No

Should we ban sex robots while we have the chance?
Jenny Kleeman

From our ever popular series, Questions in Guardian headlines we can answer.

If men (and it will be men – even the few male sex dolls produced by Abyss Creations every year are generally shipped to male customers) become used to having sex with synthetic companions that are programmed to meet their most precise specifications, how will they then interact with real women who have the inconvenience of having their own idiosyncrasies and free will?

Perhaps the most important question to ask is why there is a market for sex robots in the first place. Why do some people find the idea of a partner without autonomy so attractive?

Dunno love but if it’s modern men refusing to have sex with modern women then I’d probably start my investigation by asking what is it about modern women driving the refusal?

29 thoughts on “No”

  1. Perhaps the most important question to ask is why there is a market for sex robots in the first place. Why do some people find the idea of a partner without autonomy so attractive?

    Has it ever crossed her mind that some gentlemen have a terrible time of it finding a willing partner?

    And that such dolls might assuage the carnal thirst of some of the more aggressive types who fall into this group? Hence reducing the incidence of them finding unwilling live partners?

    You know, second-order effects?

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    So presumably how is she doing on the issue of banning vibrators? You know, sex robots for women? Objectified, disembodied, personality-less sex robots but sex robots nonetheless.

    Still it does mean we can have some idea of how men might treat women in the future. We can just look at how women with a fondness for vibrators treat men (which depends on whether they have one for fun or for lack of anything better I expect).

  3. We can just look at how women with a fondness for vibrators treat men (which depends on whether they have one for fun or for lack of anything better I expect).

    One of the most messed-up women I know had a veritable collection. She’d even worn the motor out on one of them. I wondered at the time if there was a connection.

  4. “Should we ban sex robots while we have the chance?”
    Because banning stuff that people really want has such a great track record.

    “Perhaps the most important question to ask is why there is a market for sex robots in the first place.”
    Yes indeed. And the answer is because gender relations have been totally screwed up by feminist ideology. Only a feminist could hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time: a man is wrong to want sex from a woman; a man is wrong not to want sex from a woman.

    Both questions beg to be explored in a sci-fi story, one I may well write.

  5. @Dan Hill

    “Only a feminist could hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time: a man is wrong to want sex from a woman; a man is wrong not to want sex from a woman.
    Both questions beg to be explored in a sci-fi story, one I may well write”

    I’ll save you the effort of writing the story- just wait for a Guardian columnist to publish his diary.

  6. Remember – vibrators are Empowering for Wimminz.

    Sex robots for men are just plain misogyny and CAN’T THEY JUST GO GET GIRLFRIENDS, what are they, complete creeps or something?

    Look sweetie (yes, I’m being deliberately patronising and sexist), you’re missing nothing if the majority of the guys in question decide to spend the rest of their lives with Robof*ck.

  7. “a partner without autonomy” – Why do they assume men who are after a sex robot are using it as a replacement for a partner? maybe they just want some pleasure? Why don’t they think it can have the same place in life as just nipping off for 5 minutes alone time?

    Yes, some guys may well replace a partner with one but then there was recently a case of a guy marrying his car so should we ban cars too “before it’s too late”?

  8. It’s perfectly simple. feminists don’t want to have sex with men. They want men to want to have sex with them. So they can say “No.”

  9. Sex robot is a silly term.

    Robot being the silly term. Sex machine –ok that is a valid name. But some lump of plastic with an artificial cunt is not a “robot” in any sense of the word.

    If they were real robots they could cut out the electronic middleman and sexily chauffeur you around in place of the driverless car nonsense.

    As for bans–the arrogance needs beating out as I (almost) get sick of saying.

  10. More Polly Filler-level stuff from the Guardian. They truly are scraping the bottom of the barrel with click-bait like this shit.

  11. I think we all agree that rape is a bad thing. It is also generally agreed amongst approved-thinkers that the absence of positive consent is rape.

    Thus sex dolls ought to be banned. Also: hands, melons, holes in soil, furniture, trees and soft toys, warm pies, Cornish pasties, sofas and armchairs, shower heads, vacuum cleaners, car exhausts, vaseline-lined toilet roll tubes, oven-ready poultry and velour curtains.

  12. I should point out that the only method detail above which I have used is the hand.

    And I give myself a thumbs up first to indicate consent.

  13. Just a quick note to say that she is barmy, the entire editorial staff of the Grauniad is barmy, and of course some 99% of its readership is barmy as well. Thus we are commenting here on barminess, which is all rather a waste of time.

    As for me, I’m off to finish trimming the hedge.

  14. They’ll just demand legislation that sexbots are over weight, nag you to do the washing up and “should know what to do without being told” and whatnot.

    Then there will be an illegal market in pleasant sexbots smuggled from Thailand.

  15. I do love the irony of someone not knowing the basic background to their story. My early career was in robotics- many papers were writ and not the rubbish defintion found in wiki. So, not withstanding the basic comments on the items purpose, it should be noted that the original derivation for the word robot from the play R.U.R by Karel Čapek was essentialy a mechanical slave.-so now we have the true definition of a sex slave….. quick ban the word robot! I laughed reading the comment above – you check out the reason ladies ‘toys’ were made and the origin of hysterics (all NSFW). You’ve got to love Doctors they get all the good words.

  16. Perhaps the most important question to ask is what business is it of yours what other people do, given that it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your bones.

  17. So Much For Subtlety

    The assumption is that acting out a fantasy with a robot causes people to act it out in real life. You can’t allow anyone to have a doll that looks like a child because it will cause the user to rape small children.

    It is an argument that I am inclined towards but I do notice there is no evidence for it.

    Also they leapt from a doll being “frigid” to “rape”. No one has produced a doll for rape as yet. Just one that needs a little more persuading than usual. For the recently divorced I assume. However it is interesting where their minds are going. It is as if they spend an awful lot of time thinking about rape. Fondly perhaps. In the company of their own sex robot vibrators I would guess.

  18. As with any CiF feminist writer, just assume that any expression of heterosexual male desire is by definition evil and any apparent contradictions make sense.

  19. Sex robots in a human form; pah!

    I’ll hold off for the six foot tall mutant space squirrels with at least five working orifices!

  20. Reminds me of Bob Monkhouse’s old joke about “Helga–your inflatable friend”

    “She never has a headache says the blurb.

    But you do after you’ve blown the bloody thing up”.

  21. Not specifically about the sex instinct indulgence industry automation but more broadly/ This bbc R4/World service prog was disappointing because despite several experts the premise not seriously challenged.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cstwyd

    Nick Nordstrum good and interesting but his points go over the presenters head. What’s more his bit is prerecorded so he can’t follow up and none of the panelists set the presenter straight.

    The anti-jewel is the professor who goes off on one about corporations and capitalism not likely to produce AI and robots that will dismantle corporations and capitalism which is what is fervently needed. ( This made me laugh and feel sad at the same time because there’s definitely a scenario to be outlined where the jobless society is the communist ideal. So it would have been fun for that to pop out of the discussion.. sadly not)

    Tim,,, you should be on this type of thing. You can boil this stuff down better than all this lot can.

  22. Tomas Fuller: “As for me, I’m off to finish trimming the hedge.”

    I’ve never heard it called that before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *