Robot sex would lead to objectification and mistreatment of women

[DetlefK]

http://gizmodo.com/dont-have-sex-with-robots-say-ethicists-1730866985

Robot ethicists have launched the Campaign Against Sex Robots, seeking a ban on the development of robotic sexytimes.

...

Robot ethicists Kathleen Richardson of De Montfort University and Erik Billing from University of Skövde are the co-creators of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, which seeks to bring awareness to the issue and proposes a robot sex ban. They compare it to similar campaigns that seek to limit development of “killer” robots. Richardson and Billing believe that sex robots will degrade human relationships and reinforce a view of women as sexual objects.

...

We believe the development of sex robots further objectifies women and children.
The development of sex robots and the ideas to support their production show the immense horrors still present in the world of prostitution which is built on the “perceived” inferiority of women and children and therefore justifies their uses as sex objects.
We propose that the development of sex robots will further reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship.


-------------------------------------

I do not agree at all with the author's attempt to find a reasonable middle.

We’re moving towards a future of sex with robots whether we like it or not. An outright ban would simply empower a new kind of robot pimp and create an unregulated robot sex black market where anything goes. Why not push for reasonable regulations instead, like ensuring the robots are secure against malware, must look/act of legal age, and establishing legal minimum ages (18+) to use their services?

Why do I not agree? Because legalization and regulation of sex-robots will mean precisely jack-shit for the human victims this shift in culture will cause.

How tricky will it be to get a sex-robot with the 3D-printed face of a celebrity?
A random girl you saw on the internet?
A co-worker you talk to every day?
That heartless slut that is your ex-girlfriend/ex-wife?

And how will this sex-robot react during sex?
Will it moan? What if it turns you on when the sex-robot doesn't moan but make other "noises"?
Will it willingly embrace you as a lover? What if it turns you on when the sex-robot doesn't willingly embrace you?

How long will it take until psychopaths discover that they can use sex-robots to indulge in their rape- and mutilation-fantasies instead of seeking psychological treatment?
Sure, the psychopath will rape/mutilate a sex-robot instead of a woman, but what happens if he is faced with the question whether or not to rape/mutilate a woman?

How long until "underage" sex-robots show up on the black market, so pedophiles can indulge in their irregular sexual urges instead of seeking psychological treatment?
Sure, the pedophile will fuck a sex-robot instead of a child, but what happens if he is faced with the question whether or not to fuck a child?

How are people supposed to learn to treat sexual partners as people if their sexual partners are obedient pieces of "PlasticFlesh&quot TM) that are willing to spread their legs whenever the human has the urge to get an orgasm?




And lastly:
Would you be comfortable with your face on a sex-robot? A dear friend's face on a sex-robot? Your wife's/husband's face on a sex-robot? Your child's face on a sex-robot?

It's Rule 34, baby: If technology can turn something into porn, IT WILL turn it into porn.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. A poor premise, followed by really asinine questions.

Ther are many reasonable and sound reasons that support this industry, including psychological disorders, physical disabilities, even extreme shyness and fear of relationships.

The idiots who concocted this ridiculous theory sure have a problem with sex.

[FreakinDJ]

28. More from the Abstinence Only Immoral Minority

[PoliticAverse]

2. "We’re moving towards a future of sex with robots whether we like it or not."

What if the robots don't like it, do they get a say?

I'm still waiting for the flying car I was promised in the future.

[graegoyle]

3. "I'm still waiting for the flying car I was promised in the future."

The promise was made in the past; the flying car is still in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. that is a separate issue of ai agency.

Assuming that the 'robot sex slaves' are not intelligent and do not have agency, there is no ethical issue with the robots.

[Dr. Strange]

21. What if your car doesn't want to fly?

Does it get a say?

[PoliticAverse]

22. It doesn't, it already said. n/t

[Thor_MN]

73. My car is an idiot that doesn't know the difference between a door and a jar.

Why would I risk my life letting it fly?

[graegoyle]

4. Have mechanical phalluses made men into depersonalized sex-objects?

In this case, it is not the advanced technology that is the problem; it is the antiquated values. Women have been objectified for a very long time (I do my best not to do that, but I'm not perfect).

[PoliticAverse]

5. Good question, nowhere in the article is the name "sybian" mentioned. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

71. Great point.

[Egnever]

6. What the heck?

Seriously?

That is some nutty reasoning you got going on there. Reminds me of the crazy in the late 70's early 80's that hard rock was porn and was turning teens into sex crazed maniacs.

I think Frank Zappas testimony before Congress then would fit quite well with this issue as well.

[PeteSelman]

7. I come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Sex robots would lead men to treat human women as people. A sated man is a sane man.

[Katashi_itto]

8. Some people need to get a life and stop worrying what other people

do in the bedroom.

[Cayenne]

51. Some busybodies want to control your sex life

[Shankapotomus]

9. But suppose someone wants a robot

to simulate as near to a healthy relationship as they can? Or maybe they can't find someone intelligent to talk to?

Just like video technology, there will be those that use it for bad and those that use it for good. We can't ban video technology because some people use it to produce porn.

[TheKentuckian]

10. My answer to all questions is who the fuck cares unless and until the machines are sentient?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. This is perhaps the most ridiculous nonsense I've read here in the last five minutes.

Seriously? You want to make it illegal for a person to have sex with a machine because they could put a picture of somebody on it?

WTF? pun intended.

[DetlefK]

16. As the article says, this is about the cultural implications, not the sex itself.

The problem isn't the sex-toy. The problem is that the sex-toy is human-shaped and this will cause people to humanize the sex-toy and dehumanize the human.

What could go wrong in a world where fucking an obedient piece of flesh is considered normal?




Oh, you don't believe my point of humanization? Destroy one of your souvenirs and give away your pet. Do it! What is holding you back? They are just a useless thing and an animal! If you miss their presence, you can go into a shop tommorrow and get a replacement!

You don't believe my point about dehumanization? What were relationships like in biblical times when women were considered property instead of humans? Oops, the Bible is full of rape!

[jberryhill]

18. A string of rhetorical questions is not an argument

[MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy]

47. thank you

for raising the right (and blatantly obvious) questions.

The issue is exactly the same as with visual pornography that portrays women as deserving of (or enjoying) pain and degradation, or portrays children as seductive ... etc.

The ideas really don't stay in a quarantined compartment of the mind absorbing them where they have no effect on that person or the people who cross his path in real life.

As with most such things, the only effective solution lies in addressing the attitudes that lead to how technology is used, since trying to control the use of technology is essentially a fool's task.

[smirkymonkey]

58. +1000

[snooper2]

49. touch me, touch me, touch me, Oh you know what sucks take the wig off, have to reboot the bluetooth

Do you think they will blur the nips when on CNN LOL

[jberryhill]

14. Is that what passes for reasoned argument these days?

What people do on their own time and in private, which harms no one, remains NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

There must have been recently some sort of mass breakout of moral perfection, allowing the so-called liberals to free themselves from the chore of concentrating on their own areas in need of improvement, and move on to the much more enjoyable task of fretting over other people's conduct.

This is particularly bizarre:

"How long will it take until psychopaths discover that they can use sex-robots to indulge in their rape- and mutilation-fantasies instead of seeking psychological treatment?"

Ah, yes, that big line of psychopaths seeking psychological treatment must be an interesting sight to see, in whatever fantasyland you reside.

I mean - holy shit - what if people play with dolls and imagine things! We gotta stop that.

[nil desperandum]

36. Spot on....

in reading this it seemed I had somehow stumbled into some fundamentalist christian study group, obsessing over yet another aspect of someone else's sex life...

[The Straight Story]

15. Your robot, your choice (nt)

[bemildred]

17. I think it will lead to objectification and mistreatment of robots.

Which is much to be preferred to objectification and mistreatment of real people.

[Orrex]

19. Why the hell not? Everything else does already.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. What?

People who 'learn' how to treat 'sexual partners' by screwing a plastic and metal toy are not going to be getting human sexual partners. We're not going to be automatically issuing 'sexbots' to kids on their 18th birthday, or use them in relationship training classes. These are things that are going to be bought by the same sort of lonely, isolated people who use things like 'fleshlights' now. People who already can't attract a human to mate with. You won't have to worry about them 'learning' bad habits and then using those bad habits on real humans.

And btw, please use my face on as many 'sexbots' as you want, as long as I get a royalty for the use of my image.

[PoliticAverse]

24. Is there a different fee depending on how your image is 'used'? n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Yes.

I'll claim a different and larger fee, for instance, for using it in advertising sex-bots than I will for having it on a single given sex-bot. But it's the same fee per face when used ON the sexbot. You want it on the face, one fee. You want to put it on the buttocks? Same fee as the face. Face and butt on same bot? Two fees. (1 per face)

[Renew Deal]

33. Your deal sounds reasonable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

[PoliticAverse]

25. It's the Internet, play along. n/t

[djean111]

27. Are you in favor of getting rid of vibrators, too? I understand some people name theirs........

Maybe masturbation should be outlawed, too, because goodness knows what fantasy person might be involved.
Good grief. Sounds, honestly, like a personal problem being projected on to everybody else.

[randome]

37. Someone could tape a celebrity's face onto a vibrator! It's only a matter of time!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

42. If I had to place bets either way, I would totally bet that this has happened already. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Or your daughter. Think of the children!

Must nip this in the bud.

[cantbeserious]

29. No - Robot Sex Will Lead To The Estrangement Of Both Genders

eom

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. And why only women?

Is it possible to make female sex robots but not male sex robots?

[jberryhill]

41. ...or transgender sex robots

Although it would be simpler to make several standard chassis, and then sell the attachments.

You'd be amazed how many things you can do with a Kitchen Aide base unit these days.

[Facility Inspector]

31. Do I have to go with it to Home Depot and Ikea on Saturday morning?

[jberryhill]

39. No, but, remember, its annoying relatives are coming over on Thursday for dinner

So pick up some beer on the way home.

Thanks.

[liberal N proud]

32. The real concern is conception

What happens if a woman has a baby by robot?

[Renew Deal]

34. Exactly

Everyone is thinking about themselves and not the outcome of their lustful ways.


Look at the baby!

[djean111]

38. Will it come with a warranty?

Actually, should we also ban in vitro and other forms of conception? If you cannot find a partner, or you and your partner cannot conceive, you should just give up?

The premise of the OP is just wrong.

[BlueJazz]

35. I'll stick with the WalMart models.

[stevenleser]

40. Like several others, I see this the exact opposite way.

You think we should be concerned that a pedophile, for instance, would put a child's face on an artificially intelligent sex robot instead of molesting actual children?

As far as I am concerned, if we could accomplish redirecting pedophiles and rapists to take out whatever it is that causes their behavior on a non-sentient robot, that would be earth-shattering progress.

Same thing with much less dramatic but still undesireable or anti-social sexual behavior.

[RadiationTherapy]

44. Pedos, maybe, but rape is about power.

Taking a sentient creature's agency away is a major part of rape and I don't see how a robot helps there.

[stevenleser]

46. If we can go to the movies and suspend disbelief enough to enjoy some of the surreal stuff happening

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

during some movies, I'm guessing that folks can suspend disbelief enough to believe the robots are real for all kinds of situations and scenarios, to include non-sexual.

Its certainly worth a try in my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. A sentient rape therapy robot could provide

rape surrogacy for people who cannot otherwise control their rape impulses. Of course the sentient robot would have to agree to provide this service. Or it could be a non-sentient mimic that provides enough of the experience to satisfy the "client" without problems of compromising an actual sentient entity.

Robots are already being used as companion surrogates. The desire of the op to control the potential here is absurdly misguided.

[RadiationTherapy]

64. First, yes, the OP is misguided. Second, a being either has agency that can be dominated

or it does not. Mimicking agency is not agency. In any case, obviously, I would support any type of useful remediation to the problem of rape.

And, no, I don't want to define "useful remediation" nor "the problem of rape" since I already have one unfinished master's thesis hanging over my head.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. If the emulation of agency passes for agency it is sufficient.

But I can imagine an artificial intelligence that would not have problems with providing a "surrogate rape experience". And of course I have no idea if this would be successful or not, but assuming that it provided some significant benefit I really don't see the ethical problem.

[betsuni]

43. I think sexbots are the perfect answer to human sexuality.

Most other animals have mating seasons and the deed doesn't take very long. With humans it's year-round and constant. Let the robots take some pressure off people, plus they don't spread STDs or get pregnant. There should be orgasm machines like in Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper."

[MineralMan]

45. This seems to me to be a silly concern, really.

First, any sex robot with enough similarity to a real human being will be so expensive that nobody will be able to afford one. Those who could afford to buy one are probably already able to find willing human partners for sex.

Second, the very best humanoid robots today are so clearly non-human that the idea of them replacing human interactions is laughable. I follow this technology pretty closely. The Japanese have built some decent simulacra, but they're still clumsy and mechanical in their movements, facial expressions and voices. Interesting technology, but not convincing.

Third, there are already quite a few devices used by people for sexual purposes. Most are clearly not attempting to be complete substitutes for human interactions, and they're selling like hotcakes. Even catalogs targeting elderly people have pages of sexual devices in them. They're ubiquitous, cheap, and pretty effective, apparently.

People taking sexual release into their own hands, so to speak, have always been around. It's pretty much a universal thing. No elaborate technology is required to achieve an orgasm. So, why on Earth would people pay the equivalent of the cost of a new car for a clumsy simulation of a human being?

I realize that this is the topic of the day on DU, but it's really a silly issue. I can't see how technologically assisted masturbation is going to affect how people relate to each other, really. I think it's a false concern, frankly.

[Fast Walker 52]

52. yeah-- I agree. This is a really marginal issue that won't affect more than a tiny number of people

who the fuck in their right mind really wants to fuck a robot? I realize there are some people who would like it, but I just can't believe it's many people.

[hunter]

70. Nah, they'll be rented by the hour in mock brothels, each room a different fantasy.

Bring a friend on threesome Thursdays!

This will create many jobs for people to clean and disinfect the robots and rooms after each client, and a few jobs for people who repair robots as parts wear out or are damaged in rough sexual encounters.

Okay, I'm done thinking about that. I've had some bad jobs, but cleaning sex robots all day would be worse than any of them.

[Renew Deal]

48. What happens when the robots figure out they don't need us?

It's going to be like this, but just robots

[leftyladyfrommo]

50. Wouldn't this really be just masturbation?

Just another way of getting it off without a human partner?

Sex with a robot doesn't sound very enticing to me. Kind of an empty form of sex used to relieve tension and not much more than that.

[NuclearDem]

53. Don't date robots!

[NobodyHere]

59. .

[damnedifIknow]

54. Nothing against robo sex here

Whatever flips your switch but what if one shorts out during the bedroom tango? I mean, will sparks fly in more ways than one?

[Nye Bevan]

55. Wait a minute.... they could make a vibrator that exactly replicates some real man's penis!

That would be just so objectifying, and wrong!

[Glassunion]

56. The true crime would be if it ran on Windows 10.

You're in the mood, got some candles lit, and you're trying to get it on with your "Bang-a-Bot®", right in the middle of a fantastic session, you keep getting that annoying pop up telling you to apply 15 security updates...

[ecstatic]

57. The only important question is whether it would spill over into real life

After thinking about it, I think it would be like a gateway drug. For example: A disturbed individual regularly "rapes" a robot that has my face on it. He'll eventually get bored and seek out the real thing. That puts my life in jeopardy.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Or the rapist is fully satisfied by the experience

and doesn't attack anyone ever. Meanwhile, on the off chance that surrogacy doesn't work, you would criminalize it?

By the way, "gateway drugs" are bullshit. The term is drug warrior propaganda used to justify criminalizing drugs far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

[Nye Bevan]

63. However, if he is banned from being intimate with a robot that has your face,

the danger might be that he would seek out the real thing right away.

[DavidDvorkin]

65. Duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7170708

[Rex]

67. So IOW, the horrible treatment of women and children will get worse?

I don't think there is anything worse than slavery, but I've been wrong before.

[Glassunion]

68. .

[Katashi_itto]

69. Solves the MRA problem since they don't seem to want real women anyway.

[Skittles]

72. BINGO!!!!