Feminists oppose sex bots, and sex workers for the same reason. Economic competition.

The only thing most men REALLY pay for is sex. If a 1984 2 door Chevette were more attractive to women than a Corvette, men would not be buying Corvettes.

If women didnt want providers men wouldnt work so hard to make money.

Case in point my generation and most obviously the one that followed - they arent getting married or having kids, and without that responsibility pushing them onward they arent going for the high paying jobs, they are going for jobs which pay enough for them to get by and spend their free time doing what they want, which is having less contact with the very women who told them they werent needed or wanted (or really even human being that all males are pervy proto-rapists)

Feminists these days are the worst sort of Puritans.

Feminists dont give a shit about equality and violence against women anymore. It has devolved into a cabal, a guild seeking to protect its market share - it control over access to pussy and the power and money that control gives them

With my imagination of the type of man who would actually use a sex robot, I'm more worried about the robot's safety and dignity.

Hah -- great.

@bkmale - I'm not so sure. See e.g. Sex with robots to be 'the norm' in 50 years, expert claims:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-robots-the-norm-50-6190575

Don't know what makes Richardson and Billing think they'll have any luck, when you can get an old-fashioned blowup doll in almost any city. What's the difference?

In the meantime, as I've mentioned, after reading the Vanity Fair article below, I was pretty convinced that for the average unattached man, the holy grail isn't better male birth control, it's condomless sex with no responsibility whatsoever - something that even macho conservative childfree married men don't always have. (Now, if only the MRAs would admit that that's what unattached men really want - it certainly explains a new study in the U.K. that said that only about 11% of men would be willing to use Vasalgel once it arrives; I'm guessing many of those men ARE in long-term relationships.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/04/sexbots-realdoll-sex-toys

Hey, how about if we program the sex robot to LIE about being raped? Would it be okay then?

Technology - is there anything it cannot do?

Not animated yet, but that's not tough to fix.

Being "degraded" during sex can be a satisfying part of sex.

These grim nannies make a lot of assumptions!

So are they going to make dildos illegal as well? Isn't being reduced to a body part,"dehumanizing" by their standards???

Don't be disgusting, that's my robot maid.

That's also my robot maid.

And her over there? That's also my robot maid. I got a big place, what can I say?

@Snoopy

I'm concerned that there are people claiming to be experts on robot sex.

@Frog (great name btw) - LOL

I'm concerned that there are people claiming to be experts on robot sex.

I believe you meant to say "robotic". As in "I was having a good time until I realized how robotic she was between the sheets, then I called it a night and went home."

Ethicists are very interesting, in that they trade on making the world how it should be rather than on the way it is... basing should be on their own values, certainly.

They may not be wrong about how this will effect society, and Lenona may not be wrong about the way she thinks about men...

to which I have to say: so what?

"I was pretty convinced that for the average unattached man, the holy grail isn't better male birth control, it's condomless sex with no responsibility whatsoever" Lenona

And somehow, for some reason, women are - in some way - different, in this regard?

Nope, everyone wants to feel good with no calories, at no cost, and with no consequence. Wouldn't we call that human nature?

From THERE, where do you go? Obviously not all these things can be had, and the societies we have evolved are quite complicated. So then, what route does a human take to nirvana?

"You can't have nirvana, you have to be a productive member of society!"

ORLY? That's what the ethicists say. Well, what's my ROI on that? AND? Let's look at all groups in society, not just the cis-het [oi, typing that made me nauseous] males.

Remember that thing where you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish?

What's my reward for working my a$$ off for other people my whole life? Everybody should be asking themselves this, so that we can start a conversation™ on what it is to exist, and the pros and cons thereof.

The problem with that conversation, as those same ethicists know, is that once you've seen the big city you can't keep 'em down on the farm.

ONE group of people have gotten on board with this. Many strong independent women have realized that the value proposition of having kids, doesn't fit with their worldview. And we call them "Strong Independent Women" and celebrate their triumphs.
And then we look at guys, and if they do the same thing, they get demonized for wanting "sex with no responsibilities" and not working hard enough, or manning up, or fulfilling their responsibility to society.
Oh, and also they are stupid, and without a woman around they'll never eat right... etc. etc. you know the drill from your TV set to every scolding woman in the mall or grocery store.

Sting once wrote an interesting lyric about this:

"He sees the family home now, looming in his headlights-
The pain upstairs that makes his eyeballs ache."
from Synchronicity II

Luj wrote all of this in a compact concise way... so it's all been said, and this is just rumination - :shrug:

So what's all this got to do with 'bots? When society celebrates single mothers it rewards them, and their decision to be single mothers. What it requires of men is that they pay up in some way, it doesn't celebrate them as single fathers, and would be happier if they weren't involved. Only that the check get there on time. Some guys escape this because they are feckless bastards, but any guy who tries to be conscientious will be rewarded with pain. If she decides not to have the kid... well he doesn't get a say in that either, since he doesn't go through the pain of carrying it.

Ask yourself exactly what the incentives are here.

Every guy in the world knows sally five fingers, but blowup dolls are just too hilarious to be dealt with for the most part... but a bot won't be. they'll have the correct weight, warmth and feeling, and they'll likely clean up after themselves.
Will people form relationships with them? Do you talk to your fish? Admonish your car for having the engine light come on? Rush home to feed your 10 cats? Pick up doggie doo on your walks?

How hard will it be to imagine that your Cherry2000 is actually glad to see you come home? How hard will it be to tell your R.Grey3000 that you had a sucky day at work, and don't want to be spanked tonight? [are you joking, Rule34 says this fic has already been written.]

If for no other reason than that we will need companionship in space travel, these bots will be coming... perhaps someday we will even inhabit them.

Is it ethical? why wouldn't it be? we are individuals with interests and needs after all. Haven't we already been through the argument about if it's ethical to marry someone who cannot bear you children? If it IS, what difference does it make if they are someone of your same sex, r your car, or your vibrator? Is there some kind of requirement that there be a conscious reciprocation of feeling and decision?

The arguments these ethicists make resolves down to: there only must be cis-het relationships where you are required by society to have a precise number of children in order to replace yourself, and you are required to work productively to keep the whole thing going.

I think that horse blew through the barn-door a LONG time ago. Dunno where it's going... this all mostly still works through inertia, and there is plenty of the world that still knows how to make a finely crafted human being...
But is that what God, dog, flying spaghetti monster, or evolution has in mind/percentages of?

Maybe we should ask deep thought, after we evolve enough to construct it.

I have been to Europe a couple of times. I just got back from London. I noticed that I probably see more grossly obese woman in the office I work at than I saw in a week in London. I also noticed that women don't dress slutty, but they did dress in a way that flattered their svelte bodies.

I also know a number of men that married east European or Russian women. The women appreciated America and a spouse that provided a lifestyle that would have been unavailable. They also were interested in being traditional wives and mothers. They don't give a rip what feminist say they should want.

I don't think robots are the challenge for many American women, but foreign women.

Swiss, I think I can sum up a lot of that with a quote that I saw from a commenter on PJ Media, talking about what is the single worst thing that the Marxists have done to Western civilization: "They made it unfashionable to be a respectable man."

So no woman has ever used a vibrator or dildo? Those are already 'sex machines'. So why doesn't that degrade men? This is utter hypocrisy.

Electro Gonorrhea the noisy killer.

Make Kathleen and Eris watch Hysteria and write a movie review on it.

Actually, I liked this movie; so, maybe it is better if they don't see it.

"Electro Gonorrhea the noisy killer."

Whoever is handing out blog points - Ben gets one for this.

Hey, "ethicist" - answer this question:

Why is possession of an image a crime?

Consider the Realdoll™ people. They don't build dolls that look like kids, but is anyone whatsoever claiming that a doll is a real person, or, if one was built, that a "preteen" doll is an actual preteen?

Is it ethical to burn your Realdoll™ in a campfire? How about if it has the computerized voice and begs you not to do it?

Bible™ fans completely mistake their book for the real world and some support "hate" crimes, so I'm not surprised that folk insist that images = intent, but there are enough teens in jail or ID'd as predators for having their own picture on their phone. Somebody has to bring us out of the Dark Ages.

SwissArmyD: Brilliant!

An aside, but this all reminds me of a funny scene in David Brin's Kiln People. It's a sci-fi novel in which people have machines that can make copies of themselves to perform certain tasks. The copies last from a few hours to a few days, and then disintegrate. Tthe person who made the copy can upload its memories into their own brain, so they get the experiences of the copy in addition to their own experiences. One pastime is making a copy of oneself for someone else to have sex with, and then uploading the memories. So a man and a woman get it on, each thinking they're with a copy of the other person. When they figure out that they've actually has sex with each other in the flesh, they both get grossed out.

And somehow, for some reason, women are - in some way - different, in this regard?
_________________________________________

Yes, they are - it's easier for a man to infect a woman with an STD than the other way around, so a lot of men can't grasp why they should have to think about STDs at all - or use condoms. Women, at least, are more marriage-inclined, so that gives them extra incentive to postpone condom-free sex - if not much.
_________________________________________

ONE group of people have gotten on board with this. Many strong independent women have realized that the value proposition of having kids, doesn't fit with their worldview. And we call them "Strong Independent Women" and celebrate their triumphs.
And then we look at guys, and if they do the same thing, they get demonized for wanting "sex with no responsibilities"

SwissArmyD
___________________________________________

I will say it's silly for any woman to imply, as Kay Hymowitz apparently has (in her notorious book "Manning Up"), that men should learn to WANT marriage or children when they don't, just because there aren't enough men without criminal records to go around. After all, if women should be free not to marry or have kids, so should men, and even childfree (CF) women who want a relationship often have to struggle to find ANY man who truly accepts the idea of a CF woman. (I have the impression that even CF MRAs aren't all that comfortable with the idea - never mind MRAs who happen to be divorced dads.)

If a man would really rather forgo ALL relationships than use condoms, well, chances are most women wouldn't want him anyway, just as most women who want children don't want to have children with a man who doesn't - or even with a man who never wants to do any childcare. What's still bothersome is the stubborn idea that birth control and STD prevention should be "women's work."
___________________________________________

Make Kathleen and Eris watch Hysteria and write a movie review on it.

Actually, I liked this movie; so, maybe it is better if they don't see it.

Posted by: charles at September 16, 2015 2:46 PM
_____________________________________________

I didn't. It's annoyingly juvenile in all sorts of ways - and I didn't believe/appreciate the wedding at the end either. Had they tried to be even LESS serious - truly bawdy and ridiculous - it might have worked better as a comedy. I liked the extra documentary on the DVD; it was truly intelligent, thoughtful, and much more worthwhile. The movie, however, tried to have things both ways and failed.

""I was pretty convinced that for the average woman, the holy grail isn't better birth control, it's sex with no responsibility whatsoever"

There, Lenona, FIFY... maybe you can see the point I was getting at... which was lightyears from how you read it, I guess.

Having something as the holy grail, means "wouldn't it be good if:" not something you could actually have...

Everybody wishes to have fun with no responsibility, but then reality intrudes.

Doesn't matter if it's kids, STDs, or that fuzzy warm feeling of attachment, that isn't reciprocated. Obviously it works that way for man or woman, and depending on the individual, which thing is a problem, or all of them is a problem.

"it's easier for a man to infect a woman with an STD than the other way around" Lenona.

care to link a citation on that one?

"just as most women who want children don't want to have children with a man who doesn't" Lenona

ORLY? Care to explain the epidemic of single mothers in certain populations? Or how 50% of children are accidentally on purpose?

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Unplanned-pregnancy-increases-among-poor-2519018.php

If a guy DOESN'T want to wear a condom, then the "paradise store" is closed, come back when you have the coin of the realm. That is to say you can pick up condoms at an convenience store for a few bucks, and failing to do so in advance should cause an unfortunate headache, and the unavailability of sex. If the guy doesn't come prepared, then the woman says no. How hard is that. You seem to be suggesting that most guys DON'T come prepared. Fine, then it's up to the other partner to issue the GTFO.

As for the STI/STD thing... there are a cohort of people who simply assume: "everybody has X thing" [usually herpes] and so they don't bother telling... or they have no symptoms. Condoms help, but since STI can be transmitted on any skin to skin, they are a small partial help...
unless you never kiss, do no foreplay of any sort, and never touch skin to skin. The real hard part is, by date 3 have you both gone to the doc, gotten tested, and then reconvened to talk about it?

Oh, and what if you have herpes, let's say, does that kill the whole relationship?

Even in the most idealized world that particular set of actions is highly unlikely.

"If a man would really rather forgo ALL relationships than use condoms" Lenona

you are the one postulating this, why do you think it's the case? What kind of guys do you know?

OTOH... depending on age, this might be QED... Plenty of middle aged people get to the point where forming such relationships isn't interesting, condoms have 0% to do with anything.

OH, and? A growing pop of STI's are seniors who are far past child bearing, and simply don't care.

"it's easier for a man to infect a woman with an STD than the other way around" Lenona.

care to link a citation on that one? SwissArmyD

She is right, as far as viral infections go. Due to the dry nature of glans that have had the foreskin ripped off them. The lack of foreskin leads to drier sex which causes mirco tears in the flesh of the vaiginal tissue.

Bacterial infections are kind of a wash.

In males who arent genitally mutilated for the express purpose of curbing sexual pleasure and the viewing pleasure of women, viral infections are a wash and men are more likely to contract bacterial infections from women than vise versa

Thanks, luj for the explanation... sounds like it depends a great deal on group and age cohort...

To luj: That doesn't exactly jibe with this, from the Centers for Disease Control:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/STDs-Women-042011.pdf

"A woman’s anatomy can place her at a unique risk for STD infection, compared to a man.

"The lining of the vagina is thinner and more delicate than the skin on a penis, so it’s easier for bacteria and viruses to penetrate.

"The vagina is a good environment (moist) for bacteria to grow."

""I was pretty convinced that for the average woman, the holy grail isn't better birth control, it's sex with no responsibility whatsoever"

There, Lenona, FIFY... maybe you can see the point I was getting at... which was lightyears from how you read it, I guess.
_____________________________________

Well, maybe because that doesn't make sense. While birth control is seldom much fun, and can even be painful, planning and having an abortion (even one she doesn't have to pay for) is usually considerably more stressful, from all accounts - at least until it's over. So, I would say that for a woman, the holy grail is an invisible contraceptive that also protects against all STDs, since she's more vulnerable to them. When a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she naturally wants her own set of contraceptives rather than leaving the responsibility in someone else's hands.

Whereas most men won't see the point of using, say, Vasalgel if they still have to use condoms. Which is why I suspect that for a very long time, only celebrities with lots of groupies and married men whose wives can't use hormonal methods will use it.
________________________________________

Everybody wishes to have fun with no responsibility, but then reality intrudes.
_______________________________________

Maybe I should have just said "for the average unattached man, the holy grail isn't better male birth control, it's condomless sex."
____________________________________

"just as most women who want children don't want to have children with a man who doesn't" Lenona

ORLY? Care to explain the epidemic of single mothers in certain populations? Or how 50% of children are accidentally on purpose?
__________________________________________

Must I spell everything out? I was simply referring to those men who OPENLY declare their opposition to fatherhood in advance. We only hear about the unpleasant cases where the man and woman disagree and she ends up pregnant - seldom or never about the thousands of people who manage to find people who AGREE with them on reproductive matters. Good news is boring. That's why it doesn't get publicized as much.
_________________________________________

You seem to be suggesting that most guys DON'T come prepared.
____________________________________

No, just that it's no secret that men hate condoms - and plenty will beg their girlfriends to use something else when she doesn't want to, just because they've been together for months but haven't seen the doctor yet. However, other men are known to insist on condoms even if they know the women are on the Pill, simply because the Pill has a real-life failure rate of 5%. (I'd love to know how just often sex-ed teachers make it clear that you HAVE to use two methods, every time - even if one method is the Pill.)
______________________________________

"If a man would really rather forgo ALL relationships than use condoms" Lenona

you are the one postulating this, why do you think it's the case? What kind of guys do you know?
______________________________________

All I said was "if."

I was thinking of a few of the men described in the Vanity Fair article. Nothing more. But teenage boys could easily belong to that category - like the ones who actually lie and say "don't worry, I'm sterile" - according to the late, great Dr. Sol Gordon.

Leona, that is a single fact sheet the kind you'd see in any local where no one wants to or has time to read the facts of several various studies accounting for various factors.

Get back to me AFTER you do such research

And what's YOUR source? Why would the CDC lie about men's being more vulnerable to bacterial infections, since that lie would only lead to a higher disease rate?

BTW, on the other subject, when I said "no responsibility," I was thinking more along the lines of "no responsibility for preventing pregnancy or disease." But, as I hinted above, even conservative married men aren't always free not to use condoms, since their wives often can't use hormonal birth control.

Also, to spell it out a bit further, for some men at least, what they want is condomless sex with strangers they don't have to see again. Even hookers often won't allow that. (Don't know how often.)

Who the fuck said the CDC lied?

Christ, are you really so fucking bigoted against men that you ignore the fact that your one page info sheet is NOT the same thing a study, let alone a cross comparison of dozens of studies just because a guy points it out?

News flash moron, a single sheet with ten facts in a really big font with bullet points in an even bigger font is NOT A STUDY

Furthermore before you start bleating for sources I'd like to pose this question.

If you wont believe me when I tell you an oversized print, single sheet, fact list is not a multi paged study taking several factor into account, as self evident as that so obviously is, why would you ever believe anything you found at the end of a link I posted?

That has the feel of a zen koan Lujlp. ;>

Here's something else, if you like (it's really long):

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6403a1.htm

"Male circumcision reduces the risk for HIV and some STDs in heterosexual men. Three randomized, controlled trials performed in regions of sub-Saharan Africa where generalized HIV epidemics involving predominantly heterosexual transmission were occurring demonstrated that male circumcision reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among men by 50%–60% (51–53). In these trials, circumcision was also protective against other STDs, including high-risk genital HPV infection and genital herpes (54–56). Follow up studies have demonstrated sustained benefit of circumcision for HIV prevention (57) and that the effect is not mediated solely through a reduction in herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection or genital ulcer disease (58).

"WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have recommended that male circumcision efforts be scaled up as an effective intervention for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection..."

That study was shuttered for ethical reason and the fact that the studies subjects seemed unable to understand that circumcision did not ELIMINATE the risk of transmission and were refusing to use condoms once circumcised.

Also a at the same time a study of female genital lacing found it too reduced the risk of contracting STDs, but I dont see you defending that practice.

Nice analysis - Speaking of which , if your business is requiring a FMCSA Medical Examiner\'s Certificate , my boss filled out and faxed a sample document here or http://njms2.umdnj.edu/zuckier/documents/8465206_000.pdf.