[Grizzly]

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 ). 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).

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Grizzly]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Bobboau]

Everyone in this thread needs to stop what they are doing and go watch Chobits.
Japan was having this discussion 15 years ago.

[NGTM-1R]

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?

[karajorma]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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).

[karajorma]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[headdie]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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/

[karajorma]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[karajorma]

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?

[Luis Dias]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.