http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/09/sexbots-with-a-detrimental-effect-on-society-should-be-banned-say-researchers/
QuoteSexbots with a "detrimental effect on society" should be banned, say researchers
A robotics researcher at the UK's De Montfort University has called for sex robots—or robostitutes as they're more commonly known—to be banned completely. The researcher, Kathleen Richardson, says that the development of realistic sexbots "further objectifies women and children" and reinforces the "perceived inferiority of women and children"—and thus they must be banned.
Richardson's Campaign Against Sex Robots comes at a time when a number of academics, robotics companies, and the adult industries are looking to develop increasingly realistic sex dolls. Earlier in the year, we wrote about RealDoll—a purveyor of fine, silicone sex dolls—and its efforts to develop a robotic, artificially intelligent head that can be swapped onto existing RealDoll bodies. Vanity Fair recently published an interesting piece titled Is This the Dawn of the Sexbots?. As far back as 2011, I wrote a story about one researcher, Hooman Samani, who was working on lovotics—an emerging area of AI that deals in developing meaningful relationships between humans and robots.
Later this year, True Companion (NSFW) will reportedly be the first company to sell sex robots, priced at $6,995 (£4,500). There's a female model called Roxxxy (original, I know), and a male model called Rocky.
The Campaign Against Sex Robots, which currently only has two researchers on its roster—Richardson, plus Erik Billing from the University of Skövde in Sweden—wants to curtail sexbot research and development. The Campaign is concerned that, over the last few years, AI researchers, adult industries, and the media have generally focused on the positive aspects of sexbots, "without critically examining their detrimental effect on society."
The Campaign's manifesto is fairly long, but here are a few key points:
- We believe the development of sex robots further objectifies women and children.
- The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).
- 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.
To remedy these problems, the Campaign Against Sex Robots will "support the development of ethical technologies that reflect human principles of dignity, mutuality and freedom," and attempt to convince the world at large that "all human beings regardless of age, gender and class have the right to have their subjectivity recognized." Richardson has also written a research paper, published in the September issue of the ACM SIGCAS newsletter, that further investigates the parallels between sexbots and prostitution.
While the Campaign has received a lot of press, the two researchers face a very steep uphill struggle. It isn't that Richardson's argument—that sexbots might further objectify women and children—is necessarily wrong or misguided, though for now we'll leave that one to the academics and lawmakers to discuss. Rather, the main problem is that sexbots, perhaps even more so than killer robots, are utterly inevitable.
Still, even if the Campaign Against Sex Robots can't secure an outright ban against robostitutes, it may still be useful for the rapidly tumescing sex doll industry, and society in general, to have a counterweight that keeps the conversation balanced and honest.
https://campaignagainstsexrobots.wordpress.com/
QuoteWe believe in the benefits of robots and technologies to our society and human cultures, but want to ensure that robotics develops ethically and that we do not reproduce inequalities with their development that could further reinforce disturbing human lived experiences.
We are not proposing to extend rights to robots. We do not see robots as conscious entities. We propose instead that robots are a product of human consciousness and creativity and human power relationships are reflected in the production, design and proposed uses of these robots. As a result, we oppose any efforts to develop robots that will contribute to gender inequalities in society.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnnygoodtimes.com%2FSexyRobot2.jpg&hash=f21cf2c807ac4d92c7aea3c32fc5675321ecde30)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m71arfk7ci1qjwcc4o1_500.gif&hash=2d7f279b25bca11e9bd99dfc45edd6b90eaa9e67)
Quote- We believe the development of sex robots further objectifies women and children.
WTF, no hot guy sex robots? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
WTF, no hot guy sex robots? :huh:
Um read the article. There is a male sex robot being sold named 'Rocky' :P
But nobody cares about objectifying men. We are subhuman beasts of burden, fit for military service and manual labor. Ok that might not be the actual reason.
Yes they should.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
WTF, no hot guy sex robots? :huh:
Um read the article. There is a male sex robot being sold named 'Rocky' :P
But nobody cares about objectifying men. We are subhuman beasts of burden, fit for military service and manual labor. Ok that might not be the actual reason.
On that topic, see my recent post in the Vienna election thread ;)
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
Um read the article. There is a male sex robot being sold named 'Rocky' :P
If the female bot is any indication, the male one will be NOT hott!
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 02:06:27 PMBut nobody cares about objectifying men. We are subhuman beasts of burden, fit for military service and manual labor. Ok that might not be the actual reason.
Buzzfeed commentators cry about the double standards where buzzfeed will objectify men but will decry objectification of women. I'm like don't get between me and looking at photos of hot men. :angry:
I didn't think anyone could come up with worse neologisms than "Gluon" and "Bromance", but:
Quotelovotics
robostitutes
:bleeding:
I was wrong. :(
I agree with the shrill scientician that we should ban everything anyone finds yucky.
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
So this broad must be opposed to vibrators too.
Quote from: Savonarola on September 15, 2015, 02:14:35 PM
I didn't think anyone could come up with worse neologisms than "Gluon" and "Bromance", but:
Quotelovotics
robostitutes
:bleeding:
I was wrong. :(
Is there another type of "Gluon", that isn't in particle physics?
All this campaign seems to do is to help spread the word that these robots exist :lol:
Technically they sexist.
Does this violate Azimov's Three Laws of Robotics? If so, how? If not, please explain too.
I've visited the website of this robot company. There are barely any pictures of the robot at all. Only picture I can find is a thumbnail sized representation of the robot's face, but that doesn't look very appealing to me. Nothing about what the parts below the neck look like. I just don't think current technology is capable of producing a realistic looking sex robot.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Not in the USA, baby, where simulated child porn is okay.
Quote from: Scipio on September 15, 2015, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Not in the USA, baby, where simulated child porn is okay.
:thumbsdown:
The only positive thing to say about the radical-feminist response to this is that they're getting in their objections early, rather than after a trillion dollar industry was built, which should be praised in a general way.
But overall, it's an extremely stupid and counterproductive attitude. I'll leave aside any argument that they would reduce rates of rape--I think that's possible, but going into that discussion is dangerous and tricky and I find it a bit tedious. It would virtually destroy prostitution as an industry. And, I would imagine, that's an outcome they would like to see.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Well, like Scip said, but that gets into a whole thing that I'm sure we'd all rather ignore, which is whether harmless (gross) outlets for pedophilia would reduce rates of child predation. If it would, as a policy matter, shouldn't we be for it, even if we find it quite disgusting?
I'd be okay with putting purchasers on some kind of monitoring list, of course. But we should all be on a monitoring list.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:14:37 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 15, 2015, 02:14:35 PM
I didn't think anyone could come up with worse neologisms than "Gluon" and "Bromance", but:
Quotelovotics
robostitutes
:bleeding:
I was wrong. :(
Is there another type of "Gluon", that isn't in particle physics?
Not to the best of my knowledge.
Oh "Mathlete" is another awful neologism; that might be worse than "Bromance".
How do the Canadian porn police distinguish between 17 year old and 18 year old one cooters and bungholes, if they're not attached to a real person?
I think it only fit and proper that Joan take one for the team here and makes damn sure that she'll never be replaced by the sexbot revolution. :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F9D5SgyYOOIk%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&hash=732343ec222f776896f295b5ec7990829aa678c9)
Evangeline A.K. Mcdowell in Negima. 700 year old powerful vampire mage with complete backstory and her own story arc. But she became a vampire when she was 10 years old, so she never grows old from that point.
Child?
Quote from: Savonarola on September 15, 2015, 06:12:40 PM
Is there another type of "Gluon", that isn't in particle physics?
Not to the best of my knowledge.
Oh "Mathlete" is another awful neologism; that might be worse than "Bromance".
I never really thought of "gluons" as some aweful neologism. Admittedly I don't know much about them. I know they are mixed in with quarks and they have different colors, but beyond that I don't know what they do.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
It would virtually destroy prostitution as an industry. And, I would imagine, that's an outcome they would like to see.
I doubt it. I figure a sexbot is going to cost a lot more than a cheap hooker.
Sexbots will bring more peace to society. Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
I doubt it. I figure a sexbot is going to cost a lot more than a cheap hooker.
Not to rent.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2015, 10:29:59 PM
Sexbots will bring more peace to society. Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.
I believe for some it would count as masturbation, which is also frowned upon.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
If the technology was to exist, I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to allow it rather than have pedos use real kids. We do have state funded drug places anyway, where supposedly the people will get stone until they can't do it anymore and quit the nasty habit. Wonder if it would work on pedos. I'd much rather have them to pay for sex with a child looking robot than hiring underage prostitutes.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
The question is what would be the rationale for making this illegal.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:14:37 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 15, 2015, 02:14:35 PM
I didn't think anyone could come up with worse neologisms than "Gluon" and "Bromance", but:
Quotelovotics
robostitutes
:bleeding:
I was wrong. :(
Is there another type of "Gluon", that isn't in particle physics?
Glue-on is like Strap-on only you glue it on?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 05:01:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Well, like Scip said, but that gets into a whole thing that I'm sure we'd all rather ignore, which is whether harmless (gross) outlets for pedophilia would reduce rates of child predation. If it would, as a policy matter, shouldn't we be for it, even if we find it quite disgusting?
I'd be okay with putting purchasers on some kind of monitoring list, of course. But we should all be on a monitoring list.
That's a bit like arguing that people who play violent video games (not to mention, hunters) are all potential murderers.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: Scipio on September 15, 2015, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Not in the USA, baby, where simulated child porn is okay.
:thumbsdown:
Yay for more moral panic! :rolleyes:
By the way, Beeb, does it mean that people who engage in infantilization fetish in Canada break the law?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2015, 10:29:59 PM
Sexbots will bring more peace to society. Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.
they be lusting over their neighbours wife and sexbot. It would double the problems! :p
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 16, 2015, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2015, 10:29:59 PM
Sexbots will bring more peace to society. Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.
they be lusting over their neighbours wife and sexbot. It would double the problems! :p
They just need the sexbot's appearance to be reprogrammable. Simple, right?
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
It would virtually destroy prostitution as an industry. And, I would imagine, that's an outcome they would like to see.
I doubt it. I figure a sexbot is going to cost a lot more than a cheap hooker.
To the tune of $7000. That's a lot of $20 blowjobs.
Also, no pictures I can find of the "Rocky" model, but the "Roxxxy" has the typical look of a sex doll with a bad wig. If anything, it looks a little scarier than your average sex doll. Not hott.