Woman here. The thesis of this article is a gross overgeneralization. There is no doubt in my mind that, if sex robots became more commonplace, some women would be using them. Though we tend to be into different things, our sexual interests are every bit as diverse and salacious as men's. If men exist who are interested in some specific kink or sex toy, it's practically a certainty that there exist women who are into the same thing.
Ugh, continuing the dialog of Levy, Pearson, and Realbotix, all of whom are violently overquoted at this point. Levy’s original thesis was boring and heteronormative when it was published almost 20 years ago, and is worse while not having been redeveloped at all now. Pearson is also well know for “women will implant ipods in their breasts” and what not, he’s the futurist you can get to say anything for a good daily mail quote. Realbotix basically exists to get press at CES and that’s about it.
Glad that the article does take the whole subject to task but I’m just kinda ready to move on to something more useful. It’s a continued media engagement over things that were vacuous to begin with.
(Granted I work in the industry so this is also a case of massive overexposure heh.)
There’s interesting stuff happening in sex tech, but sex with robots sure ain’t it.
I would suggest that it is more common for straight women, I don't know enough about gay women, to have sex with robots than it is for men.
A vibrator is a robot, in many ways. It maybe isn't a full personification of a human, but that hasn't seemed to hurt their popularity.
The difference is that women, don't seem to be looking to replace a human partner with a robot, but men who are not able to attract a female, seem to be willing to make this exchange.
I think we need to be honest about what people are getting out of these interactions.
A woman wants sexual gratification. As far as I know the relationship with the vibrator doesn't go much beyond that.
A man wants ego gratification. I suspect that's why it is important that it be a physical embodiment. If it was just about physical gratification, that is possible without having to make a humanoid robot. But for him to feel like he is king of the hill and has attracted the ultimate (in his mind) feminine, he needs that person looking/feeling thing. They even go so far as to make them talk to build up the man's ego even further.
I think this is obviously not about protecting the female robots, but about eliminating competition.
Let's be honest about it: affordable high-quality sexbots could dramatically upset the current balance between the sexes. And it's not the men who are afraid of that.
I don't think there are many women who'd feel threatened at the prospect of receiving fewer unsolicited dick picks from the sort of guys who view them as interchangeable with robots, and I'm not really sure what more impact on 'the current balance of the sexes' you'd expect to come out of something like that.
I am not sure what are the proper words to explain this in a polite company, but women have been policing sexuality since ever. Men are typically jealous of their own partners, but they don't care much about what strangers are doing. Women pay attention to each other, and call out "sluts", because they do not want sex to get too cheap, as that would threaten their own negotiating power at the dating market place. Robots could be the ultimate "sluts".
How much sexual power each woman has, that is highly individual. Some women are more attractive than others. Some women have many other qualities, but for some this is the greatest leverage they have. Therefore, if that power suddenly dropped to zero, because of abundance of cheap robotic sex, different women would be impacted differently. Some of them might be even happy about it, as you suggest.
But it seems that many women are concerned, because when similar topics are discussed in the news, there if often women who insist on policing male sexuality. Sometimes, like when discussing prostitution, porn, or just too much free sex, this is done under the pretext of protecting the exploited women. And yes, there is also that aspect. But when the debate moves to e.g. computer-generated porn, where there are absolutely no real women involved... still, some women are concerned about that, too. This article was about robots, and - quite predictably - some woman was publicly concerned about that, too. So it seems like worrying about the exploited women is not the full story here, because the problem remains even if there are no real women involved.
As a contrast, imagine the discussion instead being about slavery (in a parallel reality when Confederation won the war). Someone would ask "what if in future the robotic slaves will replace the labor of black slaves?". Probably everyone who opposes slavery would say: "great, the sooner that happens, the better!" If we care about humans, then the same thing happening to robots instead of humans is an improvement. But when we talk about how male sexuality is somehow inconvenient for women, when someone says "what about robotic sex instead", the response is always "nope, that would be problematic, too." Which suggests that the problematic part is not about what happens to women, but about what men are allowed to do (even to objects).
Women already spend millions of dollars in fictional 2d husbandos. So yes, if there’s a market of robots of “Love and Deepspace” characters then it would absolutely blow up.
Even that may not be accurate. Let's wait until humanoid robots are barely distinguishable from humans before we conclude that women in general won't have sex with them.
at a ski trip and am chillin after dinner with 5 woman around. posed this question, 4 of them said they would have sex with a humanoid robot (one of them is drunk :) )
Woman here. The thesis of this article is a gross overgeneralization. There is no doubt in my mind that, if sex robots became more commonplace, some women would be using them. Though we tend to be into different things, our sexual interests are every bit as diverse and salacious as men's. If men exist who are interested in some specific kink or sex toy, it's practically a certainty that there exist women who are into the same thing.
Can you imagine yourself or your women friends buying one if it was affordable?
Ugh, continuing the dialog of Levy, Pearson, and Realbotix, all of whom are violently overquoted at this point. Levy’s original thesis was boring and heteronormative when it was published almost 20 years ago, and is worse while not having been redeveloped at all now. Pearson is also well know for “women will implant ipods in their breasts” and what not, he’s the futurist you can get to say anything for a good daily mail quote. Realbotix basically exists to get press at CES and that’s about it.
Glad that the article does take the whole subject to task but I’m just kinda ready to move on to something more useful. It’s a continued media engagement over things that were vacuous to begin with.
(Granted I work in the industry so this is also a case of massive overexposure heh.)
There’s interesting stuff happening in sex tech, but sex with robots sure ain’t it.
I would suggest that it is more common for straight women, I don't know enough about gay women, to have sex with robots than it is for men.
A vibrator is a robot, in many ways. It maybe isn't a full personification of a human, but that hasn't seemed to hurt their popularity.
The difference is that women, don't seem to be looking to replace a human partner with a robot, but men who are not able to attract a female, seem to be willing to make this exchange.
I think we need to be honest about what people are getting out of these interactions.
A woman wants sexual gratification. As far as I know the relationship with the vibrator doesn't go much beyond that.
A man wants ego gratification. I suspect that's why it is important that it be a physical embodiment. If it was just about physical gratification, that is possible without having to make a humanoid robot. But for him to feel like he is king of the hill and has attracted the ultimate (in his mind) feminine, he needs that person looking/feeling thing. They even go so far as to make them talk to build up the man's ego even further.
Sex can be about ego-gratification for females at least as much as for males I believe. Probably even more.
Projecting much or where did you learn about this distinction?
"The growing market for sex technology is overlooking certain factors that could condemn robosexuality to objectification"
They are LITERALLY objects.
> They are LITERALLY objects.
I think this is obviously not about protecting the female robots, but about eliminating competition.
Let's be honest about it: affordable high-quality sexbots could dramatically upset the current balance between the sexes. And it's not the men who are afraid of that.
I don't think there are many women who'd feel threatened at the prospect of receiving fewer unsolicited dick picks from the sort of guys who view them as interchangeable with robots, and I'm not really sure what more impact on 'the current balance of the sexes' you'd expect to come out of something like that.
I am not sure what are the proper words to explain this in a polite company, but women have been policing sexuality since ever. Men are typically jealous of their own partners, but they don't care much about what strangers are doing. Women pay attention to each other, and call out "sluts", because they do not want sex to get too cheap, as that would threaten their own negotiating power at the dating market place. Robots could be the ultimate "sluts".
How much sexual power each woman has, that is highly individual. Some women are more attractive than others. Some women have many other qualities, but for some this is the greatest leverage they have. Therefore, if that power suddenly dropped to zero, because of abundance of cheap robotic sex, different women would be impacted differently. Some of them might be even happy about it, as you suggest.
But it seems that many women are concerned, because when similar topics are discussed in the news, there if often women who insist on policing male sexuality. Sometimes, like when discussing prostitution, porn, or just too much free sex, this is done under the pretext of protecting the exploited women. And yes, there is also that aspect. But when the debate moves to e.g. computer-generated porn, where there are absolutely no real women involved... still, some women are concerned about that, too. This article was about robots, and - quite predictably - some woman was publicly concerned about that, too. So it seems like worrying about the exploited women is not the full story here, because the problem remains even if there are no real women involved.
As a contrast, imagine the discussion instead being about slavery (in a parallel reality when Confederation won the war). Someone would ask "what if in future the robotic slaves will replace the labor of black slaves?". Probably everyone who opposes slavery would say: "great, the sooner that happens, the better!" If we care about humans, then the same thing happening to robots instead of humans is an improvement. But when we talk about how male sexuality is somehow inconvenient for women, when someone says "what about robotic sex instead", the response is always "nope, that would be problematic, too." Which suggests that the problematic part is not about what happens to women, but about what men are allowed to do (even to objects).
Women already spend millions of dollars in fictional 2d husbandos. So yes, if there’s a market of robots of “Love and Deepspace” characters then it would absolutely blow up.
Sex with humanoid robots does not have appeal among women
Even that may not be accurate. Let's wait until humanoid robots are barely distinguishable from humans before we conclude that women in general won't have sex with them.
at a ski trip and am chillin after dinner with 5 woman around. posed this question, 4 of them said they would have sex with a humanoid robot (one of them is drunk :) )
appreciate the research, friend!
Except when performing for men (?), or so I've heard :)
Doesn't appeal to me either, btw; I spend enough time glued to computers.
Can't see it doing much to cure loneliness; but who knows, people in general seem to get a lot more out of their souped-up Elizas than I do already.
Why pay for something you can get for free?
"Pay or okay"? Nay!
Sex with a robot doesn’t appeal to me either!
[dead]
[flagged]
Please stop posting flamebait.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Easy fix, limited edition exclusive invite only sexdroid runs. You could easily set exclusive droids up as a status and fashion symbol.
Someone get this guy a job at CyberLife