Scientists Warn Sex Robots Could Lead To Society’S Downfall

[bust]

Richardson and Billing might do well to worry less about hypothetical future moral failings surrounding sex and gender and look at their own very real current ones.

 

While it’s been established that great advancements in technology are often driven by

our desire to get our rocks off

, two scientists are warning that the growing interest in sex robotics is cause for great concern, and future artificially intelligent humanoid machines that are always DTF pose great risks for sex and gender relations in our society.

Doctors Kathleen Richardson and Erik Billing have launched the

Campaign Against Sex Robots

, which espouses that robots developed specifically for the purpose of rutting will reinforce traditional, stereotypical views of sexuality (particularly women’s sexuality). The doctors say it’s not so much that people will potentially stop trying to get laid with another actual human being if they’ve got a BangBuddy 2000 ready and waiting back at the house. It’s that the robots will increase the perception that relationships are a purely physical phenomenon, and any potential partner’s worth comes down to their ability to sex.

“The danger of sex robots lies in what we read into them, how we form fantasies that, in some respects, become a reality — a reality where the human (male) user is expected to turn on his woman robot companion for his own, lone, pleasure,†Dr. Billing

told

the Huffington Post

. “I think most of us would agree that this is very far from a healthy, mutual, sexual relationship.â€

The problem with Richardson’s and Billing’s position is that they themselves base their argument on traditional, stereotypical, and misogynistic views of sexuality and gender.

A research paper

authored by Richardson cited on the campaign’s website is centered around what she views as parallels between the potential use of sex robots and the current sex work industry — or more specifically, the potential use of sex robots by men, and women currently working in the sex industry.

In her mind, women sex workers are literally objects the same way robots are, with no agency of their own:As modern subjects, male and females have equal rights under the law, and these rights recognise them as human agents. In prostitution, only the buyer of sex is attributed subjectivity, the seller of sex is reduced to a

thing

…

In the sex exchange in prostitution, the subjectivity of the seller of sex is diminished and the subjectivity of the buyer is the only privileged perspective and viewpoint. As robots are programmable entities with no autonomous (or very limited) capabilities, it seems logical then that prostitution becomes the model for Levy’s human-robot sex relations.

This seems logical in Richardson’s mind perhaps, but only because to her all women sex workers are de facto victims. And more than that, the doctors’ hypothesis about what a future full of sex robots might look like is based on an entirely outdated notion of sexuality, or as our own Jamie Peck has put it before:

In the minds of these moralistic crusaders, sex is a thing that women have and men want, and a thing which always degrades women when it doesn’t occur within the bounds of traditional monogamy.

[My Penis is hungry]

I'm concerned about all the girls who loose their jobs to Robots in Thermae and Cowboy.

[cavanami]

...all the girls in Thermae and Cowboy are robots!

[Coss]

When I see:

 

"reinforce traditional, stereotypical views of sexuality (particularly women’s sexuality)"

 

"a reality where the human (male) user is expected to turn on his woman robot companion for his own, lone, pleasure"

 

I see feminazi.

 

Surely the argument goes:

 

" What is wrong with men having sex with robots - they are not women - no harm no foul "

 

"But that would encourage men to view women as nothing more than robot objects for men's gratification, this means women are objectified and that is bad"

 

"But men can tell the difference between women and robots, they are not easily fooled"

 

"Technology will make the differences undecipherable"

 

"What about Asimov's first law of robotics?"

 

"What do you mean?"

 

"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm"

 

"So?"

 

"When a man is about to have sex with someone, whom he is not sure is real or not, he insults her/it terribly. If it is a woman she will react by slapping him, if a robot, it will not, ergo, safe to proceed, no harm no foul"

[bust]

Story seems slanted on women's rights yet in the pic the woman is "getting her rocks off" with a robot

[baa99]