A few weeks ago some robotic ethicists published a paper decrying human/robot copulation. They feel that people using robots as sex toys would increase the objectification of women and children and weaken interpersonal relationships among us meatsacks. HERE is the paper if you want to figure out what your toddler will be worried its teenager is doing, according to Fox “News”, out there on the streets thirty to forty five years from now.
Here are some of the highlights because you tried to read the paper expecting late night Cinemax and got mid-afternoon C-Span instead… with my rebuttal after each one.
1 – Sex robots would lead to more objectification of women and children.
Rebuttal – One word: Kardashians!
2 – The relationships between humans and their sex robots would mirror that of the prostitute and the john. The john has all the power and the prostitute is reduced to an object, “just like a robot.”
Rebuttal – Have you ever tried to program the time on your microwave oven? The majority of people aren’t even capable of that and they think the reins of power will be in the hands of a horny insurance salesman from Akron attending “Insur-a-con” for the weekend?
3 – People who frequently use sex robots would be deprived of the benefits of relationships with real humans.
Rebuttal – relationships with real humans are pretty fucking overrated. Spend ten minutes on Facebook if you have any doubt.
4 – The widespread use of sex robots wouldn’t reduce the exploitation and trafficking of prostitutes.
Rebuttal – one Liam Neesonbot for every ten pimpbots should balance the odds nicely.
Curiously they don’t seem as concerned about the current state of sex trafficking and sex worker’s rights… or rather have a traditionally old school judgement paradigm, but that’s robotic ethicists for you; if it doesn’t involve a robot they have no call on moral judgment.
Basically the idea is that a robot shouldn’t be a sex object because it’d be like prostitution.
Hey, slog through the paper yourself. The things that repeat to me reading it is that it seems to expound a very narrow 1950’s moralism on sex and willfully excludes any possible form of relationship between a human and a robot outside of the hooker one. Sorta like how all the characters opposing Michael Sheen in Masters of Sex get but with less smoking and thoroughly researched production design.
The paper also almost completely dismisses the idea of women using sex robots. As if 97% of straight women wouldn’t jump at the chance to party with a sex bot that looked like Chris Hemsworth.
I mean hookerbots are fine but to narrow human interaction with your plastic pal who’s fun to be with to a trick/john dynamic seems to indicate that Kathleen Richardson and Erik Brilling need to get out of the lab more often. Christ, one of them is Swedish, didn’t those people INVENT pornography?
Saying sexbots would all be hookers is like saying all women are hookers. And nobody is saying that but the GOP and my cousin Jimmy from Yonkers. It would totally be possible to have a loving and fulfilling relationship with a chunk of metal and plastic that you own. Most people interact with their iPhone more than their spouse already.
More to the fact these kids are casting a moral judgement on things that haven’t happened yet? Unless I’m missing something, NOBODY is having sex with robots.
And if they are, I want in, dude. The best I got is the real touch and that’s great; after I’m done I don’t have to take it to breakfast or be guilted into seeing a rom-com starring Katherine Heigl. But if I could get down with something outta a Sorayama painting that would be aces!
Outside of Grant Morrison’s fevered sex dreams, it’s just not happening. But, hey, robo-boning COULD happen. What else could happen in the future? Why not call for a ban on snorting powdered krumblebums from the ice plains of Europa (huge buzz dude, and the iridescent flippers that grow out of my head look soooooo rad!)? Speak out against cloning miniature giant sloths (how can they be miniature AND giant at the same time, it’s against nature I tell you!)? Or set firm United Nations protocols against mind melding with the Gigantrafax – a entity that exists mainly in the ten dimensional superfluid that our universe in embedded in, and manifests on our plane as a half-eaten cheese burger in the back alley behind Burger King (Grant Morrison did that last Thursday why can’t I?). Even with Moore’s law in full overdrive it would be decades before Apple and/or Sony produces a device made of a pan-memetic polymer that has genuine personality, three orifices, and a teraflop of processing power I could afford. And by then I’ll be more interested in talking about my prostrate and getting to Golden Corral by 3:30 for dinner.
Don’t talk to me about sex with robots and not expect me to want my very own Bianca Beauchamp-bot that will bang me like I was James fucking Bond and then allow me to play Call of Duty on her oculus rift connection! That’s just cruel, man.
And who are we kidding? A robot that chooses its own sex partner would probably select some guy named Logan who has sleeve tattoos and rides a Harley, or the girl with the biggest tits anyway. Rejection will just be delivered with a gif of a cat doing something cute. At least with hookerbots you could have it instantly e-mail a receipt. Like the square but with oral.
In all seriousness, though, when true Artificial Intelligence is achieved our robot overlords should have the same rights and responsibilities as us meatsacks, and sex rights should fall into that zone; no means no whether it’s your prom date or your toaster oven. But since we are living in the hypothetical… and a snarky comedy article… I’ve comprised a list of famous robots and rated their bangability factor.
Sure there are many more, I could go on for pages, but the essence of what I’m saying is this; most of mankind’s innovations have developed because we were looking for a new way to get off or get into, just ask VHS, the internet, or life-like silicone molding technology. Some day, some beautiful day will see a time where A.I.s walk among us in robot bodies… and hook-up with us on Tinder. Amen to that.
Random thoughts somewhat pertaining to the column but I couldn’t work in organically in the main body…
I had great fun making my computer learn the word “Hookerbot”
Grant Morrison probably HAS had sex with a robot. Let’s take a peek at his day planner, shall we?
MONDAY – Wake up when Venus’ secret continent is facing earth. Say the first three hundred chants of the bodhisattva. Eat corn flakes. Do fiction suit stuff for “Heavy Metal”.
TUESDAY – Transcend fifth dimensional barrier, talk with Grant from universe 3064Delta about miniature giant sloth problem.
WEDNESDAY – Write Batman.
THURSDAY – Have sex with that hottie robot that’s been dying for that twenty hour tantric wetware shag (check for interface app in the universe of the impossible child, get neuro-muscular tune-up from Doctor Slither.)
FRIDAY – Check machine elf Buzzgnart56’s amazon list for birthday present. Rotate through the fourth dimension and make appearances on each weekday at Heavy Metal offices. Say words like “Dinosaur Sex”, “Ten dimensional vagina”, “Hyperspace drugs”, “Godhead flagpole” “Homunculus Strippers” and “Big titted barbarian chicks”. That’ll keep ‘em occupied.
SATURDAY – Party like its 1999, 2099, 1699, and the fourth configuration of the eternal tesseract.
SUNDAY – Sleep and then have sex with a dinosaur, a triceratops this time.
I have continuously said to anybody that will listen without hitting me that I want a cloned mini Woolly Mammoth. I would name it La Brea or Kanye, I haven’t decided.
“Projeck Maschinenmensch” was an Illuminati bankrolled project. Part of their “Evil science” program. The goal was to produce an artificial intelligence in a super strong robot body. With Michael Fassbender they succeed beyond their wildest dreams and paid for their hubris in blood.
I started out not intending to make this an attack column on Richardson and Brilling’s paper. I just wanted to make robot dick jokes. I only partially succeeded on both fronts. To tip the scales toward attack I asked a good friend, super smart gal, and no stranger to confronting academic dogma/elitism; Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals. Her take on the paper goes like this:
There are multiple inherently sex-negative false equivalencies embedded in analyses that compare the development and use of sex robots to paying for services from professional sex workers.
Sex workers are people, and – at least until we make it to science fiction levels of robot development – sex robots are not. Though people who use sex robot technology may go through complex psychological machinations, augmenting robot “realness” for their own purposes, this still does not make them akin to an actual human worker.
Arguments that conflate sex trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children to sex work are themselves exploitative. Drawing comparisons between persons who have been coerced and/or assaulted with autonomous self-directed workers serves only to highlight researchers’ and pundits’ paternalist viewpoints, while augmenting exploitation of one group and further marginalizing another.
What’s more, to take it the other direction and assume that ALL people who purchase sex view those who sell sex as “things” (akin to robots) is also a dangerous over-generalization. Though “johns” are commonly conveyed in the media and in our popular imaginations as exploitative and dehumanizing men (women are never included in these considerations), the fact remains that very little work has been done exploring their thought processes and intentions.
Dr. Tibbals is one of the few people that can make “multiple inherently sex-negative false equivalencies” hot. She has a funny, informative and, above all, entertaining book while I’m at it. Here is her info:
Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals, sociologist and author of Exposure: A Sociologist Explores Sex, Society, and Adult Entertainment
Seriously, I want in. My “Real touch” won’t get jealous.