The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Why Do Feminists Hate Sex Robots?

Posted on | September 16, 2015 | 185 Comments

Professor Kathleen Richardson wants to ban sex robots.

In the zero-sum-game worldview of feminism, anything that makes men happy is bad. Kathleen Richardson, a professor at De Montfort University in England, is afraid that having sex with robots will make men happy:

“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.

Notice that Dr. Richardson is only worried about how these robots would affect “traditional” stereotypes of women, whereas stereotypes of men are evidently not at all “disturbing” to her. While I am also against robot sex — it’s just plain creepy — I might change my mind if scientists could program these robots to make sandwiches.

We wouldn’t want feminist professors to make sandwiches, would we?

That would be “very disturbing indeed.”

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

185 Responses to “Why Do Feminists Hate Sex Robots?”

  1. McGehee
    September 16th, 2015 @ 6:31 pm

    Hmm. I think that should have been “…to prevent men from enjoying sex.”

  2. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 6:54 pm

    Eh, no biggee. The monetization provided an incentive for someone to put that trailer on their channel. Capitalism!

  3. Whothehell Cares
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

    I’ll bet she owns her own robot – aka dildo. I couldn’t imagine a real man wanting anything to do with her.

  4. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

    Flavor choices would give a whole new meaning to “vanilla sex.”

  5. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:02 pm

    Here, this should help.

  6. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:04 pm

    That would more likely become a court-ordered mandatory condition of parole, that they must have a way of satisfying their urges that doesn’t hurt a real person.

  7. RKae
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:09 pm

    And, of course, some freak will want to marry his robot, and if you refuse to bake him a cake…

    …Well, we all know the rest.

  8. Durasim
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:13 pm

    And whatever happened to the actress that Jeri Ryan replaced?

  9. Fail Burton
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:48 pm

    Take it in for repairs.

  10. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 7:58 pm

    The last sentence appears to refer to invitro fertilization, and possibly artificial wombs, but the rest does seem to be about sexbots.

  11. Shawn Smith
    September 16th, 2015 @ 8:01 pm

    Read literally, yes, it sounds like sex-bots. Understanding Lewis’s views and taking into context other parts of the book, I think it’s about birth control. Remember, this was not supposed to be terribly futuristic for Lewis’s day. The latter part puzzles me, I must admit.

  12. Finrod Felagund
    September 16th, 2015 @ 8:13 pm

    I regret that I have but one upvote to give this comment.

  13. Finrod Felagund
    September 16th, 2015 @ 8:19 pm

    I’ve actually heard of research being done into communicating pairs of robots, one for him and one for her, where the sensory information that her robot gets from her goes to his robot to simulate being her, and vice-versa. Two people could engage in this while being on different continents, even.

  14. Southern Air Pirate
    September 16th, 2015 @ 9:20 pm

    I see another person that wants to oppress the transgender Robotic community. For shame sir! For Shame!

  15. GeorgeOlduvai
    September 16th, 2015 @ 9:51 pm

    They’d buy one but never use it, so as to show their respect.

  16. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 10:03 pm

    It’s one thing if we’re talking about spouses temporarily separated (and why would you have to travel for work with that technology?), and another if we’re talking about lovers in neighboring rooms.

  17. WarEagle82
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:02 pm

    I suppose she got turned down when she last propositioned a sex robot prototype and is just reacting the only way feminazis know how to react.

    A feminazi is someone desperately concerned that some man, some where, might be having fun.

  18. WarEagle82
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:03 pm

    Just curious, why distance changes things? I am not saying you are right or wrong. Just wondering about your reasoning.

  19. WarEagle82
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:08 pm

    No, it is not enough that you stop contact with feminazis. The fact that a male exists is sufficient torment to drive them to distraction. The thought that a male exists and is having fun is simply unconscionable to them and must be stopped by any means.

  20. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:34 pm

    Milo Yiannopoulos gives it his best. He hits all the right red-pill points, but I think that it will only have an effect on the margin, not the mainstream.

    That is not to be discounted — the margins can change the dynamic for everyone — but it isn’t the same as a mass movement, and straight men will always prefer real women (that don’t hate men).

  21. Daniel Freeman
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:49 pm

    Not just distance but intimacy otherwise. There is a difference between a couple physically separated using phone sex to maintain emotional intimacy, a lonely man buying phone sex to simulate intimacy, and a couple actually separated by technology, playing WoW in neighboring rooms.

    The same would hold true of sexbots.

  22. mole
    September 16th, 2015 @ 11:57 pm

    Shes just jealous because she cant keep her dildo stiff, and he lipstick keeps backing down the tube.

  23. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 12:20 am

    Dana has a real weakness for real redheads.

    Redheads come in two varieties: either drop-dead gorgeous, or butt-ugly. There is no middle on this.

  24. Daniel Freeman
    September 17th, 2015 @ 1:51 am

    SJWs always lie, so they’d just pretend that, and you wouldn’t want to know what they were actually doing.

  25. Daniel Freeman
    September 17th, 2015 @ 1:54 am

    Agreed. I don’t think we can do the subject justice in a comment section.

  26. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 17th, 2015 @ 2:07 am

    https://33.media.tumblr.com/6ddd54f55404c5000e156b0542cc12e3/tumblr_mzk2rrNT5g1sek2a3o1_500.gif

  27. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:24 am

    I’m just disappointed that she isn’t a redhead in all of those pics. She has the complexion of a real redhead, but, then again, so does my very brunette wife.

  28. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:25 am

    Uhhh, no, that presumption does not follow.

  29. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:27 am

    Yeah, she went downhill, way downhill,but her character had a lifespan of only seven years . . . .

  30. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:28 am

    Have you seen the new “high efficiency” washing machines . . . ?

  31. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:29 am

    A sex robot would be a sure thing. No need to wine and dine and maybe still not get in her pants.

  32. Dana
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:30 am

    Maybe the ultimate sex robot, one which can switch back and forth from male to female, for bisexuals, or husband and wife to share?

    Plus, this way homosexuals could buy themselves a supposedly female sex robot, and not switch it to male until in the privacy of their own bedrooms, just so’s they can stay in the closet.

  33. Pervy Grin
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:59 am

    Then there’s this quote, which may be apochryphal:

    Bessie Braddock: Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.

    Winston Churchill: Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.

  34. Quartermaster
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:51 am

    That helps, but like scrubbing a hard drive, it takes a lot of writing over the original.

  35. Quartermaster
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:52 am

    That’s a pretty lame sort of denunciation. You need some serious remedial work.

  36. Ilion
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:53 am

    Lewis was taking the *logic* of divorcing the sex act from its natural telos of procreation to its logical, and absurd, conclusion. So, he was, in fact, talking about what we now call “sexbots”

  37. Quartermaster
    September 17th, 2015 @ 10:03 am

    Alas, yes.

  38. Southern Air Pirate
    September 17th, 2015 @ 10:08 am

    Well I haven’t been studying diversity studies too long. So I am still learning how to be wild eyed crazy and angry in denouncements

  39. Shawn Smith
    September 17th, 2015 @ 10:15 am

    Fair enough, the only reason I hesitated was because it seemed like they were talking in the present tense, which referred to a near-future (for Lewis’s time) world, which did not include such things.

  40. HiawathaJones
    September 17th, 2015 @ 10:23 am

    If I have my sex robot designed so that it would clearly not embrace feminine stereotypes and instead look like Kathleen Richardson, would that be ok?

  41. m a
    September 17th, 2015 @ 11:05 am

    Well modern feminism has promulgated the notion that women are far better off without men. We’re not necessary. All sex is rape, women can only be truly equal when the institution of marriage is destroyed, that only lesbianism is true feminism etc.etc etc.

    They’ve rejected any notion of actual equality of the sexes based on mutual respect of our basic humanity. They’ve rejected the notion of partnerships. As a result, more and more women are quite frankly downright unpleasant to be around. There is in fact a difference between a strong independent woman and someone who’s just being an a—hole.

    This is a quite logical outcome which is perfectly aligned to achieving their stated goals. They should be celebrating and supporting it.

  42. TS Eggleston
    September 17th, 2015 @ 12:04 pm

    Has anyone else noted that the Women who raise the most crap about this stupid stuff are the ones that no one (male or female) would touch with a ten foot pole while wearing a level3 HAZMAT suit?

  43. Debate: CNN Sucks, but You Already Knew that… | Regular Right Guy
    September 17th, 2015 @ 12:52 pm

    […] Why Do Feminists Hate Sex Robots? […]

  44. Wombat_socho
    September 17th, 2015 @ 4:53 pm

    You, sir, are a public benefactor.

  45. BillClintonsShorts17
    September 17th, 2015 @ 7:40 pm

    Thanks Shawn. You have a better memory than mine!

  46. Shawn Smith
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:04 pm

    You have a more memorable name than mine.

  47. nadadhimmi
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:13 pm

    Women already have sexbots. They’re called vibrators. Feminists don’t want their hetero sisters to loose the control of the pusssy over men. The control of the pusssy means societal. legal and financial control over the hated males. They want to legislate against LOOSING that control.

  48. tobytylersf
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:14 pm

    So, I assume she also disapproves of sex toys for women, right?

    I mean, equality is what feminism is all about, isn’t it?

  49. Jeff Jefferson
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:26 pm

    She’s just afraid that men might end up thinking they need a real woman like a fish needs a bicycle.

  50. DSmith2
    September 17th, 2015 @ 9:34 pm

    Classic. You get major points for that reference. 🙂