Althouse: "If women are the model on which most sexbots are based, we run the risk of recreating essentialized gender roles, especially around sex."

June 14, 2014

"If women are the model on which most sexbots are based, we run the risk of recreating essentialized gender roles, especially around sex."

"And that would be too bad, because sex technology has the potential to alleviate longstanding human problems, for both men and women. Sex tech can help us take on sexual dysfunction and profound loneliness, but if we simply create a new variety of second-class citizen, a sexual creature to be owned, we risk alienating ourselves from each other all over again."

From "Sexbot slaves/Thanks to new technology, sex toys are becoming tools for connection - but will sexbots reverse that trend?" by Leah Reich (via Andrew Sullivan).

54 comments:

Ambrose said...: What do you mean "we" Kemosabe?; 6/14/14, 10:14 PM
traditionalguy said...: Eve was God's final work of art designed perfectly for Adam. That design has not been improved on.

Anybody who plans to do spend time making a better design is an evil maniac. Not that there is anything wrong with maniacal behavior anymore.; 6/14/14, 10:36 PM
Jupiter said...: Since robots are not cheap, sexbots will only exist if someone is willing to pay for them. And I think we know who is willing to pay for sex. And pretty much what that sex looks like.; 6/14/14, 10:37 PM
Jupiter said...: Suppose you want your sexbot to look like a certain person. A certain, living person.; 6/14/14, 10:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: That's not how I feel about my sexbot.; 6/14/14, 10:45 PM
gbarto said...: Most sexbots are phallic in nature and take an extremely reductive view of what makes a man. Talk about essentialized!; 6/14/14, 10:50 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: but if we simply create a new variety of second-class citizen, a sexual creature to be owned, we risk alienating ourselves from each other all over again."

If we simply create that? Isn't that intrinsic to the pursuit of creating a "sexbot?" Isn't that the whole point?

Rather than imploring people to desire sex robots with minds and feelings, wouldn't it make more sense to implore them to forget robots entirely and try to connect with actual people?; 6/14/14, 10:58 PM
chickelit said...: If women are the model on which most sexbots are based, we run the risk of recreating essentialized gender roles, especially around sex.

"We" should also consider ridding ourselves of plugs & sockets, hands & gloves, and other complimentary pairs. We NEED to shove all the "square" pegs into the round wholes in order to prove some perverted talking point.; 6/14/14, 11:14 PM
William said...: Thank God there was no such thing as Internet porn around when I was in high school. I'm sure I would have wasted endless hours looking at naked women instead of memorizing the conjugations of irregular Latin verbs. How much poorer my life would have been.; 6/14/14, 11:20 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Is "profound loneliness" more likely to be

a) alleviated OR
b) intensified

by performing acts of intimacy with a soulless pretend person machine?; 6/14/14, 11:20 PM
wildswan said...: Human rights for dildos. Just because they don't look like everyone else, that doesn't mean that you can be judgmental. Dildo marriage - why not?; 6/14/14, 11:22 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: He killed me with a sword, Mal... How weird is that?; 6/15/14, 12:01 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: It is interesting to me that John Stossel tonight had a show on the differences between libertarians and conservatives. And, one of the examples he brought up was prostitution. And, the question was, why is it illegal? In NV, it really works (legally) fairly well. You have willing buyers and sellers, and the women don't seem to feel exploited. Some use it to make a lot of money a couple times a month. That sort of thing - flying into Reno once or twice a month to work a couple days. (It isn't actually legal in Reno - but there are brothels right across the county line, and you see their limos picking people up at the airport).

Which gets me somehow to the connection. My theory is that the reason that prostitution is illegal here is that women don't like the competition for their wares.

But, the connection is that we have a lot of very frustrated men these days, because sex has been detached from marriage and relationships by feminists and, yes, the cheapening of marriage by, for example, the advent of gay marriage. Plus, the welfare state, where the Julias of the world can substitute Uncle Sam and daddy Obama for having to deal with men for support, and, in particular, support of their children. So, they can indulge their sexual desires with the most desirable males, and still get the support that they would have needed to get from marriage to a beta male in previous times. So, a lot of males are turning away from women, but are left with the same sexual drives that they have always have, and, thus these sexbots, along with prostitution.; 6/15/14, 12:03 AM
Kirk Parker said...: WTF?????; 6/15/14, 12:34 AM
Skyler said...: The layers of perversion in that quote are just too much to bear.

One, sex is not an essential act for life. It is enjoyable, but there is no need to place such a value on it to create monsters to simulate it.

Two, anyone who would think that sex with a machine is somehow good for curing loneliness is a lunatic.

Three, robots are not people. There are no robots and if there were, they are not people and do not have rights.

Fourth, worrying about the oppression of robots is a psychopathology, and such people who do worry about oppression of make believe machines knows nothing about robots. Such people should not be allowed around children nor be allowed to vote. They should be locked up.; 6/15/14, 12:41 AM
Alex said...: I can already see the 911 call. "Help, my dick is stuck inside the sexbot, send help!!!"; 6/15/14, 12:50 AM
Alex said...: tradguy - even morbidly obese women are designed by God?; 6/15/14, 12:51 AM
n.n said...: Dodo Dynasty; 6/15/14, 12:59 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Politically correct perversions, what will they think of next.; 6/15/14, 1:07 AM
Gahrie said...: Suppose you want your sexbot to look like a certain person. A certain, living person.

I am entirely certain that there will be licenced product lines.; 6/15/14, 2:06 AM
Anonymous said...: DUDE... Horny mens want sex bots!!!

Horny males have NOT PATIENCE to read long article if article not in German or if article cannot be dramatized with excessive manliness by reading in strong German accent!!!

Ms. Leah Reich (...'ya think she's hot? what her measurements?) and AEON magazine (close in letters to "areola") definitely need to slap a hard TL;DR for horny men atop that page and maybe drizzle a little sticky summary on it too...; 6/15/14, 3:20 AM
Smilin' Jack said...: ...sex technology has the potential to alleviate longstanding human problems, for both men and women.

Well, duh. This was all covered in "The Stepford Wives" 40 years ago. And if technology can give me Katherine Ross with bigger boobs, all I can say is, "What's taking so long?"; 6/15/14, 4:42 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: Well, is there any broad demand for male sexbots?

What happened to that lone male prostitute in AZ?

I can envision a future, I suppose, in which the AZ brothels are staffed by androids, because they wouldn't demand a cut, but I doubt they'll be male androids.; 6/15/14, 6:04 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: For a brilliantly and highly entertaining imagined future in which sexbots have become sentient and humans have become extinct, read Saturn's Children by Charles Stross. The "sequel" (same universe but hundreds of years later) is even better, it's a mystery wrapped around the familiar problems of interstellar debt.; 6/15/14, 6:31 AM
rhhardin said...: Long ago Radio Japan reported robots being constructed to care for senior citizens, for instance flipping them over and taking a rectal temperature at night.

The Japanese imagination has had years to work since then.; 6/15/14, 6:55 AM
madAsHell said...: What happens when the sex-bot doesn't go away??

.....and what Freeman said.; 6/15/14, 7:17 AM
Meade said...: There's somebot for everybody.; 6/15/14, 7:41 AM
Meade said...: Sometime in the future...

Rush Limbaugh III called Georgetown University law student Judy Fluke a “prostitute”, a “slut”, and a "robot", on the air last week, enraging liberals and prompting many of his program’s advertisers to pull out.; 6/15/14, 7:51 AM
SGT Ted said...: Women don't want any competition that will threaten their needs for long term provisioning(money and resources) from men. Hence the angst driven articles about the threats of sexbots that serve men's sexual needs. Most likely written by someone that owns a vibrator.

A sexbot isn't a creature. Its a machine. So, there's nothing to consider in regards to "citizenship" and "sexual roles" whatsoever.

And one doesn't have to "create specified gender roles" around sex, as they already exist and have existed for several millinia. What the hell else does she think a penis or a vagina is for? Performance art? Porn movies?

The denial of basic biology by allegedly educated people is striking.

Note that she ignores that men are already considered 2nd class citizens as a sexual creature, to be owned by a woman via marriage, by both by the legal system and the culture, when it comes to actual existing sex roles. She thinks that's right and good.

I think what she really means is that she is afraid men won't have to put up with any woman's shit and give women cash and prizes for sex, when they can have a nice sexbot, already paid for and cheaper to maintain than a woman.

And I think there's some truth to that, seeing as how more men are opting out of the sexism of the marriage contract that privileges women and makes men legal 2nd class citizens when it comes to sex roles.

When the sexbots can make a sammich and fetch a beer, women are really going to be in trouble.; 6/15/14, 7:57 AM
Rusty said...: by performing acts of intimacy with a soulless pretend person machine?

I see you've met my wife.

Just kidding.; 6/15/14, 8:07 AM
Rusty said...: rhhardin said...
Long ago Radio Japan reported robots being constructed to care for senior citizens, for instance flipping them over and taking a rectal temperature at night.

The Japanese imagination has had years to work since then.

But not one of them will go near a nuclear reactor.
Bad robot.; 6/15/14, 8:07 AM
SGT Ted said...: Eve was God's final work of art designed perfectly for Adam. That design has not been improved on.

The main problem is that we're stuck with the biotech of many thousands of years ago, with the legal system of today and things aren't going well because of that.

And if hormonal raging, solipsism, double standards and the open sexism against men coming from women is "perfection", then God needs to be reported to the BBB and we need to get a recall going.; 6/15/14, 8:08 AM
Oso Negro said...: Ah, the wages of mainstreaming perversion. Just wait til the Japanese are marketing cute little child sexbots for minor-attracted persons.; 6/15/14, 8:25 AM
Bob Ellison said...: What if the sexbots discover each other? It'll all be for naught.; 6/15/14, 8:32 AM
rhhardin said...: Look for a Barbie series with more than peeing.; 6/15/14, 9:15 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ON4u8xHCE; 6/15/14, 10:05 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: and

http://vimeo.com/12915013; 6/15/14, 10:09 AM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Jeeze! Some things are just TOO WEIRD.

But, yeah, what Bruce Hayden said at 12:03.

And on Fathers' Day??? C'mon Althouse!; 6/15/14, 10:20 AM
Gahrie said...: Well, is there any broad demand for male sexbots?

The base version is called a vibrator.; 6/15/14, 10:39 AM
SGT Ted said...: The base version is called a vibrator

Next step up is the sybian.; 6/15/14, 10:58 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I can't think of a better way to make men hate women.

The history of the 20th and (so far) 21st centuries seems to be about enabling individuals to cut all ties to family and community and still be able to meet all their material needs. Socialism is not about collective welfare but giving individuals the ability to cut themselves off from the rest of humanity. Areas where people receive the most assistance from other areas of the country are the most alienated and unhappy.

"Needs" are reduced to material components- money, mostly, but sex seems to be next on the list. What is missed is qualitative. Money earned at work is not the same as money given by a government program. Sex is not the same as marriage. Free preschool and day care is not the same as a parent. Inferior substitutes are touted as improvements over the original. The more we enable individuals, the less happy we become.

Reducing life to a few material concerns destroys meaning and hollows out our humanity. It's a source of hate and resentment to people who don't have much, and a source of unearned pride and fear for those that do.; 6/15/14, 11:04 AM
SGT Ted said...: A sexbot will not mean anymore to any sane man than a vibrator means to a sane woman.

Only the weirdos will seek life fulfillment through masturbating with a machine. Otherwise, it'll just be a kinky toy.; 6/15/14, 11:53 AM
SGT Ted said...: I can't think of a better way to make men hate women.

The sexbot idea is a symptom of the greater problem of women viewing men as disposable, interchangeable and merely a financial option when it comes to creating a family. So, men would rather masturbate and live their lives free of being a slave to a woman and her mercenary desires.

Go look at any Craigslist Women Seeking Men for LTRs. It's all about entertainment, good times and provisioning for women to be provided by, or paid for by the men, especially the ones with kids. And 80 extra pound of fat.

The selfishness and self centeredness is striking. There's nothing in there about them having to do much of anything, much less be good in bed.

They say shit like "I'll treat my man nice!", like that is some sort of grand concession on their part and not a normal expectation of a man seeking a relationship with a woman.

The men, on the other hand, are just supposed to measure up to their 100 point checklist of things they are to bring to the table, while nothing is to be expect of from the women, other than possession of a vagina.; 6/15/14, 12:13 PM
Skyler said...: "Well, is there any broad demand for male sexbots?"

It's not polite to call them broads.; 6/15/14, 1:58 PM
Shootist said...: Luis Phallus, multi-pass?; 6/15/14, 2:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Rather than imploring people to desire sex robots with minds and feelings, wouldn't it make more sense to implore them to forget robots entirely and try to connect with actual people?

Um, sure. If and when those actual people demonstrate that they actually have organic minds and (not usually negative or entitled) feelings.

I don't see any imploring going on here. This is an entirely market-based phenomenon. The demands of male intimacy are outstripping the supply of women kind and accepting and generous enough to regularly attempt doing so without fear of somehow "ruining" their "highly desirable" status.

Fortunately, most of those women, so fearful as they are of protectively guarding that imaginary "highly desirable" status, don't demonstrate personalities more interesting and humane than these robots anyway, so I don't see what the big fuss is about.; 6/15/14, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoping the bot-babe can be programmed to pick up the damn check once in a while.; 6/15/14, 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Free preschool and day care is not the same as a parent.

To be sure; it's not even the same as paid-for preschool and day care.; 6/15/14, 3:34 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Freeman,

Is "profound loneliness" more likely to be

a) alleviated OR
b) intensified

by performing acts of intimacy with a soulless pretend person machine?

I would say we ask the Japanese -- they seem poised to get their first.; 6/15/14, 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: "If women are the model on which most sexbots are based, we we run the risk of recreating essentialized gender roles, especially around sex."

Three category errors in three words--wow.

1) Life is real, not an act. We do not enact "roles". "Sex roles" is psychobabble for sex-specific behavior. What men do. What women do.

2) Worse still is "gender roles": animals have sexes; declined nouns and pronouns have genders.

3) Merriam-Webster: "essentialize - transitive verb: to express or formulate in essential form". That is something you do to a set of propositions, not a behavior pattern.

I know, Reich means something else (intentionally vague). I could quote Dumpty by Carroll, but I shall semiquote Montoya by Goldman: She keeps using that word. It does not mean what she thinks it means.

I think that by "essentialized gender roles," Reich means sex-specific behavior that is widely acknowledged to be sex-specific, making it much more horrible. (Admittedly, that's a guess, informed by Decter.)

As to "recreating": I think Reich thinks some sex-specific behavior has disappeared and is afraid this sex-toy-improvement will revive it, especially around sex. This strikes me as (a) staggeringly implausible, (b) if true, probably marginally good, and (c) of infinitesimally small importance.

She has too much time on her hands.

I guess I must, too, or I wouldn't have written this. I just got annoyed.; 6/15/14, 4:42 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: "What if the sexbots discover each other?" Read Saturn's Children by Charles Stross.; 6/15/14, 6:19 PM
Moneyrunner said...: This could be the answer to the Feminists’ dreams. Since the vanguard of the feminist movement considers all PIV activity to be rape, these robots can provide the sexual solution for all genders and permutations. The robots will be designed to be accepting of all inclinations. And think of the benefits to today’s college campus which, if we can believe government statistics, are ground zero for male rapists perpetrating sexual attacks on coeds, with some education thrown in for a mere $50,000 per year. With robots, men can have sex with a robotized versions of the members of the cheerleading squad and no one will complain. Women will have access to robots emotionally more satisfying than vibrators, and they won’t leave their dirty laundry on the floor. Men will be free of the need to seduce a woman and won’t be blackmailed into marriage via pregnancy. And as they age, men won’t be harnessed to women putting on weight, with sagging boobs, flabby thighs and expanding butts. We’ll be able to have sex with the women of our dreams until we die, or lose interest, whichever comes first. And for you women, the robot men of your dreams won’t cheat on you and will be a vigorous in old age as in youth.
Some people may object that this could spell the end of the species. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the 21st Century, as Glenn Reynolds reminds us. All it takes is an egg and sperm …. in a test tube. Want a baby? Order one up with the right chromosomes. None of the ickyness of pregnancy.

This may be what men want, but isn’t it what women also want? No more fish on a bicycle; no more male rape via PIV. The dream of the modern woman.; 6/15/14, 8:34 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Robots are so easy.; 6/15/14, 8:53 PM
William said...: When thinking of intimate acts, get your minds out of the gutter. Suppose you're not a horny teenager in need of a helping hand, but rather a disabled geezer in need of a diaper changing and wiped ass. Who would you prefer to assist you --a robot or a home care attendant?.......Sexbots might motivate robotic engineers to spend long hours at the drawing board but the greatest use of such creations will probably not be salacious.; 6/15/14, 10:45 PM