[Luis Dias]

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:

[Grizzly]

Does that video have a transcript?

[AtomicClucker]

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."

[karajorma]

Good find Luis. Especially the proof that they are making a male version of the robot but that is being completely ignored.

[Bobboau]

that guy's pretty hit or miss, though his breakdown of Flibanserin was pretty interesting, and completely off topic.

[Mikes]

I'm marrying her in march. I don't need no robot.

Although there are some things you shouldn't do with your wife......

 

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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Grizzly]

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. 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?

[Luis Dias]

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

[Bobboau]

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.

[Grizzly]

Bobbeau, that was never an argument I was making.

[Bobboau]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Grizzly]

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?

[The E]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Grizzly]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.