Sexbots v. Canada: Is the world Free anymore?

Rackstar · Post by **Rackstar** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:57 am

I haven't been on the DF for a while however I've stumbled on news that last year Canadian feminists are drawing up plans to make Sexbots illegal and are eyeing Real Dolls as the precursor that should be curtailed or stopped immediately as and objectivation of women as sex objects. Since then I've done some research into this issue that apparently Canadian feminists are preparing to take the fight against this 'industry'.

Before I give my opinion I will leave you with a few discussion points.

1. “technologies can be used in ways that enhance the power, authority, and privilege of some over others,” This quote by an Ottawa University group on robotics is that sexbots give men an advantage over women in the sexual marketplace. (that is an opinion NOT a fact)

(http://thelawsofrobotics.iankerr.ca/201 ... omment-116)

2. Would Sexbots cause undue harm to women and destroy society or is it just a ploy to suppress men's sexual outlets and channel them toward women ONLY.

3. Iceland has made Strip clubs illegal because it harms women (but have not asked the women)

Just wondering what thoughts are on sexbots in the near future and how extreme feminisits are attempting to convince governments that you are a danger to not just SOCIETY. But WOMEN.

Thanks,
Rackstar

midiman · Post by **midiman** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:35 am

There was a thread at TDF Nov. 2009 Canadian Feminists Propose Ban on Human-Robot Relationships
Would you like your post merged with it to keep th3e talk altogether?

The sex industry and dolls is too established to see dolls made illegal. Sex robots are not any different. They cannot say they take jobs from women because prostitution is illegal in all of Canada. Maybe this is a good cause for Midiman to take up. I don't mind feminists but hate any group of people that try to push their warped morality on others when it is based on bigotry and prejudice.

They have no jurisdiction. Just lobby efforts, but it does point out that while many in our community prefer to keep their dolls a secret, there are those out there who would have them legislated away. So if we sit on our asses and one day wake up and find we can't buy them anymore, we only have ourselves to blame. Squeaky wheels get the grease. That's how prohibition came to be in the USA.

Yeah, a Realdoll can't say no. Neither can my sex toy. Even grasping my penis with my hand to jerk off could be deemed to objectify women because I am visualizing a nice sexy women is part of that hand. What next? Get rid of the toys, cut off my hands, give us lobotomies so we can't visualize women? I can't believe that article was written by a man. Actually it probably was written by a man who dropped the toilette seat on his penis and had to have it amputated. you know .. sour grapes.

You will always have those that try to suppress invention and technology and anything sexual. While this asshole is complaining about a usage that keeps men off the streets and happy instead of fighting over woman in bars, he fails to point out that the
PRIMARY investor in robotics is the military, who seek to build the ultimate killing machine!

So tell me why isn't this guy worried about robot soldiers? Wouldn't you rather get fucked to death by a dysfunctional sex robot than riddled to pieces by a berserk robot soldier with a 50 cal MG?

That's how I see it!
Midiman

MAKE LOVE...NOT WAR!

Three cheers for Holland and especially Amsterdam where you can have sex with the woman of your dreams for 50 Euros. She'f probably even let you bring your doll

Actually next time back there I am going to take a Teddy Babe and see what happens

THAT's where I'm moving if the Canadian government under our religious right dictator, Harper, turns us into Shirley Temple Land.

acrux · Post by **acrux** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:46 am

The logical thing for these feminists would of course be to illegalize all sex toys, including dildos and vibrators.

pulchri-dude · Post by **pulchri-dude** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:16 am

We've heard the donkey's bray before

http://dollforum.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... hilit=levy

Just the Andrea Dorkin Gasbags periodic breaking forth of their flatulence of ignorance & intolerance.

If Canadian dudes keep brown-nosing them they just may suddenly find themselves as Sgt R. Lee Ermey would say "in a world of shit"

http://dollforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34251

Looks like open solicitation is just about legal in Quebec

http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.com ... about.html

"Compensated Dating" has always been legal in Canada.

cosycottage · Post by **cosycottage** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:29 am

acrux wrote:The logical thing for these feminists would of course be to illegalize all sex toys, including dildos and vibrators.

Ah, but that's totally different. That's freeing women from centuries of sexual repression by putting control of their sexual needs in their own hands.

midiman · Post by **midiman** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:34 pm

ian kerr does not look like a feminist's name !

Can't get any lower than a man lobbying against sex toys. Men are built differently than women where sex is concerned. It is a biological drive and some want to deny a natural biological need.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the writer of this article has never had or tried a RealDoll becasue he is humanizing the doll and in fact himself objectifying women. He is identifying women only with sex.

The doll is a sex toy and fantasy play item. It cannot say "No" the same as your car cannot say no when you turn the wheel

The doll in fact cannot say anything at all. It cannot share a night out on the town, a nice meal, share the driving on a vacation. It can in fact do absolutely nothing without the owner's intervention. Quite frankly his arguments could be turned around to show he is objectifying. Dang MASTURBATION is objectifying women...AND Men.

Fuzzy78 · Post by **Fuzzy78** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:45 pm

in my view feminim is becoming more aand more a blanket for anti humanism not long aago i had a discussion with a woman who thought a mass murderer was a feminist icon because most of the murders m9ight have been in self defense and the woman in question (the murderer) had a bad childhood, now dont get me wrong i fully support equality, but some of it is going a bit far.

synthyours · Post by **synthyours** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:05 pm

Dr. Kerr had students draw up proposals as part of an academic exercise. This is old news. It was a very intellectually lazy exercise which did not fully engage with feminist discourse, robotics, ethics, disability, or any of the numerous other factors relevant to such an exercise.

Hell, I'm a feminist. Most of my friends are feminists. Most of my feminist friends don't regard sex dolls as inherently unfeminist or misogynistic. Can they be used that way? Yes. Are there parts of the doll community that are very misogynistic? Yes. However, banning sex dolls because some people are misogynistic deprives people of the freedom to choose how they fulfill a very personal and very real need for sex.

Studies have been done showing that regular sex improves quality of life and life-span. If it improves someone's sense of well-being and causes no actual harm or deprivation of rights to others, then there's no issue at hand.

midiman · Post by **midiman** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:27 pm

Thank the military morality for breaking these prime directives ...

The Three Laws of Robotics, often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws, are a set of three rules written by science fiction author Isaac Asimov and later expanded upon. The rules are introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround although they were foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Make Love...Not war

Rackstar · Post by **Rackstar** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:42 pm

I enjoy the educated replies.
However I notice a common theme some have been advocating that this is 'old news'.

Sorry to say but Terrorism is also old news however a threat that must be guarded against.

Just last year, Iceland made Strip clubs illegal. Scandanavian nations are also at the extreme end of fem. and have nearly subjugated male roles in society and government in the name of Political Correctness and Multriculuralism (gone extreme.

This post is just to gauge the DF members awareness which apparently is well for now. A reminder every once in a while is good.

In any case, I urge you all to be alert because Feminism if incredibly strong in Europe and Americans don't really grasp feminism gone array because here it is keep balanced (if not slightly tipped for women, which is 'ok' however anymore is an issue).

Midiman, I knew you would post a reply on this and am extremly glad for you are usually at the head of these issues and as you have displayed, take an active stance in remaining aware and not letting yourself become complacent thinking "someone will stand up for me."

Unfortunately until RD costs lower and social values widen, the support for RD owners is one based on political principle instead of an actual social grouping (like feminist groups, minorities, et). However it will grow as society reaches a threshold that favors women to much and men cope by using RDs, fleshlights, etc to offset the effects of Alpha males and females overpursuing them at the cost of the other groups.

Whew! That's just the short idea.

f80man · Post by **f80man** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:07 pm

midiman wrote:Thank the military morality for breaking these prime directives ...

The Three Laws of Robotics, often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws, are a set of three rules written by science fiction author Isaac Asimov and later expanded upon. The rules are introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround although they were foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Make Love...Not war

But if you follow the three laws to their final conclusion, the robots must protect you from yourself and then there is no freedom to anything that may harm you. Ill stick with war and freedom with love thrown in.

Mechwizard · Post by **Mechwizard** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:21 pm

It could happen.

Politicians who occupy marginal seats will jump on anything to get them cheap votes. Afterall being your local member beats working for a living. In Aus they only need to stay in office for 3 terms to qualify for fully superannuated pensions (million dollar handshakes), so when they're facing their third election and its looking shaky they would jump on something like this to get them over the line. They don't need to believe in it, only believe that it will help their vote count.

Everyone beware, it only starts in one place, then spreads. Sort of like the flu.

"... out of our cold dead hands?"

IanEvans · Post by **IanEvans** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:42 pm

I think you may be giving these "feminists" way too much credit. It's probably just a simple case of "I don't like it, so you can't have it." These types hate men for being *gasp* different from women, and so like any closed-minded extremists will automatically assume the worst when they encounter things they don't understand. So they don't see the happily-married man whose wife just has a quiet libido, or the lonely guy who would much rather be in a real interactive relationship but has been unable to find one, or the recently-divorced man who isn't ready for something new but still needs that presence in his life. They just see selfish misogynists who want a silent, passive outlet for their sexual urges that can be ignored when not needed, because they are themselves misandrists. And the logic of "Well, wouldn't it be better for such men to have an outlet that's literally silent and passive, rather than treating a living woman that way?" is lost on them, for they're just so offended by the very idea that such a man could exist that they feel he must be punished, for simply not being what they think a man should be....

P.S. I realize that "silent and passive" implies a doll, not a robot, but the principle is the same; we are a long way from making computers with human-level self-awareness, never mind ones that could fit inside a humanoid robot.

cosycottage · Post by **cosycottage** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:44 pm

NotMyName wrote:we are a long way from making computers with human-level self-awareness

He hee! You've never seen Dark Star then

[youtube]I9-Niv2Xh7w&feature=related[/youtube]

Doll Knight XIX · Post by **Doll Knight XIX** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:43 pm

Honestly, I don't see why anyone would make such a big fuss over love dolls. They do not inherently, in any way, shape, or form objectify women. As has been said, they can be used for that purpose, but I can only see them used in that way as a means for comparison, saying 'women are like this.' That is not the fault of the doll, but of the person holding that attitude.

As a transwoman, I identify much more strongly as a female than a male and have always had a relatively strong empathy for the struggles of women, but this is ridiculous. This goes far beyond advocacy and straight into totalitarian rubbish, where the beliefs of one party are imposed on all, and as such, everyone's freedoms are stripped away. It's nonsense! What are they afraid of?

The only way I could see sex bots becoming dangerous is if something like this happened...

midiman wrote:he fails to point out that the
PRIMARY investor in robotics is the military, who seek to build the ultimate killing machine!

No kidding, and that always has great results in the movies. Termiator. Hardware. 2001: A Space Odyssey. You name it.

I think the feminists are starting Frank Herbert's Machine Crusade a little early, though.

It's quite obvious that out of control killing (or more likely screwing) machines are the least of their concerns, though. They're pushing a political agenda, plain and simple.

midiman wrote:Wouldn't you rather get fucked to death by a dysfunctional sex robot than riddled to pieces by a berserk robot soldier with a 50 cal MG?

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeee~eees!
I don't know if I could visualize a better way to to go, honestly.