Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on September 15, 2015, 12:45:20 am
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34118482
A campaign has been launched calling for a ban on the development of robots that can be used for sex.
Such a use of the technology is unnecessary and undesirable, said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson.
Sex dolls already on the market are becoming more sophisticated and some are now hoping to build artificial intelligence into their products.
Those working in the field say that there is a need for such robots.
Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.
"Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on - how they will look, what roles they would play - are very disturbing indeed," she told the BBC.
She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.
"We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women," she said.
I do love the way that the article concentrates on women being devalued given that we know that as soon as they invent a male robot that can trap spiders and open jars it's the guys who will be obsolete. :p
-
so what happens when 2 sex bots meet?
-
Probably nothing. While some people might be willing to visit the uncanny value for sex, I doubt they'd stay there for the show.
-
Dr. Kathleen Richardson: "Stop liking what I dont like!" :rolleyes:
-
A sexbot is probably the only way I'm going to score these days, so I say bring it on.
-
We've made machines to move for us, then machines to think for us, now we're trying to make machines that have sex with us. Nihil novi sub sole. We're automating everything these days, why would sex be any different?
Aside from that, I don't think that we're going to have AI as smart as a real woman anytime soon. That means many men will finally be able to find a woman on the same intellectual level as them. Freeing actual women for us, nerds smart guys. :) Also, since idiots are so numerous and genders have a roughly 50/50 split, it would mean a surplus of women (increasing evolutionary pressure on them) and stop stupid men from procreating, thereby increasing humanity's average intelligence over a few generations. :) I say, go for it.
-
This is totally expected, and typical of the sex-negative feminist type of reaction. Sex bots are the complete rendering of sexual objectification of women, women as nothing more than objects that a male is an owner of and can control, nothing more than a sexual tool for their pleasures. According to this idea, these kind of sexbots are teaching men how to treat real women, and this is obviously detrimental to women in the sense that we will have trained men into dealing with women as "bots", as "objects".
Now, one can be paranoid and think that what is going on here is the exact opposite, that it is a certain strain of feminists who are fearful of losing a certain kind of monopoly on being objects of desire. I suspect some of that might be going on in the subconscious of these people, but it is an undeterminate hypothesis, so let's leave it aside.
What should (always) be obvious (but never is) is that the above effect mentioned about diminishing the image of women is not the only side effect of this. What also happens (as it happened with porn, perhaps?) is that a lot of people's needs, some of whom otherwise would need to resort to violence or other insane means, will have been satisfied, and that is probably meaning that there will be a downward number of actual sexual violence towards women (as it has been happening for a decade or two now).
There's a certain aspect of the critique that is indeed interesting, namely, that there is a downward spiral towards meaninglessness in regards to sexuality with all these "tools" that we have or will have available. And that meaninglessness can indeed pervert the value we see between each other, increase the ways in which we stop caring or needing to be with each other, and instead resort to "relieve" ourselves with machines, tools, the internet, whatever. This wider effect can, indeed, devalue women themselves in the eyes of the users of these sexbots in this manner.
So there are these bigger points, but I gotta say, the nerve of these women trying to stop men from having a new "toy" for their own private pleasures is astounding. Can anyone imagine the reverse? Someone developing a manbot and a group of men's activists telling the scientists to stop researching that toy for women (and of course gays, but let's put that aside too, since the criticism has been heteronormative from the start) because that would "demean the value and image of men everywhere"? They would be ridiculed from every single roof top.
-
From my cold dead...arms :(
:hammer:
-
I for one welcome our new sexbot overlords!
-
So let me get this straight. Sex bots will make women devalued. Implying that a woman's only value is sex...
...right... :wtf:
-
I for one welcome our new Lucy Liubot overlords!
FTFY
-
If we've learned one thing, it's: DON'T DATE ROBOTS
-
So there are these bigger points, but I gotta say, the nerve of these women trying to stop men from having a new "toy" for their own private pleasures is astounding. Can anyone imagine the reverse? Someone developing a manbot and a group of men's activists telling the scientists to stop researching that toy for women (and of course gays, but let's put that aside too, since the criticism has been heteronormative from the start) because that would "demean the value and image of men everywhere"? They would be ridiculed from every single roof top.
Well it's just a spin-off of the whole "Girl with a vibrator - She's just expressing her sexuality, Guy with a fleshlight - He's obviously a pervert who can't get women" thing that is pretty much accepted by society these days.
Funny thing is that I saw a program on Real Dolls a while ago and the guys who bought them were in the middle of a full-fledged relationship with them. I do sometimes wonder if the interest in a sex robot is less to have a sex companion but more to have a companion when you want one. i.e one who you can then forget about when you have other things you want to do.
-
Well it's just a spin-off of the whole "Girl with a vibrator - She's just expressing her sexuality, Guy with a fleshlight - He's obviously a pervert who can't get women" thing that is pretty much accepted by society these days.
There's no zilimeter of an argument here, just an appeal to populism: "Ah what are you gonna do, this is how society thinks". Feminism would be dead cold on your hands if you think about it.
It's nonsense. And it's especially nonsense if it comes from a self-identified egalitarian who fights for equality of gender (I mean, the woman in question). Either we are to have sympathy towards men and some of the most ... ahhh... peculiar niche needs that some of them have, or we are not. I say we should be. We should definitely try to understand these men, instead of arguing exactly how much of all these men's activities that in no way intersect with anything any woman is doing is actually hurting the other sex.
But isn't that curious? The question is not "Is there a problem in men? Is this a subset, a product of isolation, of social anxiety, of depression? How can we figure this out, and let's see if there are problems here, let's see how can we help".
No, you see, the problem is how this affects women. Because of course, I mean, everything else pales in comparison to the importance of how this "devalues" the perception of women. This utter lack of comprehension, sympathy is what I take from all this chapter. And it reinforces in my head on how certain "protesters" out there are just outright narcissist douchebags incapable of the slightest of humanity. They have substituted it for their "Cause", and by god they will win it.
Funny thing is that I saw a program on Real Dolls a while ago and the guys who bought them were in the middle of a full-fledged relationship with them. I do sometimes wonder if the interest in a sex robot is less to have a sex companion but more to have a companion when you want one. i.e one who you can then forget about when you have other things you want to do.
Yeah, I see that and other questions here too. I mean, in a way, I see Dragon's point. Some men are just obsessed with sex, and it's not their fault. It's probably hurting their lives as well. Dolls could serve as a relief system without all the hurdles real women can give. Again, this might be pointing to a future of isolated people. And again, that's the important angle of attack on these news: what is the end result of what happens to these men? Is this pointing to a healthier future, or a crazier, more isolated one? Are these dolls like a good therapy or like a pathological drug? What happens to relationships?
-
Well it's just a spin-off of the whole "Girl with a vibrator - She's just expressing her sexuality, Guy with a fleshlight - He's obviously a pervert who can't get women" thing that is pretty much accepted by society these days.
There's no zilimeter of an argument here, just an appeal to populism: "Ah what are you gonna do, this is how society thinks". Feminism would be dead cold on your hands if you think about it.
Where did I say that it was a good thing that society seems to accept that idiotic double standard? I think I pretty much implied that it was a bad thing.
-
I stand corrected, I read the tone of your comments in a 180 degrees of your intent.
-
Someone should mail this woman an 11" dildo and ask her why she isn't protesting that.
-
It would be funny if the first product was released fitted out with male features
-
Oh, great. Who let a social anthropologist into the engineering department again?
It would be funny if the first product was released fitted out with male features
I'm sure it will be, seeing as the kinesiology of a man's contribution is much simpler and doesn't require fancy material engineering.
-
Well that part's already been done (i.e. fleshlight), so maybe not.
-
I thought they already made a male realdoll?
If we want to accept that these dolls will be used by people who value other humans primarily as tools of sexual pleasure, then are these people we want involved in relationships with people?
-
I dont think adult sexbots would really get banned, but just wait when someone makes a child version of the sexbot (which wont take long). Only then will we really see who is consistent in opposing criminalization of victimless activities, even if they personally find them gross.
-
I dont think adult sexbots would really get banned, but just wait when someone makes a child version of the sexbot (which wont take long). Only then will we really see who is consistent in opposing criminalization of victimless activities, even if they personally find them gross.
Seen any child versions of the Real Doll or a blow up inflatable child recently? Maybe I don't hang out in the wrong places but as far as I know neither of those exist.
-
My nagging paranoid mind tells me that they do exist, they just lurk beneath the wider market of real dolls. Surely that market will never "surface" from darker undergrounds. And I'm fine with that.
-
A sexbot is probably the only way I'm going to score these days, so I say bring it on.
this i guess.
-
Seen any child versions of the Real Doll or a blow up inflatable child recently? Maybe I don't hang out in the wrong places but as far as I know neither of those exist.
You have waaay too much faith in humanity. :) It's obvious nothing like that would be sold through any reputable channels, but where there's demand, there will sooner or later be supply. I'd be very surprised if things like that didn't exist somewhere in the underground.
-
Seen any child versions of the Real Doll or a blow up inflatable child recently? Maybe I don't hang out in the wrong places but as far as I know neither of those exist.
You have waaay too much faith in humanity. :) It's obvious nothing like that would be sold through any reputable channels, but where there's demand, there will sooner or later be supply. I'd be very surprised if things like that didn't exist somewhere in the underground.
You're both far too trusting. In the warped world of the modern anime market as it exists in Japan, focused on squeezing maximum profit out of minimum number of dedicated nerds, such things do exist. They're offered with excuses re: the character or a stubborn insistence on the depiction being of an adult despite being depicted as a child. They're niche items even in a deeply niche market though, and never see widespread release or production.
For understandable reasons (why the **** would I keep that link handy, for starters) I can't link to it, but I've seen one for Vita from the Lyrical Nanoha franchise at the least.
-
I'd consider Japan a bit of a special case. Remember that in that case, it's tied directly to a particular character (one that, canonically, is an adult, funnily enough). Not only that, those are most likely not realistic depictions. Western sex toys of that kind tend to try approximating the "real thing" as closely as possible, while what I've seen of Japanese dolls in general (not much, admittedly), they tend to be highly stylized, like most Japanese art. You can't really equate the two. I understood that the discussion was specifically about "dolls for pedophiles", with realistic depiction of a generic child. Sexual fetish for a particular fictional character is distinct from pedophilia (though this can seem murky at times), even if she happens to be underage.
Japanese approach to both sexuality and technology is radically different from us anyway. For them, sexbots will be a no-brainer. In fact, they will almost certainly first appear in Japan, likely with highly idealized "anime" proportions.
-
I'm marrying her in march. I don't need no robot.
Although there are some things you shouldn't do with your wife......
:nervous:
[attachment deleted by nobody]
-
Seen any child versions of the Real Doll or a blow up inflatable child recently? Maybe I don't hang out in the wrong places but as far as I know neither of those exist.
Japan.
-
I refer to what Dragon said. There is a difference between an anime doll and a realistic child doll.
But the real meaning of my comment wasn't that these things aren't made. But that they aren't mainstream even within the sex industry. Certainly in the West these things are not going to be made by any of the main sex robot companies cause they wouldn't touch that **** with a 100' bargepole for the same reason that no one wants to touch childlike inflatable dolls.
-
...no one wants to touch childlike inflatable dolls.
/me tries not to read the inevitable entendres into this statement...
-
To be fair, it was 7am when I wrote that. :p
-
Don't know if anyone still wants to talk about it, but I figured the thread might still have legs. One thing I did wonder is would a robo-brothel be more legal than a normal one? Without humans actually having sex, surely it would just be the same as an arcade full of racing games? You pay money to ride a machine.
-
I see what you did there.
Licensing wild be the same as the old skin flick cinemas I'd imagine.
-
I hope the things are self cleaning and sterilizing.
-
I hope the things are self cleaning and sterilizing.
Nope. Some poor underpaid bastard gets to clean the goo out of their robo junk.
-
cyber-santorum-scooper the quintessential **** job of the 2020s.
-
Call Mike Rowe
-
You Will Not Believe This One Trick To Clean Your Sexbot
-
Don't know if anyone still wants to talk about it, but I figured the thread might still have legs. One thing I did wonder is would a robo-brothel be more legal than a normal one? Without humans actually having sex, surely it would just be the same as an arcade full of racing games? You pay money to ride a machine.
That is precisely the point that is being denied by that group of people. They equate prostitutes to sexbots. TL DR made a good video on this:
-
Does that video have a transcript?
-
Well, the entire argument that sexbots "denigrate" women is moot when its glaringly obvious 'bots have no free will or even conscious. Essentially sexbots are motorized self-wankery.
Not that the majority of these crazy feminists would figure it out. But the key to remember the current "hype" is to push the argument that harm has real, tangible effects. It's the same malignant belief that even leading to idiots to revive the cute notion that "fantasy violence = real violence."
-
Good find Luis. Especially the proof that they are making a male version of the robot but that is being completely ignored.
-
that guy's pretty hit or miss, though his breakdown of Flibanserin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oACng87P9I0) was pretty interesting, and completely off topic.
-
I'm marrying her in march. I don't need no robot.
Although there are some things you shouldn't do with your wife......
:nervous:
Like posting her picture on the internet, in public discussion of controversial nature? ;-)
Just saying!
I know my better half wouldn't be amused ... and that would be even before she found out the picture in question was posted in a "sexbot thread" :cough: LOL.
-
How many of you want to bet that if there was only the male version under development and some other group was calling for a ban, these very same people would be outraged, calling it an attack on female sexuality and whatnot?
-
Good find Luis. Especially the proof that they are making a male version of the robot but that is being completely ignored.
Yeah, the author goes then too much into anti-fem bashing, but if we focus on the facts he finds out about the corporation being admonished and the papers the ideas are based on... it's coo coo land.
-
This is totally expected, and typical of the sex-negative feminist type of reaction.
This is only tangetally related, but whenever i hear this "sex negative feminists!" thing, I think about the thoughts of a pornographer on sexism (http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/11/14/notes-from-a-pornographer-on-sexism/). Even though it does not really apply in this case, I think it's a good piece.
Hmm. I do wonder though: If we can develop AI that is so sophisticated that it is capable of self-awereness (or consciousness), would building a sex robot with such an AI amount to sex slavery?
-
That's a really horrible piece, and by the looks of it, one of many to pile on that unfortunate scientist who was dogpiled because of his shirt. Shameful. But the worst is the unabashed power play: objectification is bad unless I do it myself and approve of it (and I'll call this "consent").
It's not even acknowledging that there is in fact very different schools of thought regarding sex, and while this ignorant writer would deny feminism its sex negative wing, Dworkin herself would regard this poster's work as inherently oppressive.
Sex positive feminists would never rail against masturbatory dolls for men. At worst they'd be demanding the same effort for their own needs! But as I've shown, that is a needless complaint: those dolls also exist!
Wait. Wait. Wait... Free thought blogs? Ahahahahahahah
-
lol yeah. the church of PZ.
I love how she just asserts her opinion as fact.
Josh you have to accept the reality that there is a very conservative form of feminism with people who call themselves feminists who are absolutely against any and all forms of penetrative sex. Just like there are SWERFs and TERFs there are many different schools of feminism. many of them are mutually exclusive, so no mater which side you are on that means some of them have to be reprehensible to you. and somewhere in the vecinity of swerfville there are some people who call themselves feminists think you need to stop dressing like a slut.
-
Bobbeau, that was never an argument I was making.
-
Ok, I must have misinterpreted you then. That sounded like you were being septical about the existence of sex-negativity within feminism and you linked to an article that didn't clarify for me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
So doing an interview about your team’s big science achievement while wearing a shirt with scantily-clad pinup girls does not say, “Sex is awesome!” It says, “Women are for sex.”
I dont, know, it says the former to me. But then, European culture seems to be more sex-positive and less prudish than American culture, sex is not treated as something that is always off-limits and taboo (unless it can sell a product). And this was an European conference. I bet I am not the only one who, when hearing about the Twitter outrage about the shirt, immidiately thought about American religious conservatives, not feminists. That American Left has joined them in their sex-negativity and even surpassed it speaks volumes about how strongly ingrained this negativity is, crossing political boundaries.
-
Because wearing a shirt full of naked women during an official announcement is a hallmark achievement for sex positivity? Or for that matter, how is a sexbot not in itself sex negative by removing it's essential human element?
-
Sex negativity is more about claiming that sex (specifically, penetrative heterosexual sex) is a Bad Thing That Needs To Stop. Any emulation of such is, of course, just as bad as the real thing.
-
Because wearing a shirt full of naked women during an official announcement is a hallmark achievement for sex positivity?
Its not some big achievement, its just not something to be outraged about.
Or for that matter, how is a sexbot not in itself sex negative by removing it's essential human element?
What is sex negative is this whole unwritten assumption that mentioning sex alone, without mentioning the human side in the same breath (naked women on a shirt, sexbots) is something bad. As if sex is still something to be afraid of, so it has to be always accompanied by other things, or its not acceptable to mention it.
-
Because wearing a shirt full of naked women during an official announcement is a hallmark achievement for sex positivity? Or for that matter, how is a sexbot not in itself sex negative by removing it's essential human element?
Would there have been an outrage if he was a woman who was wearing a shirt with Magic Mike imagery?
-
Because wearing a shirt full of naked women during an official announcement is a hallmark achievement for sex positivity? Or for that matter, how is a sexbot not in itself sex negative by removing it's essential human element?
Would there have been an outrage if he was a woman who was wearing a shirt with Magic Mike imagery?
Yes there would be.
EDIT: Just like there was an outrage at people expressing their indignation at this particular shirt, there would have been an outrage about a woman wearing a shirt with sexualized men on them. Because there's *ALWAYS* an outrage at women having strong opinions on the internet. This **** is perpetual, the only difference would be the excuses for it.
-
Because wearing a shirt full of naked women during an official announcement is a hallmark achievement for sex positivity?
Jesus Christ, can you please try to answer your own questions before sharing them with us? I'm not going again with this Matt Taylor thing. I've filed this as a hallmark of social media horrible nature combined with terrible, terrible use of social justice ideals, and any defense of the dogpiling as abhorrent.
That matter and Tim Hunt's, should serve as a warning of how "shaming campaigns" go absolutely berserk and horrible, not as case studies of how amazing they are.
Or for that matter, how is a sexbot not in itself sex negative by removing it's essential human element?
Are you finished with your "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of silly questions now?
It's perhaps an emotional thing, I don't know, but all of these questions are *obviously* not being thrown aroung with good faith on your part.
To answer in earnest terms, what if it is "sex negative" to buy a sexdoll for your own pleasures? It would come as a total real shock to every producer of masturbatory products of every sex shop ever in reality (would I get to claim the same about vibrators or would you find that statement mysoginist?), but even if it were true, what would be the problem? Your question is a non-sequitur. It's something being freely chosen by each individual who will have their own very personal reasons to porsue those avenues of self-satisfaction! Not everyone is a Brad Pitt that will have the possibility to have sex with an Angelina Jolie, you know? There are many people with many varied difficulties in their lifes, physical, mental, whatever. Those people are perfectly worthy of self-satisfying themselves by any means if those means don't harm anyone else. Are you against this?
The real sex negativity in display here is how this group of people were trying to prevent sexual satisfaction for a completely another strange (to them) group of people, for ideological and self-serving reasons. The fact that they cherry picked the women sexbots while totally ignoring the equally prominently advertised male sexbots shows their true colors. They want men not to have these toys. Because it would demean real women. Censorship = sex positivity! ****s sake, George Orwell would have been proud.
-
Jesus Christ, can you please try to answer your own questions before sharing them with us? I'm not going again with this Matt Taylor thing. I've filed this as a hallmark of social media horrible nature combined with terrible, terrible use of social justice ideals, and any defense of the dogpiling as abhorrent.
That matter and Tim Hunt's, should serve as a warning of how "shaming campaigns" go absolutely berserk and horrible, not as case studies of how amazing they are.
Funnily enough, I completely agree with you there on the social media thing. Point is, as much as there has been a 'shaming campaign', there has been a rather active movement hellbent on dismissing anyone who brought up the issue of professional attire as sex-negative or prudes or victorian attitudes - Esp. aimed at the woman who first brought up the issue (And it is perhaps quite telling that of all my SJtWitter feeds, you were the only one still talking about it for a while :p). Simply dismissing anything brought up as the ravings of prude sex negatives (or HIV-positive *shudders) is too easy and actively harmfull to any debate. Actively shouting those people down is worse.
To answer in earnest terms, what if it is "sex negative" to buy a sexdoll for your own pleasures? It would come as a total real shock to every producer of masturbatory products of every sex shop ever in reality (would I get to claim the same about vibrators or would you find that statement mysoginist?), but even if it were true, what would be the problem? Your question is a non-sequitur. It's something being freely chosen by each individual who will have their own very personal reasons to porsue those avenues of self-satisfaction! Not everyone is a Brad Pitt that will have the possibility to have sex with an Angelina Jolie, you know? There are many people with many varied difficulties in their lifes, physical, mental, whatever. Those people are perfectly worthy of self-satisfying themselves by any means if those means don't harm anyone else. Are you against this?
No, and hi: Your questions actually do go into the "stop beating your wife" territory, so please stop ascribing those motives to me. They were good faith questions.
I'm not arguing whether or not this should be allowed. Too often debates revolve around these sorta questions, but they distract from the more interesting stuff: Is this any good? I'm trying to figure out whether or not AI sexbots are a good thing. I am very much a sex liberal, as is the society I live in. But my dutch upbringing actively encourages me to have safe sex with other human beings, that sex is about two (or more) people bringing each other to climax. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing yourself to climax, but I haven't figured out yet where a realistic sexbot, which attempts to actively disguise that this is entirely a one-way-street (this is where it differs from a vibrator, which is either used by yourself or by your partner) fits in that. So, I question whether this is actually a sex-postive thing (and by extension if the moniker sex-negative really fits here).
-
I never shouted down people. Ever. Hell, I never blocked anyone on twitter aside from the occasional bot. I also never went to the UN to push curtails on freedom of speech, allying myself with religious lobbies to also push blasphemy laws and culture.
Regarding your clarification, I'm with you there, I think that's the discussion that we should be having, not of this dumb "bots objectify just one gender's image, and that's sexist" line of reasoning. Yes, totally, in the sense of, what does this say about our society? Perhaps not great things. On the other hand, perhaps it does. Regarding the future, I am always in trouble of perceiving it.
Regarding "sex negativity", I disagree. Sex is abstractable from love, from relationships. Sex positivity inevitably leads to the abstraction between sex and love. Will it lead to lifes less fulfilled with love, caring, commitments, sacrifice? IDK. One can make one case and the exact counter of it. Sex will just not be the link of these relationships, so they might have less ... sex to it. But it might be the case that the relationships will be much more aligned with your intellectual emotions, with “true friendship”, who knows? Perhaps we will all disconnect from one another altogether because there are no more “excuses” anymore to be with each other and make some kind of effort to bridge this awkward gap between humans when there are bots all over the place all too willing to fulfill all of our desires.
All of these are great sci fi stories. But reality tends to be richer, more complex and a lot more forgiving, relaxed, interesting and less doomed.
-
I never shouted down people. Ever.
No, perhaps not, but I will say that you are as much a part of the outrage culture as those you criticize for it, for the very simple reason that you bring another bunch of GG bull**** into the thread!
Regarding your clarification, I'm with you there, I think that's the discussion that we should be having, not of this dumb "bots objectify just one gender's image, and that's sexist" line of reasoning. Yes, totally, in the sense of, what does this say about our society? Perhaps not great things. On the other hand, perhaps it does. Regarding the future, I am always in trouble of perceiving it.
Then that is the discussion we should be having. What does it say about our society? Well, it depends. As much as this particular company seems to be quite ... hmm... equal in it's things, the porn industry as a whole is focused almost entirely on women. It's who they market, and you can walk to any rack in a video rental store or highway petrol station to see that is the case. It's not that difficult from that basis to assume that there is only a booby sexbot.
I disagree with the notion that "sex is abstractable from love". It would depend on your definition of love, obviously, but there is always *some* sort of connection with the person you are having sex with. Call me a romantic, I'd argue that sex is more about embracing, enhancing, celebrating the connection you have with someone else. For me, being sexually liberal means that you let less stuff get in the way of that.
-
Sex is obviously abstractable from love. I didn't say that this is desirable in itself, or that it is virtuous, only that it is a true brute fact of life. The booby sexbot aside (the people in question do not have the excuse of just having "assumed" there was just one represented sex, for they should have known better), the porn industry is catered to men not because of any sexist preconception, but because they are the biggest users of porn. Men are simply more easily titilated visually than women are.
Jim Jefferies used to jokingly remark that for a man to "warm up a woman" he would have to do innumerous things, for a woman to do the same to a man, she would merely need to undress. He would add: "Who is more commited to a relationship here, uh?" Jokes aside, that's the point: men are visually aroused more. That is the main reason why porn is so much more successful with men than women, which is not to say it isn't successful with women, just a tad less.
-
Everyone in this thread needs to stop what they are doing and go watch Chobits.
Japan was having this discussion 15 years ago.
-
I disagree with the notion that "sex is abstractable from love". It would depend on your definition of love, obviously, but there is always *some* sort of connection with the person you are having sex with.
No.
In fact the lack of connection can be very much a deliberate choice made so that the experience is less awkward.
Jokes aside, that's the point: men are visually aroused more.
Awkward truth: modern studies on every related issue to this suggest that any such difference is primarily either reporting bias or a self-reinforcing issue (women can't find porn made with them in mind, so they don't look at visual porn...though this has changed considerably in the last five years, porn shot for women is actually relatively easy to find now), rather than a literal truth. Why should this be different?
-
I posted along those lines but then the forum ate it. People constantly assume that porn is mostly for men. I doubt that is any more correct than the older assumption 40-50 years ago that only men masturbated.
I haven't figured out yet where a realistic sexbot, which attempts to actively disguise that this is entirely a one-way-street (this is where it differs from a vibrator, which is either used by yourself or by your partner) fits in that. So, I question whether this is actually a sex-postive thing (and by extension if the moniker sex-negative really fits here).
On what are you basing that it's a one-way thing? I tend to think that sex robots are going to become increasingly popular with couples the more realistic they get. Think of it this way, what are the biggest reasons that one partner in a relationship turns down a threesome despite the other partner wanting one? Most of those go away once you are no longer dealing with a real person. Your partner is unlikely to shun you in favour of the bot. They are unlikely to dump you and run off with a robot. There is no chance of STDs, since you can probably disconnect that part of the robot and wash it in the sink* If you're a couple willing to use a vibrator in bed, a sexbot isn't really much of a difference. Just simply having no desire for a threesome is one of the few reasons left.
*Kudos to anyone who got the reference.
-
And people constantly assume that because someone says that men are *more* visually aroused, or that porn works *better* for men, it follows that that someone thinks women *can't* be visually aroused or that there *can't* be porn for women, etc.
It falls flat especially when I placed exactly those caveats. NG says, "why assume this", it's not an assumption, it's basically the null hypothesis for all of history and all of culture. If women were as aroused as men are, visually, then the horny magazines women bought would be as filled with well muscled men as the other gender's is filled with boobed women, etc. It's not and all of the industry knows this: women's erotica market goes a lot more through novellas, stories and romances. It's less visual. This has hundreds of years of history behind it.
Now, before someone strawmans me again, I defer to the usage of the word *MORE* in that last paragraph. Kthnks. I'm well *MORE THAN AWARE* that women also watch porn.
And, again, before someone states "aaaah that's just the assumptions we have, the prejudices we were born with", I'll point again that history and markets are working againts your point of view. I'm not ruling that out, but the burden of proof is with you, not me. So if you have these studies that show the entire of history and our culture wrong, please cite them (and don't expect me to just accept a few outliers, we all know how social studies are being constantly turned upside down).
-
Ummmmmm.
That is the main reason why porn is so much more successful with men than women, which is not to say it isn't successful with women, just a tad less.
Citation needed.
You can't just say "Hey, all of history means I'm right". You're completely ignoring the facts that
1) You've ignored every single other factor that might have prevented women from enjoying visual stimulation just as much.
2) You've assumed that the fact that written erotica is more prevalent amongst women backs up your viewpoint despite the fact that the biggest consumers of written erotica have always been male, not female.
-
Never heard of the concept of prima facie?
That's like asking "citation needed" for the claim "the sky is blue". I'm sorry, I just find this hyperskepticism towards the idea that men are more visually aroused, that they do appreciate porn more than women just too much of a masturbatory intellectual exercise for my taste. "Citation needed". Funny that. Meanwhile, the claim that women are "as much aroused" as men are... doesn't require any citation? I have better comedy shows to watch, have a nice day.
-
Never heard of the concept of prima facie?
That's like asking "citation needed" for the claim "the sky is blue". I'm sorry, I just find this hyperskepticism towards the idea that men are more visually aroused, that they do appreciate porn more than women just too much of a masturbatory intellectual exercise for my taste. "Citation needed". Funny that. Meanwhile, the claim that women are "as much aroused" as men are... doesn't require any citation? I have better comedy shows to watch, have a nice day.
Given that arousal is a very subjective thing I think that asking for sources in a field which is difficult to find comprehensive studies is entirely reasonable.
Also the sky is not always blue as there is time of day and weather to consider.
-
2) You've assumed that the fact that written erotica is more prevalent amongst women backs up your viewpoint despite the fact that the biggest consumers of written erotica have always been male, not female.
Thats because when comparing populations, per capita rates are relevant, not absolute numbers. The relative consumption of written vs. visual erotica among male and female populations is the correct question to ask when we want to know the relative importance of visual stimuli, not simply who is the biggest consumer of written erotica in absolute numbers, that is influcenced by more confounding variables (if men are say, 2x more likely to consume written erotica, but 4x more likely to consume visual erotica than women - in absolute numbers, men consume more written erotica, in relative numbers, women consume more).
Of course such question still has confounding variables, so its not a definitive answer, just a piece of evidence. Thats the nature of the nature-vs-nurture debate, the factors are notoriously difficult to separate.
-
I think you can say with some degree of confidence women have historically been and presently are somewhat less visually stimulated then men. You can even conjecture to the possibility of there being a physiological difference that will maintain this trend, but I don't think you have the evidence to claim that as fact with a strong degree of confidence yet. I mean controlling for socialization is hard. Though maybe there is some principal that ensures socialization will always go some way across all/vast majority of societies. Figure that out and there is a Nobel prize in it for you.
-
Never heard of the concept of prima facie?
That's like asking "citation needed" for the claim "the sky is blue". I'm sorry, I just find this hyperskepticism towards the idea that men are more visually aroused, that they do appreciate porn more than women just too much of a masturbatory intellectual exercise for my taste. "Citation needed". Funny that. Meanwhile, the claim that women are "as much aroused" as men are... doesn't require any citation? I have better comedy shows to watch, have a nice day.
As I pointed out, erotica is more popular with men than women. Which kinda blows the whole "men like to see, women like to imagine" idea completely out of the water. So yes, I do need some kind of scientific proof if you're claiming that the reason porn is more successful with men is simply because they are more visually oriented as opposed to a more simply hypothesis like "men like sex more" or "men like masturbation more" or any of several other reasons (including a myriad of cultural rather than biological ones).
Thats because when comparing populations, per capita rates are relevant, not absolute numbers. The relative consumption of written vs. visual erotica among male and female populations is the correct question to ask when we want to know the relative importance of visual stimuli, not simply who is the biggest consumer of written erotica in absolute numbers, that is influcenced by more confounding variables (if men are say, 2x more likely to consume written erotica, but 4x more likely to consume visual erotica than women - in absolute numbers, men consume more written erotica, in relative numbers, women consume more).
No, that's really not important. Luis is trying to claim that the porn industry exists mainly to serve men while erotica services mainly women. If men consume more erotica than women he's already wrong. No one is denying men like to look at porn more than reading erotica. But I don't see the proof women don't fall into the same category and I certainly don't see the proof that such a choice is cultural rather than biological.
Thats the nature of the nature-vs-nurture debate, the factors are notoriously difficult to separate.
Which is why I have a problem with Luis claiming he has the answer and that it's as simple as men like looking at porn more.
-
We may be using words differently. Erotic novels are overwhelmingly catering to the female market, not male.
My larger point is, I think, solid as the moon. Every metric in every porn site will indicate that the big majority of its audience is male. Every single porn / erotic magazine (that has visual stimuli) has been overwhelmingly bought by... men.
Now, we can all pretend and just imagine that we are all bigots in all forms, that people are really stupid and that markets are really inneficient, and conclude, without any good evidence for that matter, that what is really going on is that porn is just catered to men because everyone in the porn industry is a bigoted asshole, and not simply someone out to make money. Any economist would laugh at this point. It's simply not possible that such a huge opportunity hadn't had made someone a billionaire by now, by exploiting a market that, according to you, should be *way* bigger than what it really is, compared to the male market.
And before anyone comes around with "oh but tradition, oh but prejudices, oh but culture" bull****, let's stop everyone right there and understand that porn is the most intimate product to "consume". There are no social barriers here. The internet is amazingly more private than going out to the store and buy a (ficticious) female MAXIM magazine. The stats are in, though, and despite the fact that women are watching more porn now than before, they still watch *a lot less than males do*, period.
Oh, bonus, here's an article on the differences of porn to men and to women: https://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/117; part 2: https://www.netnanny.com/learn_center/article/122/
-
We may be using words differently. Erotic novels are overwhelmingly catering to the female market, not male.
Dear Penthouse, I could hardly believe it when.....
Penthouse letters are certainly erotica too even if not novel length. And the audience for them is definitely mostly male. Hell, possibly more men have read that sort of erotica than women have read novels (definitely before 50 shades came out).
Ask yourself this, which sex do you think sexts more (I'm talking about just text, not pics)? Do you really believe that girls in a new relationship don't send a guy a sext because they think he won't be turned on by it? There are a **** load of things that turn men on which aren't visual in the slightest. Your argument is flawed cause as I said, the reason porn is male dominated could simply be that guys like porn (whether written or visual) more.
Suppose that of the people who can be turned on by something other than actual intimacy with a human being all of them watch porn. Just cause that number is higher amongst men than women doesn't prove that men are more visually stimulated than women. It only proves that more men can be stimulated than women. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. Are you going to claim that erotic novels are making as much money? And if not, why aren't they?
I'm sorry but there are far too many flaws for me to buy the argument that porn is male driven because males are more visually stimulated than females. There are so many other reasons you could have picked other than that one.
Now if you want to leave the bull**** reasoning about why behind and simply go with men watch more porn than women, I'm fine with that.
-
ok Luis, that is a nice observation, but it doesn't tell us anything about causation, it just tells us what the current trend is in our culture. you are going to have to come up with some sort of cultural survey or maybe a chimp experiment if you want to be able to test your hypothesis.
-
And before anyone comes around with "oh but tradition, oh but prejudices, oh but culture" bull****, let's stop everyone right there and understand that porn is the most intimate product to "consume". There are no social barriers here. The internet is amazingly more private than going out to the store and buy a (ficticious) female MAXIM magazine.
Even more intimate than porn is masturbatory fantasy. Want to explain why rape fantasies are prevalent amongst women rather than men? Women are made to feel so bad about having sexual wants and desires that even in the privacy of their own heads they have to have an external force making it happen. How do you expect women to express a desire to watch sex when they can't even imagine it happening unless it is happening in a way that doesn't make them feel guilty?
-
That analysis is so ****ed up I can't even
ok Luis, that is a nice observation, but it doesn't tell us anything about causation, it just tells us what the current trend is in our culture. you are going to have to come up with some sort of cultural survey or maybe a chimp experiment if you want to be able to test your hypothesis.
What hypothesis? That men are more visual than women? Sigh. Well, let's just all agree to disagree. I'm still mind blown that you are all skeptical about that little simple fact of life, which is confirmed every single day.... but ok I guess.
-
Thats because when comparing populations, per capita rates are relevant, not absolute numbers. The relative consumption of written vs. visual erotica among male and female populations is the correct question to ask when we want to know the relative importance of visual stimuli, not simply who is the biggest consumer of written erotica in absolute numbers, that is influcenced by more confounding variables (if men are say, 2x more likely to consume written erotica, but 4x more likely to consume visual erotica than women - in absolute numbers, men consume more written erotica, in relative numbers, women consume more).
No, that's really not important. Luis is trying to claim that the porn industry exists mainly to serve men while erotica services mainly women. If men consume more erotica than women he's already wrong.
Yes, but not the claim that men are more visually stimulated than women. The numbers could still be different. More men could be reading erotica and watching erotica than women, but the sexes do it at different rates and its the ratio of these rates that is relevant for answering our question. For example, the ratio of women who watch porn to women who read erotica could be 2 : 1, but the ratio of men who watch porn to men who read erotica could be 4 : 1 (regardless of the absolute numbers or actual percentages involved). This can be interpreted as evidence that men are more visually aroused than women, altrough its not a definite proof. And of course I am making the numbers up, this is just to illustrate the point that just because more men read erotica than women in absolute numbers, does not mean the same data cant indicate that men are more visually aroused than women.
-
Luis was trying to claim that it was because of the fact that men are more visually stimulated that the industry is male dominated. If more men are reading erotica than women, that argument is critically flawed regardless of the ratio of porn : erotica. Cause the argument that women as a whole like imagining rather than seeing is damaged if more men are imagining sex then women. You can argue that of the men and women who like porn of any kind, the men are more visually stimulated, but you've already reduced the sample to a smaller group than all men and all women.
-
I still am baffled at your idea that men read more erotica than women. It's flat out untrue. Erotic novels are dominated by the female market.
-
Did you not get the point about Penthouse letters and sexts? Men simply prefer bite-size erotica.
That analysis is so ****ed up I can't even
MY analysis is ****ed up? Nevermind that your analysis is so inherently sexist that if applied to any other field it would be immediately obvious.
Not many women playing computer games? Well that's just cause men are visually oriented. Women prefer to read a book.
-
That's silly. Of course it is sexist (if you dare to look the definition of "sexist" in the dictionary), for it assumes the sexes are different. And while we can all agree they share more than they differ from, well, in terms of the actual sexual characteristics, they are indeed the most disparate. Including fantasies. Your analysis that the whole rape fantasy denotes embarassment and guilt is not even wrong, it's ludicrous and I hope you talk yourself out of it.
To decry a statement as "sexist" has no bearing on the truth of it. That much should be simple to state. Women simply regard sex in a very different manner than men, and both the porn markets and the erotica markets attest to this reality. Neither approaches to sex are "better" or "worse", they're just different. And mostly, and fortunately, they are more or less compatible with each other. Which is the best we can really hope for.
-
Do you realise that you would set feminism back by at least a decade if everyone bought that argument? Films with a strong female protagonist? We don't make those cause if they would make money, surely someone would have done it by now. The fact that no one wants to see a Wonder Woman film isn't cause we can't write a good female hero, it's cause men and women are different and the fact that a female superhero film wouldn't make much money attests to this reality.
EDIT : Luis, you do realise that despite your claims that men and women approach sex differently around 30% of visitors to the mainstream free porn sites are women, right?
Your analysis that the whole rape fantasy denotes embarassment and guilt is not even wrong, it's ludicrous and I hope you talk yourself out of it.
Not for all women with rape fantasies. But I will contend that it does account for part of the reason why it is higher amongst women. I'll admit that I didn't qualify my statement enough and I committed your error of sounding like I was trying to claim something was absolutely the cause rather than part of a very complex cause.
-
Perhaps take a deep breath and realise that I have made none of those arguments at all, and your attempt to glue this issue with others which have absolutely different causes and issues with them (and so many different numbers in them, btw), is just something that... sigh.
We *could* go there, but let's not (do boys like superheros while girls like romance movies?). The fact that a superhero movie costs 300 million + dollars to make is not just a factoid here, it's the number one reason why most of the time, the hero is a male. The superheromoviemaking industry is risk aversed, which is something that simply *does not exist* in a commoditised porn market that has millions of different sources. Both markets couldn't be more different.
And, breathe again to let the following paragraph sink in, at least, think about what I'm about to say.
Imagine a truly equal society, wherein each gender would feel great in it, their desires well represented in the wider society, media, economy. Where their sexual desires would be free from guilt, a healthy attitude to sex would be the rule, not the exception. Now imagine that there's not any physical law that would prevent that in this society, men would have slightly different fetiches and fantasies, slightly different desires on what to consume in media, in porn, etc. than women would. In such a society, things would *look* different. Perhaps, just perhaps, visual romanceless porn would be a market mostly for men, perhaps a less visual intense, more romance-ish porn would be the market dominated by women consumers. Perhaps, just perhaps, men would love to watch superhero movies more than women do. And on and on and on.
So given that amazing society described above, and given how disparate those numbers would be, would you look at that and say "My, that's an atrocious society, these people have different tastes and products are catered to different genders in different ways! We can't have that, that's totally SEXIST!", or would you simply state, "yeah, this is what I expected in a non-androgynous society".
e:EDIT : Luis, you do realise that despite your claims that men and women approach sex differently around 30% of visitors to the mainstream free porn sites are women, right?
Keep repeating the same mistake you have been doing for the past 10, 20 comments by now. I'm really tired of beating that **** out, Karajorma. ****ing hell. I'm NOT going to repeat myself, so kindly read what I've already written on this angle? FWIW, let's keep in mind that if 30% of visitors are women, that means 70% are men. OK? Those numbers. Are. Different.
I'll admit that I didn't qualify my statement enough and I committed your error of sounding like I was trying to claim something was absolutely the cause rather than part of a very complex cause.
Why make these passive aggressive comments? Did it add anything here? And where, oh where, did I state that the simple fact that men are more visually aroused than women meant that other factors were simply non-existent? I'm not the one claiming both sexes must conform to a single criteria and are more or less equal in all respects and if the market doesn't represent this, then it's wrong in some way or other, without any kind of reasonable justification for that at all.
-
For someone who is telling me to take a deep breath you are doing an amazing job of strawmaning my arguments. Forget your ideal world. In THIS world 30% of the visitors to porn sites are female. How does that fit in with your claim that women do not like that kind of porn hugely more than men?
-
I am indeed taking deep breaths, for my head is already in pain from all the facedesks I've victimised it with....
I'm even having trouble not writing this in the most sarcastic way possible. I think I can do it. Ok. Here it goes, earnestly, nicest as possible: 30% is not 70%, which means it's not the same. There. Pheww. Made it.
-
And where, oh where, did I state that the simple fact that men are more visually aroused than women meant that other factors were simply non-existent?
It falls flat especially when I placed exactly those caveats. NG says, "why assume this", it's not an assumption, it's basically the null hypothesis for all of history and all of culture. If women were as aroused as men are, visually, then the horny magazines women bought would be as filled with well muscled men as the other gender's is filled with boobed women, etc. It's not and all of the industry knows this: women's erotica market goes a lot more through novellas, stories and romances. It's less visual. This has hundreds of years of history behind it.
Right there. You've flat out stated that if women were as visually aroused as men are the entire erotica for women market would be movies and videos and not novels.
I quote the 30% statistic because you keep making the same ****ing error over and over again. You are assuming all women like erotica. Your 70% =/= 30% headdesk only works if as many women as men read, listen to or watch erotica. If less women enjoy erotica then those figures could be equal. 100% of men who like erotica watch porn and 100% of women. It's nothing to do with visual stimulation and everything to do with how many of each sex like to do something other than sex or masturbation that makes them horny. That's why I've asked you for a citation repeatedly because YOU HAVE NOT PROVED that 100% of women like erotica!
-
I've had enough of you lying about what I'm saying. I've stated from my very first foray into this conversation that I fully agree women also see porn, that the differences are not absolute, they are relative. Anyone reading my comments with good faith would have easily spotted it.
You, apparently, are not reading anything I say in good faith, so why bother continuing this.
-
Luis, if you can't find a more reliable source than 'common sense' and 'what I reckon' for your assertions about gender and preferences of erotica will you kindly just shut up about it.
-
I've had enough of you lying about what I'm saying. I've stated from my very first foray into this conversation that I fully agree women also see porn, that the differences are not absolute, they are relative. Anyone reading my comments with good faith would have easily spotted it.
You, apparently, are not reading anything I say in good faith, so why bother continuing this.
Ahhh. I was wondering when this particular get out of jail card would come into play.
Re-read my last comment Luis. Nowhere did I say you claimed women didn't watch porn. And I challenge you to show where I did.
-
PH, I posted more sources than anyone else in here, so kindly take your advice elsewhere.
-
that the differences are not absolute, they are relative.
Thanks, bye.
-
that the differences are not absolute, they are relative.
Thanks, bye.
That's not my comment, Luis. And I find it disingenuous that having accused me of a bad faith argument you then quote yourself from a post made after mine to somehow prove yourself correct.
As I've pointed out if all men and women who like erotica also like porn you can't claim that men are more visually stimulated. Everyone who likes erotica is visually stimulated, putting the cause of the difference there is incorrect. I really don't know how to explain it any better Luis. NGTM-1R basically claimed he had seen studies that say the same thing I'm saying over and over again, women who like erotica watch porn and are as visually stimulated as men. The difference in numbers of people watching porn has a different cause.
It's like saying if 50% of women and 100% of men drive, men are worse drivers because there were 200 male crashes and only 100 women. What you have done this entire thread is look at the number of crashes and say men are worse, more crashes = worse. Not once have you attempted to look at the number of drivers despite me practically shouting at you to do so. And now you're trying to claim I've misrepresented your argument as saying that women don't crash at all and accused me of bad faith because of that idiotic assumption. Stop. Take a deep breath and try to actually read what I am saying.
-
I still am baffled at your idea that men read more erotica than women. It's flat out untrue. Erotic novels are dominated by the female market.
If you want to construe things that narrowly, sure, but if you're arguing that written erotica only counts if it's an erotic novel, you've already lost several dozen plots.
PH, I posted more sources than anyone else in here, so kindly take your advice elsewhere.
You've posted zero sources on this discussion. I would gladly post sources to illustrate my point, but considering my point is the existence of visual porn for females has been a growth industry (and the porn-for-men industry has been...relatively static, arguably even contracted; who's left of the 2005 or 2010 crowds? Brazzers is still around, not sure about anyone else) I'm pretty sure I'd get banned for posting actual examples.
I'll make it pretty simple though: Peter North or Lexington Steele didn't make their careers on shooting for guys. To us, they're all bad camera angles and ego. The growth of gay porn (you can find it on practically any video/pic aggregation site) from the mid-90s to today is not solely attributable to people whose orientation is being portrayed. The idea that someone would make a career out of shooting lesbian porn for lesbians was ridiculous as late as 2010, but the change in toning the scenes that's crept over the girl-girl video market in the last five years happened for a reason.
-
Well I definitely wouldn't mind seeing any studies on differences between men and women watching porn. Everything I've seen is either behind a paywall or has a ridiculously low sample size.
Although I did find this study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X07000116) which claimed men look more at the faces, women look more at the genitals (or clothes, if they are on the pill) pretty interesting.
-
maybe post secondary sources?
-
Actually, would it be okay when you post NSFW content if you *CLEARLY* mark it as such? Or not straight up link it (to prevent accidental misclicks) but just mentoin it by name? I can get there being a rule for not linking to porn for hte sake of linking to porn, but we're already discussing a sexbot and website of the company that makes it has been brought up already so...
-
jeez, just someone post it and if a mod doesn't like it they can remove it, it's clearly in good faith at this point.
maybe break the url so it's non-clickable.
-
Read Mary Roach's "Bonk - the Curious coupling of Science and Sex" ... not just quite informative, but also quite hilarous. (It's not so much about Sex itself, but rather about the history of sex research)
As a starter.... women are actually shown to be just as aroused as men by visual stimuly as proven in actual experiment (blood flow in certain areas was measured), but they are less likely to verbally state that they are aroused. (even when blood flow changes tell an entirely different story.)
I'd say that hints strongly at a cultural difference / difference in upbringing. Not a biological one.