I think you don’t get the point. It‘s about that if we are only trying to optimize for outcome, we will loose what makes it more than just biological. I don’t see how it makes sense that a women using a dildo is in any way similar to a human to human interaction, it’s more than just getting off right?

Is your suggestion to ban future sex robots in order to make sure that human-to-human connection is more robust? (I don't know the right answer, just that intuitively it seems not right to do it, even if the outcome of very good sex robots means less couples / less children / etc.).

It's not limited to men. A lot of feminists are also vocally against the idea of female sex bots because it makes them feel insecure.

I see female sexrobots as a symptom, a manifestation of the male gaze. I've heard personal histories of being courted and finding the guy was out for sexual gratification and didn't much care for her life-perspective. A justified anger there, I think, at a culture that perpetuates and celebrates this form of relating. Insecurity, I suspect, befalls more prominently the indoctrinated women that are catering to male expectations of beauty and ease. The successful feminists don't care if you're only screwing sexbots. If you are, it'll be great to have you off the market anyway. A filter for the men who won’t meaningfully connect.

> I've heard personal histories of being courted and finding the guy was out for sexual gratification and didn't much care for her life-perspective.

Personal belief: if a woman finds that she isn't pleased with the type of man courting her, then maybe she should take the initiative and put in the effort to approach and court the men that she does want. Just as you likely wouldn't get the best job if you just wait for recruiters to reach out to you.

The irony is that many of the people criticizing female sex bots would welcome male sex bots as "liberating", which shows you they don't have any consistent ideology, outside of a selfish ideology that what benefits them is good even if it hurts others, and what hurts them is bad even if it benefits others.

Shouldn't we ban dildos for the same reason then?

Or does it only work one way?

Women are as much biological sex robots as men. We've all see tinder data. Connection is just a proxy for whatever 'protect my offspring' is in base pairs.

> I see female sexrobots as a symptom, a manifestation of the male gaze.

Men's insecurity, of course it is. That old chestnut. I'm exhausted by having to capitulate to female centric sensibilities around physical intimacy. This has been going on for decades. Your comment is endemic of the dismissive and othering nature around men's needs and experiences. Men and women are different. Unrealistic expectations from and for both is the foundational problem here.

The only good way forward is understanding, forgiveness, gratitude, and some romanticism and adoration, from and for both sexes. A nice big sun spot that wipes out social media would help too.

"a lot of feminists", source?

Just search for feminist opinions on sex bots, there are tons.

Source: all them feminists.

Any idea why a bipedal fleshlight makes them insecure? My head jumps to "could it because they fear that without sex, they have no value?" but that sounds so ridiculous to me. All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity. I've met plenty of women who add value to the world in a bajillion other ways.

Can someone help me understand this one?

> All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity

This is reasoning.

However people don't always act based on reasoning.

And even if you act based on reasoning, you can't trust others to act based on the same kind of reasoning.

---

If a more serious response, (some) feminists see sex robots as objectification of women and that's why they're against them.

Always...? Lol.

I didn't mention being a man, and the key words in that sentence are the ones you omitted.

So brave. So courageous. (Slow clap). Not at all similar to something Michael Scott would say.

There's also a whole bunch of woman embracing it as you can see on /r/myboyfriendisai

There's a difference in scale and potential consequences though

What if there were some robot with superhuman persuasion and means of manipulating human urges such that, if it wanted to, it could entrap anyone it wanted to complete subservience? Should we happily acquiesce to the emerging cult-like influence these new entities have on susceptible humans? What if your parents messaged you one day, homeless on the street because they gave all their money and assets to a scammer robot that via a 300IQ understanding of human psychology manipulated them to sending all their money in a series of wire transfers?

> superhuman persuasion and means of manipulating human urges such that, if it wanted to, it could entrap anyone it wanted to complete subservience

Wow this potential/theoretical danger sounds a lot like the already existent attention economy; we're already manipulated at scale by "superhuman" algorithms designed to hijack our "human urges," create "cult-like" echo chambers, and sell us things 24/7. That future is already here

Which is true. People are scammed by very low-quality schemes (like that French woman who sent 1 million to the scammers who claimed to be Brad Pitt who for some reason needed money for medical procedures).

Humans have generally a natural wariness/mental immune system response to these things however, and for 99% of people the attention economy is far from being able to completely upend their life or send all their money in an agreement made in bad faith by the other party. I don't see why, if some AI were to possess persuasion powers to a superhuman degree, would be able to cause 100x the damage when directed at the right marks.