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.)
Hmm. I think that should have been “…to prevent men from enjoying sex.”
Eh, no biggee. The monetization provided an incentive for someone to put that trailer on their channel. Capitalism!
I’ll bet she owns her own robot – aka dildo. I couldn’t imagine a real man wanting anything to do with her.
Flavor choices would give a whole new meaning to “vanilla sex.”
Here, this should help.
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.
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.
And whatever happened to the actress that Jeri Ryan replaced?
Take it in for repairs.
The last sentence appears to refer to invitro fertilization, and possibly artificial wombs, but the rest does seem to be about sexbots.
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.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give this comment.
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.
I see another person that wants to oppress the transgender Robotic community. For shame sir! For Shame!
They’d buy one but never use it, so as to show their respect.
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.
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.
Just curious, why distance changes things? I am not saying you are right or wrong. Just wondering about your reasoning.
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.
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).
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.
Shes just jealous because she cant keep her dildo stiff, and he lipstick keeps backing down the tube.
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.
SJWs always lie, so they’d just pretend that, and you wouldn’t want to know what they were actually doing.
Agreed. I don’t think we can do the subject justice in a comment section.
https://33.media.tumblr.com/6ddd54f55404c5000e156b0542cc12e3/tumblr_mzk2rrNT5g1sek2a3o1_500.gif
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.
Uhhh, no, that presumption does not follow.
Yeah, she went downhill, way downhill,but her character had a lifespan of only seven years . . . .
Have you seen the new “high efficiency” washing machines . . . ?
A sex robot would be a sure thing. No need to wine and dine and maybe still not get in her pants.
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.
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.
That helps, but like scrubbing a hard drive, it takes a lot of writing over the original.
That’s a pretty lame sort of denunciation. You need some serious remedial work.
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”
Alas, yes.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
[…] Why Do Feminists Hate Sex Robots? […]
You, sir, are a public benefactor.
Thanks Shawn. You have a better memory than mine!
You have a more memorable name than mine.
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.
So, I assume she also disapproves of sex toys for women, right?
I mean, equality is what feminism is all about, isn’t it?
She’s just afraid that men might end up thinking they need a real woman like a fish needs a bicycle.
Classic. You get major points for that reference. 🙂