)
5. While the pros in the article sweetly assured the readers that they had no problem- um- preparing for the task at hand, even if they weren't particularly inspired, a less-than--stunning woman might not want to cross her fingers and hope for that level of dedication.
6. Why would a guy want to make a (say) $150,000 investment, which he will have to pay off forever, for something he can walk down the block and get for $50, or pick up the phone and get for $200?(correct me, ladies, if you are out there)? As I said, hetero male options for the entire spectrum of sensual activity are abundant. It's the 40+ chick who is sick of guys expecting her to be 20 that will more likely make that kind of investment.
****
Now here's what I do find amusing-- what if my idea took off? What if I became the CEO of MenschBot, and women everywhere had one tucked in their closet? (along with the appropriate antimicrobial cleaning products). Imagine the convolutions moralists would have to go through to paint this as a problem:
"One sided sex breeds selfishness and isolation!" Yeah, which is why you are storming the offices of Fleshlight, right?
"Feminist dismissal of men!" Well, the target market would be dismissed by men to begin with, so what is your beef?
"Unnatural removal of sexual urges from relationships!" See Fleshlight, see also porn, red light districts, lap/ pole dance, etc.
An egg would never combine with a sperm, ever, so any complaints for the Pro-life squad would be irrelevant.
Basically every argument they could have would be so quickly matched by a counter-argument based on examples of things guys do all the time that Foster Friess will be reduced to screaming "YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU SLUTS! IT'S ALL ABOUT US! YOUR BODY IS DESIGNED TO GIVE US AN ORGASM! YOUR ORGASM IS DESIGNED TO GIVE US FEEDBACK ABOUT OUR PROWESS! WHEN YOU HAVE SEX YOU DO IT OUR WAY!"
Now,that would be funny. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 19. September 2015, 19:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
4. Engaging a male prostitute (who doesn't come with a [censored] an inch thick) carries nearly the same risks ....
Gave me a... um... chuckle.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
An entrepreneur need invest in only one or two of these sexbots, to start a fine rental business. A woman may not want to own one of her very own, any more than she wants to own her own car or her own power-washer or or her own evening gown. Lease it out! You'd have to send it out with a 'sanitized for your safety' paper banner in the appropriate place, of course.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
4. Engaging a male prostitute (who doesn't come with a [censored] an inch thick) carries nearly the same risks ....
Gave me a... um... chuckle.
I should have worked in something about robots being "stiff competition."
And some women would definitely require at last a 2 1/2 inch resume...STOP. IT.
[ 19. September 2015, 19:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An entrepreneur need invest in only one or two of these sexbots, to start a fine rental business. A woman may not want to own one of her very own, any more than she wants to own her own car or her own power-washer or or her own evening gown. Lease it out! You'd have to send it out with a 'sanitized for your safety' paper banner in the appropriate place, of course.
You're hired.
(If you write a book on this, I better get a finder's fee.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You'd have to send it out with a 'sanitized for your safety' paper banner in the appropriate place, of course.
And women could flip a switch to -um- rip the banner, so to speak.
ETA: And the robot could say, quite honestly, "You really turn me on."
[ 19. September 2015, 19:47: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That would make a FANTASTIC commercial.
Sorry, Hosts, I really did have a point I was making about the unwillingness of people to consider the idea of marketing sex to women in the same way they do to men. As something they are entitled to enjoy, rather than something they provide to please people. As( I hate the word) a commodity they can acquire as well as distribute.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(I like Kelly's idea ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That would make a FANTASTIC commercial.
Sorry, Hosts, I really did have a point I was making about the unwillingness of people to consider the idea of marketing sex to women in the same way they do to men. As something they are entitled to enjoy, rather than something they provide to please people. As( I hate the word) a commodity they can acquire as well as distribute.
It worked well with mousethief's sig line.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Book, pooh. We need to start a business. With secure payment, online. Prompt delivery and discreet pickup, in plain vans -- a sexbot could sit up nicely in the seat of a car, belted in with the seat belt. They probably cannot locomote (one of the rules of machine design is no extraneous moving parts, so all the design work is going elsewhere, eh?) and so one would need a handtruck. But that would be all the investment you would need.
As you so cogently point out, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate or sinful about this. No babies engendered, no diseases spread (if those sanitizing banners tell true) and nobody hurt at all. All upside, no down side whatever. We could make a fortune.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All upside, no down side whatever.
Surely the position would be up to the purchaser?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All upside, no down side whatever.
Surely the position would be up to the purchaser?
Or down to the purchaser.
Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure women are driven into prostitution by the demand so much as by lack of alternatives. (I mean alternatives for THEM, not for their clients.)
It is both. Desperate women (and men) and a demand for those services.
quote:
Originally posted by ProgenitorDope:
I don't see it being much of an issue. We have blow up dolls, fleshlights (don't ask) and stuff I don't think I even want to know about. All the above seem to see more punchlines than climaxes, so to speak, and I imagine sexbots would be the same once the novelty wore off.
Yeah, I think you are wrong. As I've stated several times, current sex toys are not in the same class as robots can be. I think the link Kelly has about male prostitutes is telling. Though it focuses on women, ISTM, men also use prostitutes for more than just a warm set of orifices. Probably to a lower percentage than women, but likely more than you think. Sex robots, once they become sophisticated enough, will fill the same role. Perhaps to a greater degree, because of the disease issue and because they will be machines. Like enough to fuel the fantasy, unlike enough to remove a host of social and moral issues.
I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but your argument is essentially that advanced enough, the robots would fulfill the companionship role and thus not be a novelty, right? I can see that raising a slew of new issues certainly (though I am a bit worried that I've read so much anti-trust lately my first thought to an issue was "anti-competitive effects on the prostitution market").
That said, I don't know if computers are anywhere near advanced enough yet for that. It's on the horizon people keep saying, but I think ethics of Sapient AI is another issue than this one. Essentially, I think that these sex bots would have all the interactive fulfillment of an X-rated Cleverbot.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is the thing-- most sensual services-- be it massage or sex-- are marketed to men, and mostly provided by women.Whether a hetero man needs a woman to give a foot rub, a cuddle, or a blow job, he has a bounty of options aavailable to him.
Loads of cultural expectations and accepted ideas behind this.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
After I wrote the above, I checked the Cuddle Buddy site again, this time being directed to their FB page. The admin had posted an article stating men liked cuddling more than women.
This caused me a serious WTF? moment.
Touch, as you point out, is very much a thing with our species, male and female. Cultures have to condition it out
quote:
Originally posted by ProgenitorDope:
I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but your argument is essentially that advanced enough, the robots would fulfill the companionship role and thus not be a novelty, right?
Essentially, yes. I don't think they would dominate* everyone's sexual experience, but I think they could have a significant market.
*Unless, of course, that is your thing
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They probably cannot locomote (one of the rules of machine design is no extraneous moving parts, so all the design work is going elsewhere, eh?) and so one would need a handtruck. But that would be all the investment you would need.
OK, so you just want a RealDoll with a couple of motors added and perhaps some chat? They appear to be working on that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think they would dominate* everyone's sexual experience, but I think they could have a significant market.
*Unless, of course, that is your thing
What's my safe key combination?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This caused me a serious WTF? moment.
Touch, as you point out, is very much a thing with our species, male and female. Cultures have to condition it out
For real. That just convinced me the CEO was justifying her decision to focus on what seemed to her to be the easiest moneymaker. Or maybe she doesn't understand that the legions of women she has recruited for this enterprise took the job because they think cuddling is fun, too. When you give a hug, you get skin/ cortisol enrichment as well.
If anything, maybe women who took the survey were reluctant to admit to liking cuddling because women who ask for cuddling are "high maintenance" Which goes back to the idea (some seem to have) that anything sexual/ sensual a man does for a woman is an extravagant gift worthy of high praise and anything a woman does for a man is-- part of the job description.
Forgive me, guys, I am sure in an enlightened group such I am addressing that kind of idea is a rarity. Just keep picturing Foster Friess.
[ 20. September 2015, 00:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Forgive me, guys, I am sure in an enlightened group such I am addressing that kind of idea is a rarity. Just keep picturing Foster Friess.
If I told Josephine she had a "job description" which included making me happy she'd make some wise crack and then launch into a philosophical discussion about gender roles and agreed-upon marital expectations. Then fetch me a beer and my slippers and pipe.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think they would dominate* everyone's sexual experience, but I think they could have a significant market.
*Unless, of course, that is your thing
What's my safe key combination?
Left nipple, left nipple, belly button, belly button, right nipple, Thrust
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Left nipple, left nipple, belly button, belly button, right nipple, Thrust
Thank you. What do I owe you?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Left nipple, left nipple, belly button, belly button, right nipple, Thrust
Thank you. What do I owe you?
No need to thank me, I was more concerned with the dignity of the robot. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: And the robot could say, quite honestly, "You really turn me on."
I knew there had to be a top gag in this thread somewhere. MT takes the prize.
<Reluctantly uses the ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
>
Me thinking on KA's long post,(and going way left of centre, and probably into the dark), this whole business could go a whole lot further.
Loyal sex-bots, having given man years of satisfaction to contented partners, could be re-programmed to do the eulogy at their funerals. Large sums of money accrued by singletons could go to bot factories instead of cat homes.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sorry, Hosts, I really did have a point I was making about the unwillingness of people to consider the idea of marketing sex to women in the same way they do to men. As something they are entitled to enjoy, rather than something they provide to please people. As( I hate the word) a commodity they can acquire as well as distribute.
Sex robots would also help to keep the population down. [Cue conspiracy theories about the New World Order....]
This is obviously a delicate issue, but I wonder how successfully they'd be promoted in parts of the developing world. The USP would have to be different in different cultures.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: And the robot could say, quite honestly, "You really turn me on."
I knew there had to be a top gag in this thread somewhere. MT takes the prize.
<Reluctantly uses the >
Me thinking on KA's long post,(and going way left of centre, and probably into the dark), this whole business could go a whole lot further.
Loyal sex-bots, having given man years of satisfaction to contented partners, could be re-programmed to do the eulogy at their funerals. Large sums of money accrued by singletons could go to bot factories instead of cat homes.
Again, Foster Friess. In case you don't remember who he was, he was the guy who suggested birth control was best achieved by a bottle of aspirin between the knees. Hilarious, but at least here the fallout from that kind of belittling dismissal can be grim--Planned Parenthood got defunded Friday. On a Federal level. Tee-hee.
So, while most of the jokes on this thread have been pretty sex positive ( if giddily so), they at least have an element of "you go, girl," That last few years of debate about birth control accessibility lead me to believe the counter assault from the right wing ( if my scenario played out) would mostly involve demeaning jokes about ugly women-- much more aggressive than your mild poke about cat ladies. Again, research GOP /War on Women / Birth Control for a taste of what I mean.
This is exactly why the CEO of Cuddle Buddies doesn't bother to market to women-- because the purchase of sensual experience is something that is seen as an understandible necessity for men, but for women it is a sign of desperation and neediness. Because women are just not supposed to ask for pleasure or comfort. Even if they pay for it fair and square, just as men do, people have a problem even thinking about women being proactive about their sex lives, about doing anything sensual or sexual that involves her receiving pleasure from a man rather than providing it..( which again, was kind of my larger point when I started. Thanks for givng me a way to head back there.)
To return to my scenario, this definitely would be the first level of attack through ads-- the same way erotic massage liquid is advertized as a way for already happy hetero couples to make each other happier, the sex bot can be marketed as a way loyal wives keep themselves busy while their very capable man is gone for that convention, a neutral party to prevent unfortunate cross attachment in three ways-- I dunno, we'd have to get creative, though.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(scene--very attractive, wealthy looking man gives a huge, extravagently wrapped package to his equally attractive and polished wife in front of a Christmas tree.)
VO : Darling, sometimes I am just not in the mood. You know it is not you, you gorgeous, sexy thing. I want a long, happy life ith you darling, so no harsh pills for me. But what makes me happiest in this world is hearing your sighs of bliss and so...
( Mam tears down front panel of package, revealing Menschbot-- a bit shorter than him, but reasonably attractive and nattily dressed)
I'm asking a trusted friend to help us out.
(Menchbot bows with a kind, non- leery smile, and extends a hand to the man and woman)
( Fade out. Product info on black screen.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Pot-bellied man with a dirty, too-short t-shirt and a 9 o'clock shadow sits at a kitchen table piled with children's toys, a toaster on its side, dirty breakfast dishes, etc. A wife in rollers and a frayed housecoat is standing with her back to him, cooking something on the stove.
He: "Sweetie, didn't I make the bed before I left for work? Why are the covers and both pillows in a heap on the floor? Is there something you need to tell me?"
She, turning: "Oh darling, you know I love you and could never love another man. I just had a romp with my sister's Menschbot is all. She brought him over to show me."
He: "Of course! I'm so sorry I doubted you!"
Man stands up and they embrace. He sits down, starts reading paper. Woman returns to cooking.
Voiceover: "You can trust your woman to Menschbot. Buy her one of her own today."
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I think giving the woman in one,s life a menschbot for Christmas is likely to go down as well as a copy of 50 shades.
In other words "not"
As a man I always held female sexuality in a positive light. The 'cat home' jibe was uncalled for, I apologise for that.
If people are sexually contented then that should make for a more contented world in theory. If sex-bots are a step in that direction then they shouldn't be opposed.
[ 20. September 2015, 17:08: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pot-bellied man with a dirty, too-short t-shirt and a 9 o'clock shadow sits at a kitchen table piled with children's toys, a toaster on its side, dirty breakfast dishes, etc. A wife in rollers and a frayed housecoat is standing with her back to him, cooking something on the stove.
He: "Sweetie, didn't I make the bed before I left for work? Why are the covers and both pillows in a heap on the floor? Is there something you need to tell me?"
She, turning: "Oh darling, you know I love you and could never love another man. I just had a romp with my sister's Menschbot is all. She brought him over to show me."
He: "Of course! I'm so sorry I doubted you!"
Man stands up and they embrace. He sits down, starts reading paper. Woman returns to cooking.
Voiceover: "You can trust your woman to Menschbot. Buy her one of her own today."
killingme: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
See, this would be the one that would sell me:
(Tired-looking women of average level of attractiveness and various ages are seen busting their asses in blue-collar service/ caregiving jobs-- feeding patients, changing diapers, serving beer, cleaning hotel rooms, you name it)
(All of them at some see some cheesy ass flier on a work bulletin board about a local singles night)
Cut to them going home and going through various frustrations trying to prepare to go out-- trying and discarding inadequate clothes, deciding shoes, practicing flirty baby doll dialogue. [Mirror pep talks-- "Mom said, Make him chase you until you catch him!]" Definitely there needs to be a close up of a long line of cosmetics for a multitude of corrective issues.)
(at some point each women either verbally or non-verbally communicates-- "fuck it.")
Mid Shot of a closet door opening, revealing the sweetly smiling Menschbot. "Hi,Beautiful!")
Either voiceover or text over-- "Sometimes you want someone else to do the work."
To return this to Purg-type analysis, rather than encouraging a string of commercial pitches-- note that this is how most appliances, from washing machines to potato peelers, are indeed marketed to women. Why, then, are vibrators not marketed this way? Because the people who make such ads have a problem encouraging women think of sexual pleasure as something of their own.
[ 20. September 2015, 17:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As a man I always held female sexuality in a positive light. The 'cat home' jibe was uncalled for, I apologise for that.
Meh--it was pretty mild. Like I said it helped me return to one of the points I was trying to make so I actually appreciated it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think giving the woman in one,s life a menschbot for Christmas is likely to go down as well as a copy of 50 shades.
In other words "not"
That book was a bestseller, though, so quite a few women must have enjoyed it.... Just not the ones with intellectual, feminist inclinations or aspirations.
The Menschbot may similarly appeal to less educated consumers.
BTW, 'Menschbot' sounds neither cuddly nor sexy.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think giving the woman in one,s life a menschbot for Christmas is likely to go down as well as a copy of 50 shades.
In other words "not"
That book was a bestseller, though, so quite a few women must have enjoyed it.... Just not the ones with intellectual, feminist inclinations or aspirations.
The Menschbot may similarly appeal to less educated consumers.
BTW, 'Menschbot' sounds neither cuddly nor sexy.
We can address that at the next marketing meeting.
(I actually thought of "studbot" first, but I rejected that-- men want to be studs, women want a mensch! maybe there is a more sonorous equivalent, but I definitely decided to move away from a name that would suggest that the bot would be intrinsically dominant. Dominant on request is another issue. )
Here's the thing about the book-- I actually knew several women who bought "50 Shades" out of curiosity, but I don't know a single one who didn't wind up using it to quote unintentionally hilarious passages to their friends over the phone. Just my personal observation.
One moment of sisterly pride--after the movie came out, I ran into a bunch of teen/ twenty aged girls giggling over a display of cologne and perfume branded with 50 shades. I naturally scooted over to eavesdrop, and they were talking about doing just what I described above with their girlfriends-- buying the book and seeing the film just to spend a bunch of time trashing it over lattes. So, I appreciate the box office numbers, but I sense they don't mean everything they imply
[ 20. September 2015, 17:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yeah, yeah - everyone read the book or watched the film in order to pour scorn. I get it! They all made E L James a multi-millionaire though.
If Menschbot Inc. can get millions of sales out of a product everyone jokes about at then they too will be laughing all the way to the bank. Everyone's a winner, baby....
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(More thinking, slightly tangential) I think the really positive thing about "50 Shades" is, in a way, it forced women to speak up. The book/ movie said, women think it is sexy to be dominated and shamed-- sex is better if you feel kind of dirty. The fallout from that was some women said, "Yeah, down with that," but a lot of women said, "Nah, fuck that."
And the conclusion the world should have reached from all that was, "The only way to find out what any given woman is into is to ask her." But that would be giving her "high maintenance," right?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yeah, yeah - everyone read the book or watched the film in order to pour scorn. I get it! They all made E L James a multi-millionaire though.
If Menschbot Inc. can get millions of sales out of a product everyone jokes about at then they too will be laughing all the way to the bank. Everyone's a winner, baby....
But I predict the dynamic would be the opposite of what happened with 50 shades-- people would pretend to buy it as a laugh, and the bunches of women you came across gossiping in the department store would be blushingly exchanging flamboyant war stories...
(That's kind of what happens with vibrators. At least in the SF Bay Area, so that might skew things vis a vis girlfriends chatting. But word of mouth does more to serve vibrator sales than the the scanty advertisement they get, even around here.)
[ 20. September 2015, 17:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Either voiceover or text over-- "Sometimes you want someone else to do the work."
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That book [50 shades] was a bestseller, though, so quite a few women must have enjoyed it.... Just not the ones with intellectual, feminist inclinations or aspirations.
I think you'd be surprised. People don't have to think something is real or even desirable to enjoy reading it. Many women read and enjoy books with rape scenes. No woman wants to be raped. Myself I don't understand it, but the phenomenon is there.
---
I think in all of this kidding around, Kelly has a very valid point. Our culture tends to think women ought not to enjoy sex. I think it's a huge part of what's behind the conservative backlash against birth control. How dare those women enjoy sex. That's not something good "girls" do.
Our culture still has a bizarre cleavage (pun intended) between how it regards men and how it regards women -- women aren't just defective men, they're incomplete men. They have no penis, they're smaller, they have less brainpower, they have incomplete desires and aspirations, including the inability to fully and "really" enjoy sex the way men do. Perhaps few people would come out and say this openly (except maybe Anne Coulter), but the feeling is there. Women just aren't all there, in every sense of the word.
Held together in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence by the glue of confirmation bias.
[ 20. September 2015, 17:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
MT--
Just in case you were wondering what the term "mensch" was supposed to convey, see above.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(more thinking)
And I think a big reason various media glommed onto 50 Shades is that they could spin in a little subtext of, "Ladies, if you want to make yourself more appealing to men, learn to love this kind of sex. It's actually very sexy if you are not, you know, inhibited."
So, even this exploration of one woman discovering her deepest darkest impulses could be spun into a Cosmo style, "Here's something else you can add to your bag of tricks, girls." More magazines, fashion furniture, a &^%$ing cologne sold. It's like when we convinced women that investing in a $1000 living room dancing pole was a sign of uber-sexiness.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
How I pity the purg hosts having to read this. Not enough to stop however.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yeah, yeah - everyone read the book or watched the film in order to pour scorn.
To pour scorn, or to score porn?
---
Kelly: re. "mensch" -- yeah, I think the word is a little too unromantic. And "bot" positively reeks of flaccid libido (flaccid clit? is that a thing?). The name for a woman-pleasing sex robot (this is my opinion so take it with a grain of Mansplain™ brand salt) needs to communicate not so much strength and cyberness, but warmth and respect and momentarily-sheathed (if you'll pardon the expression) but ready-to-emerge (if you'll pardon the expression) passion. I'm afraid I can't think of anything that meets those criteria and maybe they're a bit too, um, stringent.
Love-o-matic is probably NOT the right word.
Oh, and would our Menschbot (for want of a better term) have a fully functional tongue? I mean there's more to sex than V-I-V.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I see your point-- I also wanted to avoid anything too cutesy, too- someone looking for red hot sex is not gonna settle for cute. Obviously this needs more thought.
Oh, God, yes, a tongue. Not just for Downtown, but never underestimate the foreplay value of plain-old making out.
(In fact, if that bit is lackluster for me, the rest probably won't be much better. So I would set my bot* for Ultrasnog.)
[ETA: wow, I must really be a geek-- while the word "bot" doesn't necessarily arouse me, it does nothing to un-arouse me, either. Hm.]
[ 20. September 2015, 18:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yeah, yeah - everyone read the book or watched the film in order to pour scorn. I get it! They all made E L James a multi-millionaire though.
If Menschbot Inc. can get millions of sales out of a product everyone jokes about at then they too will be laughing all the way to the bank. Everyone's a winner, baby....
The best thing that ever happened to the hack that wrote "Vox" was when two highly placed idiots* decided to use it as a phone sex tool. I never bought anything related to "50 Shades" but I did buy that little piece of crap. Second hand, thankfully, but I still cringe to admit it.
Ugh. The handheld shower scene. What the hell was I thinking?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
*the comedy team of Clinton and Lewinsky.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The bot's name is, clearly, John Thomas.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
*the comedy team of Clinton and Lewinsky.
Ah yes, the duo that gave the lie to Freud's dictum about cigars.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The bot's name is, clearly, John Thomas.
OH MY GOD!!!!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They have no penis, they're smaller, they have less brainpower, they have incomplete desires and aspirations, including the inability to fully and "really" enjoy sex the way men do.
They forget that women can have multiple orgasms in a short space of time. And that the clitoris is twice as sensitive than the penis.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I heard it was more like 10 times, depending on the woman, I guess. But when given attention.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They forget that women can have multiple orgasms in a short space of time. And that the clitoris is twice as sensitive than the penis.
They're threatened by it, so they pretend it doesn't exist. La la la la, I can't hear you. And anyway, maybe they CAN have multiple orgasms, but it's not LADYLIKE.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I heard it was more like 10 times, depending on the woman, I guess. But when given attention.
Can we help it if we get sleepy?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They forget that women can have multiple orgasms in a short space of time. And that the clitoris is twice as sensitive than the penis.
They're threatened by it, so they pretend it doesn't exist. La la la la, I can't hear you. And anyway, maybe they CAN have multiple orgasms, but it's not LADYLIKE.
They made a documentary about the US movie ratings system, and one of the points they raised that any female orgasm that is not achieved in about 30 seconds and looks too-- enthusiastic, is normally cut out from movies, or else the ratings committee bumps them to a distribution- restricting NC-17.
Of course, any amount of women screaming in terror and pain usually goes through without a hitch.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I heard it was more like 10 times, depending on the woman, I guess. But when given attention.
Can we help it if we get sleepy?
Yeah, and the jaw begins to ache, too, right? Both of those go both ways.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[Foster Freiss-- "That bitch has got an answer for everything."]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, and the jaw begins to ache, too, right? Both of those go both ways.
Madam! I am a respectable Christian gentleman!
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
[ 20. September 2015, 20:04: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I see your point-- I also wanted to avoid anything too cutesy, too- someone looking for red hot sex is not gonna settle for cute. Obviously this needs more thought.
[ETA: wow, I must really be a geek-- while the word "bot" doesn't necessarily arouse me, it does nothing to un-arouse me, either. Hm.]
Surely "Red Hot Bot" has got to be where the money slogan's at Kelly .
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think in all of this kidding around, Kelly has a very valid point. Our culture tends to think women ought not to enjoy sex. I think it's a huge part of what's behind the conservative backlash against birth control. How dare those women enjoy sex. That's not something good "girls" do.
I think maybe we live in different cultures.
Attempts at Title IX compliance seem to be determined to teach young women that although they should pretend to enjoy having sex the way porn stars do, they're not actually capable of consenting to it. Like, ever.
The conservatives I know acknowledge that people are horndogs and no matter what anyone does it doesn't seem to stop people from having sex.
quote:
Our culture still has a bizarre cleavage (pun intended) between how it regards men and how it regards women -- women aren't just defective men, they're incomplete men. They have no penis, they're smaller, they have less brainpower, they have incomplete desires and aspirations, including the inability to fully and "really" enjoy sex the way men do. Perhaps few people would come out and say this openly (except maybe Anne Coulter), but the feeling is there. Women just aren't all there, in every sense of the word.
And this is some superior culture that people should assimilate themselves to?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Well, Ann Coulter isn't all there.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Love-o-matic is probably NOT the right word.
Eveready is already taken...
The film I referenced above is This Film Is Not Yet Rated, by the way, and is worth a look in terms of the discussion we have been having about generalized anxiety over women enjoying sex too much.
[ 21. September 2015, 16:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The other way to examine this issue is to look at all the other material, in which it has been very thoroughly explored indeed. Science fiction has been dealing with robots and the dangers and opportunities they create for years. There are some fine movies out there about sex-bots. Here is my review of Ex Machina.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think a lot of these stories have the robots passing a certain threshold of self-awareness and then ask the question "is it still ethical to use them as sex slaves?"
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, and the pillows? I wasn't talking about a simple body pillow, but a dakimakura like this: Anime pillow girlfriend.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Possibly not. If they can be said to have some form of consciousness, but can't consent, it might be the same as zoophilia. Would make an interesting Turing Test though!! (cross posted with Brenda Clough.)
[ 21. September 2015, 19:00: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
This is where an interesting point arises. Because in the main we are inclined to exploit robotics on tedious, menial repetitive jobs. Things that we,d rather not be doing.
Sexual activity doesn't always fall in with that catagory, as it could be said that it's something most of us would rather be doing over and above anything else.
Whilst this subject has rightly summoned quite a bit of humour. There is something a bit dark about it, something a bit eerie I can,t quite put my finger on. I guess it does revove around the matter of robo-phobia and the cross-over point between robots as the slaves and robots as the masters.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Whilst this subject has rightly summoned quite a bit of humour. There is something a bit dark about it, something a bit eerie I can,t quite put my finger on. I guess it does revove around the matter of robo-phobia and the cross-over point between robots as the slaves and robots as the masters.
Fear of trusting a robot with a delicate member?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I think maybe we live in different cultures.
Attempts at Title IX compliance seem to be determined to teach young women that although they should pretend to enjoy having sex the way porn stars do, they're not actually capable of consenting to it. Like, ever.
For those unfamiliar with U.S. law, Title IX is the federal law that forbids gender discrimination by educational institutions that receive federal financial aid (with certain specified exemptions, like religiously-affiliated institutions with religiously-mandated gender discrimination rules).
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other way to examine this issue is to look at all the other material, in which it has been very thoroughly explored indeed. Science fiction has been dealing with robots and the dangers and opportunities they create for years. There are some fine movies out there about sex-bots.
I was just thinking that sex bots come up in this summer's Channel 4 series, Humans. (Based on a Swedish original.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I've just written a blog post (not up yet) comparing three robots-and-sex movies -- the two cited up above, plus Bicentennial Man, the Robin Williams vehicle from 1999. All three movies work with the idea of not so much sex with robots (although that does come into it) but emotional involvement with them.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Fear of trusting a robot with a delicate member?
That could be what,s ultimately behind it Boogie. Together with being brought up on sci-fi like Doctor Who which invariably portrayed robots as the enemy or in some way a threat.
'Lost in Space' was on of the few progs I recall with a friendly robot.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Attempts at Title IX compliance seem to be determined to teach young women that although they should pretend to enjoy having sex the way porn stars do, they're not actually capable of consenting to it. Like, ever.
Oh please. This old canard has nothing going for it. Yes, there should be consent. Men have taken for "consent" things that haven't been. From this it in no wise follows that people wishing safety for women don't believe there is such thing as consent. This is a straw man made with extra straw.
quote:
And this is some superior culture that people should assimilate themselves to? [/QB]
What is this even in response to?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh please. This old canard has nothing going for it. Yes, there should be consent. Men have taken for "consent" things that haven't been. From this it in no wise follows that people wishing safety for women don't believe there is such thing as consent. This is a straw man made with extra straw.
Really?
quote:
On cross-examination, the alleged victim conceded that she lifted up her arms so Labrie could take her shirt off and raised her hips so he could pull off her shorts. She also told the police, when they interviewed her soon after the incident, that “other than me saying no to the first part, I don’t think he would have known for a fact that I would not want to do that.”
But a discussion of changing legal definitions in a way that won't do a thing to reduce assault is likely a bit tangential on a thread about sex robots.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think a lot of these stories have the robots passing a certain threshold of self-awareness and then ask the question "is it still ethical to use them as sex slaves?"
Yeah, the only way to make it ethical would be to deliberately program them in a way that circumvents self awareness.
The very cynical part of me wonders if what made actual slavery hard to defeat was the sexual aspect of it-- that there was a whole class who you could use without having to ask permission or pay.
[ 22. September 2015, 22:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh please. This old canard has nothing going for it. Yes, there should be consent. Men have taken for "consent" things that haven't been. From this it in no wise follows that people wishing safety for women don't believe there is such thing as consent. This is a straw man made with extra straw.
Really?
This is high school, not college, so Title IX has nothing to do with it. Further, SHE'S FUCKING UNDERAGE. Give me a break.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is high school, not college, so Title IX has nothing to do with it.
Title IX applies to all educational environments.
quote:
Further, SHE'S FUCKING UNDERAGE. Give me a break.
In New Hampshire (she wouldn't be everywhere).
But since she is underage in New Hampshire, why not just charge the guy with that offense? While pile the felony charges on top of it?
(Except for the fact that there's no concrete evidence sexual intercourse took place at all and piling absurd charges on people in order to force them to take plea deals is how the criminal justice system works).
I'm not OK with imposing serious criminal penalties on people for their failure to be psychic. You are.
So be it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm not OK with imposing serious criminal penalties on people for their failure to be psychic. You are.
See you in Hell.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
(Except for the fact that there's no concrete evidence sexual intercourse took place at all and piling absurd charges on people in order to force them to take plea deals is how the criminal justice system works).
Rubbish. Yes, the American legal system is extremely fucked up if you are poor and cannot afford private legal counsel. Given that this occurred at an exclusive boarding school, I do not think this the case.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Personally I don't see how girls playing basketball or the possible ramifications of a specific statutory rape case relates to sex bots in any way, and therefore I am gonna steer away from that particular tangent. That seems like a whole seperate thread to me.
[ 23. September 2015, 02:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally I don't see how girls playing basketball or the possible ramifications of a specific statutory rape case relates to sex bots in any way, and therefore I am gonna steer away from that particular tangent. That seems like a whole seperate thread to me.
Yes. To me also, and I was actually just pondering the words of how to put that in a hostly way or whether to try to say it indirectly. But I need to go to bed, so I'm just going to ask that even if others do see the connection more clearly they please take it to a new thread.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
So... sexbots. I assume you wheel them into the closet when you're done? or hide them under the bed?
People into the vampire books might hang them upside down in the closets...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I keep referring to them being in the closet, but it occured to me that this evokes the concept of " being in the closet." Which I am sure carries all kinds of subconscious baggage about shame and secrecy. And really is tangible "objectification."
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the movie Ex Machina the sexbots are indeed kept in a large room lined with closets, one for each bot. For marketing and storage purposes you might need a warehouse. And everything is going to depend upon how mobile the things are; if they can't walk or climb we'll need a fork lift.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I keep referring to them being in the closet, but it occured to me that this evokes the concept of " being in the closet." Which I am sure carries all kinds of subconscious baggage about shame and secrecy. And really is tangible "objectification."
It has also occurred to me that this discussion is saying quite a bit re. heterosexual's attitude to sex. Correct me if I'm wrong but have any gay folk expressed an interest in sex-robots on this thread?
Given there was good reason before the days of over-the-counter abortion, antibiotics etc., it's beginning to dawn on some that heterosexuals have been closeted about sex for a very very long time.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It has also occurred to me that this discussion is saying quite a bit re. heterosexual's attitude to sex. Correct me if I'm wrong but have any gay folk expressed an interest in sex-robots on this thread?
Given there was good reason before the days of over-the-counter abortion, antibiotics etc., it's beginning to dawn on some that heterosexuals have been closeted about sex for a very very long time.
I don't think this particular heterosexual problem has been much of an issue in the modern, sexually liberated West for a long time.
However, it's been said that some young straight men apparently find porn easier to deal with than a girlfriend; such men may be obvious customers for this kind of product. And with the collapse of half of marriages and the precariousness of sexual relationships in the West many straight people might feel safer and more comfortable with a machine that won't demand alimony, child support or restrict parental access, etc.
Regardless of sexuality, those who find it hard, for whatever social or physical reason to attract a mate, and those who don't want a mate at all, but would feel more comfortable and safer with a machine that makes no demands, might find this product interesting.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Kelly, we are going to make a fortune.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
NSFW: An extremely similar business
[Link broken - if you really have to know, the url is http: //www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-professional-orgasm-whisperer-how-to-properly-work-a-fuck-machine?utm_source=vicefbus (deleting the space, obviously) - Eliab, Purgatory host]
[ 24. September 2015, 09:27: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So... sexbots. I assume you wheel them into the closet when you're done? or hide them under the bed?
People into the vampire books might hang them upside down in the closets...
Well it could be a convenient place to hang one towel on, anyway.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
NSFW: An extremely similar business
I appreciate you marked the link NSFW, but as the link takes one directly to a picture of a sex machine, there's still the potential for not-so-comic mishaps. I've disabled the link, and those who really want to know can restore it and find out.
Eliab
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
What is fascinating is that it doesn't really look like a sex machine. It looks like something for polishing floors.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is fascinating is that it doesn't really look like a sex machine. It looks like something for polishing floors.
With a dildo on top. Few of the floor polishers I've seen came equipped with their own dildos. Maybe it's a pond thing.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is fascinating is that it doesn't really look like a sex machine. It looks like something for polishing floors.
Maybe it's possible to convert it into doing both. I mean blimey, if Madame or Monseur Bot comes in at 150K then it wouldn,t be that unreasonable to expect it to do Something around the house !
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Re the symbian article: Two issues, a) not very aesthetically pleasing dildos and b) *renting* dildos - I think not. Even if I did have my own personal autoclave.
[ 24. September 2015, 18:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
That's where the banner 'Sanitized For Your Protection' comes in.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
NSFW: An extremely similar business
Hmm. I am not, erm, unfamiliar with that product, but reading the article is very informative.
But, strange as it looks,* it is still a vibrator. If your ultimate sex-bot is just that wrapped in pseudo-flesh, I'm not sure you have an advantage.
*And it is nowhere near the limit of strange devices
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is fascinating is that it doesn't really look like a sex machine. It looks like something for polishing floors.
Maybe it's possible to convert it into doing both. I mean blimey, if Madame or Monseur Bot comes in at 150K then it wouldn,t be that unreasonable to expect it to do Something around the house !
Honestly? I might just trot out the autobot-- rent it, even-- just to feed me chicken soup when I had the flu.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re the symbian article: Two issues, a) not very aesthetically pleasing dildos and b) *renting* dildos - I think not. Even if I did have my own personal autoclave.
Now you got me thinking.
Are any dildoes aesthetically pleasing?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I know I'm going to regret asking that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I know I'm going to regret asking that.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Depends on your personal aesthetics, of course. But when you veer away from the "realistic" ones, especially to vibrators, some don't look so bad. Like minimalist modern sculptures, really. [URL=https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ]Click if you dare.[/URL]
[Link broken because I fail to see any connection between Rick Astley and a dildo. Nor do I wish to be informed of one. On the assumption that this is an attempt at some sort of 'gotcha', it is inappropriate for Purgatory.
Eliab - Purgatory host]
[ 25. September 2015, 07:50: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The local lesbian sex toy shop has some lovely solid Pyrex dildos that have swirls in them like a paperweight.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
lilBuddha, you are SO on my list. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Are any dildoes aesthetically pleasing?
Is any penis worth looking at? I think function wins over form by a very long stretch with both, don't you?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Many dildos are not designed to look like a penis. Consider googling "buy pure wand" if you are not at work.
Or just google njoy or lelo.
(I recommended the word buy on such a search to avoid getting mostly porn hits.)
[ 25. September 2015, 08:17: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Here's another recent article.
quote:
the closest thing we have to a genuine sexbot is the RealDoll. A RealDoll is the most advanced sex doll in the world -- a sculpted “work of art,”... For a few thousand dollars a pop, customers can customize the doll’s hair color, skin tone, eyes, clothing and genitalia (removable, exchangeable, flaccid, hard) -- and then wait patiently for a coffin-sized box to arrive in the mail.
The article goes on to ask what if the sexbot is modelled like a child.
Is it wrong? I think there's something wrong with you if you don't think so.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it wrong? I think there's something wrong with you if you don't think so.
Are you arguing that RealDolls are self-evidently wrong, or that ones which look like children are?
Pretty much everybody would agree with the latter but ISTM that this is irrelevant for discussing sex robots. Otherwise you could just as well argue "child porn is wrong, so all porn is bad".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I read it as an aside, wondering why the author was asking such a silly question.
I have to say, I had no idea RealDoll had boy versions, although I can't think why I didn't. $6000 ain't that bad.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I read it as an aside, wondering why the author was asking such a silly question.
Ah, fair enough then. If that's the case, I totally agree it's a dumb question.
Personally, I can't see the appeal of realistic sex robots - that's not a judgement in any way, just my preferences. And for non-sexual touch I'd infinitely prefer this.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Like I said elsewhere, the one big advantage of the doll over the dildo would be, um, practice snogging.
They do sell the head seperately, but dear God, that's ghastly. Too Reanimator.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Link won't work for me, but I am guessing "kitten.")
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Link won't work for me, but I am guessing "kitten.")
Almost. A chair full of Labrador puppies.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is any penis worth looking at? I think function wins over form by a very long stretch with both, don't you?
One word: zipper.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it wrong? I think there's something wrong with you if you don't think so.
Are you arguing that RealDolls are self-evidently wrong, or that ones which look like children are?
Pretty much everybody would agree with the latter but ISTM that this is irrelevant for discussing sex robots. Otherwise you could just as well argue "child porn is wrong, so all porn is bad".
That indeed would be a simplistic argument but I don't think that makes that aspect irrelevant. Raising the potential negative applications of new technology ISTM is always worthwhile, given how we're apt to adopt new stuff and worry about the side-effects later.
The main thing that worries me is what it does to us to treat something that deliberately looks, sounds, feels as human as possible... to treat that thing as a thing. What then happens to the way we treat other humans?
In fact we'll probably end up treating the sex-robots a bit more "kindly" than we would our toaster or TV, and pat ourselves on the back maybe, but IMO that's worse because it'll lower our standards for how we treat other people whilst giving us a false sense of altruism.
And I don't think sex is necessarily that special in this regard. It is a little bit because of the associations with love, intimacy and our identity etc. But in many ways having robots that do anything for us, that we can then treat as sub-human, because they literally aren't human, wouldn't be good for us. The big difference is that the robot that drives your car won't look human. Even the ones that will look sort of human - waiters, maids, service positions generally - will probably be more stylised versions, because why bother*?
Which is not to say ban them, but let's maybe talk about the subject a bit.
(*Although if the sex-bot industry pioneers the tech, and especially solves the uncanny valley problem, then that will I guess make it cheap enough for other industries to use it 'off-the-shelf')
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
accepting sex as something distinct from a relationship is damaging. By making them more engaging (i.e. less of a blow up doll), there is a danger that some people will then not develop any ability to have a relationship with a real human.
It would be a drop in the bucket. People have sex all the time who are incapable of a long-term relationship. This is nothing new? What's the "oldest profession"? It's when they, and their hapless partners, mistakenly believe that they are capable that trouble starts. Divorce, spousal abuse, on and on... long live substitutes for those who know their limitations.
[ 28. September 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Are any dildoes aesthetically pleasing?
Is any penis worth looking at? I think function wins over form by a very long stretch with both, don't you?
Heh. Heh. "Very long stretch." Heh.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0