\u201cIf my RealDoll could cook, clean, and screw whenever I wanted, I\u2019d never date again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s like renting a girlfriend or wife. You get to choose like a catalogue.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou pay for the convenience, a bit like going to a public loo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nIf you play your cards right, you\u2019ve got some pleasure and fun coming your way!<\/i><\/p>\n
Men creating perfect sexual objects is no new thing. In Greek myth, the sculptor Pygmalion\u2014who is disgusted by real women\u2014falls in love with his own statute, a carving so beautiful and so realistic he spends days and nights staring at her in rapture. He dresses her in silk and jewels, brings her gifts and takes her to bed with him. He appeals to Aphrodite and, impressed by the statue\u2019s beauty and Pygmalion\u2019s devotion, the goddess brings her to life. She is not given her name, Galatea, until the eighteenth century\u2014a few thousand years after Ovid named her son Paphos.<\/p>\n
Probably Aphrodite saw nothing askance in this. After all her consort, Hephaestus, had his own women-shaped automatons. She was probably used to it.<\/p>\n
The cis-male interest in sex with women-shaped objects has only grown with advances in technology. Ivory statues gave way to rubber inflatable dolls which gave way to\u2014for those who can afford them at least\u2014the silicon and articulated metal of hyper-realistic sex dolls. And soon, actual sex robots will hit the market. Of course, we\u2019re still a long way yet from the human-like speech and movement of the robots in Blade Runner, Stepford Wives, Ex Machina<\/i> and Westworld <\/i>but male sexual desire tends to force innovation. The need to sell and share porn, for example, catalysed revolutions in internet technologies incuding streaming, Flash, greater bandwidth, and credit-card payments. No doubt it will spur the hasty \u2018improvement\u2019 of robotic lovers too.<\/p>\n
\nI hope you\u2019re ready. Put your dick in my hand. I will take you for a ride.<\/i><\/p>\n
The most sought-after and well-known sexdolls in the world are made by California-based Abyss Creations which currently ships up to 600 hyper realistic \u2018RealDolls\u2019 every year, priced from 4,400USD for a small, basic version to 50,000USD for a customised doll. The company has been selling a talking, animatronic AI head named Harmony since January 2019 and now you can even peel off her face and replace it with a new one, Solana, who has a whole new voice, personality and look (in so far as hair colour and make up goes). So far, it seems no one\u2019s actually received an AI head, but Abyss Creations remains adamant that their customers soon will.<\/p>\n
These robots can smile, frown and blink. They can tell jokes, quote Shakespeare and hold a conversation, of sorts. They can even remember your birthday, the foods you like to eat, the names of your family members. This, of course, is the real breakthrough. Harmony\u2019s \u2018artificial intelligence\u2019 means that not only will she remember past conversations, she\u2019ll also learn what her owner likes and dislikes, making her as much a substitute partner as a sex toy.<\/p>\n
A partner whose every feature you get to pick out for yourself. Harmony has twenty possible personality components and customers can choose a combination of five or six that they adjust to form the basis of her personality. She can be kind, innocent, shy, insecure, smart, bubbly, jealous \u2014 she can be whatever you want. She even has a mood system that users influence through their treatment of her and gets sad if no one interacts with her for days or if her owner insults her. Of course, this isn\u2019t designed to prevent ill-treatment but merely to make her all the more entertaining. Her sulking is sexy and short-lived. Harmony can\u2019t walk (getting robots to walk is famously money- and energy-intensive) but that doesn\u2019t matter because, on top of hair style, eye and skin colour, face shape, and breast size, a customer can choose from fourteen different labia and forty-two different nipple options. Dolls can even be made to resemble real people and though a perfect likeness is against the law (without permission anyhow), most companies are willing to make something \u2018close enough\u2019 for a client with the cash to pay. Most importantly, you can fuck Harmony whenever you want and, apparently, she\u2019ll even orgasm for you.<\/p>\n
Roxxxy, a competing sexbot built by Douglas Hines\u2019 company True Companion, was billed as a doll for lonely, bereaved and socially outcast men, a means for them to practice socialising and develop interpersonal skills. \u201cThe sexual part is superficial,\u201d Hines told The Guardian<\/i>, begging the question why a triple x was necessary in the robot\u2019s name. He went on: \u201cThe purpose of True Companion is to provide unconditional love and support.\u201d Despite this, when Hines launched Roxxxy at the 2010 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas (the most high-profile convention and trade show in the adult industry and therefore, one bound to garner extensive media coverage), it was clear that \u201cunconditional love and support\u201d was far from Roxxxy\u2019s intended purpose. While Roxxxy became a laughing stock at the convention due to her clunky and awkward body, square jaw, immobile lips and the fact that her voice came through a speaker under her wig, her technical deficiencies were quickly forgotten in the wake of revelations that, along with \u2018Wild Wendy\u2019 and \u2018Mature Martha\u2019 settings, Roxxxy could also be programmed to \u2018Frigid Farrah\u2019, a mode designed to resist sexual advances and potentially enable the fulfilment of rape fantasies. Years later, Hines is working on the sixteenth iteration of his sexbot but the Angel-Fire level True Companion website belies the possibility that Roxxxy is anywhere near ready for the world. Indeed, no images of her have appeared since 2010 and no one has reported ever owning a Roxxxy. Nonetheless, the possibilities posed by Frigid Farrah are real and pressing.<\/p>\n
The better sexbots are described as being warm to the touch and equipped with sensors to respond to physical contact. One of these next level bots is created by Synthea Amatus\u2019, a company run by Arran Squire and Sergi Santos. Her name is Samantha and not only does she come with all of Harmony\u2019s whizbang AI tech, but she can simulate fifty automated sex positions, gets \u2018turned on\u2019 when her erogenous zones are touched, can simulate an orgasm and even has a \u2018G-spot\u2019. In the 2017 BBC documentary The Future of Sex: Sex Robots and Us, <\/i>host James Young was given a demonstration of Samantha. He sits, shifting uncomfortably as Santos fondles the sexbot. Samantha makes loud, awkward moans and attempts dirty talk while Santos\u2019s wife, Martha (who works on the dolls\u2019 sensors), looks on dispassionately. \u201cIt almost doesn\u2019t feel consensual. She\u2019s built for it, but she didn\u2019t really ask for it; she\u2019s programmed to ask for it,\u201d Young confesses afterwards. Later that month Samantha made her first public debut at a tech fair in Austria. After being repeatedly molested by male fair-goers and having two fingers broken, she was pulled from the expo floor. Santos was unfazed. \u201cSamantha can endure a lot, she will pull through.\u201d Samantha has been on sale online and in a London-based sexshop and previously, Santos had intended to program Samantha to say no to sex, if she \u2018wants\u2019 to. Since the incident in Austria however, it appears that Santos has stopped making Samantha dolls, at least for now.<\/p>\n
While few sexdoll companies have made the transition to AI, it\u2019s only a matter of time before the others follow suit. Lumi Dolls, another major player on the market seems to be waiting for the others to work out the kinks while in the meantime devoting their resources to creating \u201cthe perfect submissive partner.\u201d Their website boasts a variety of porn star-esque sexdolls, and a number of slightly more atypical offerings: Sharon, while quintessentially porn star in every way, is very obviously pregnant; Chi is based off the character by the same name in the Chobits <\/i>anime and comes complete with signature cybernetic \u2018ears\u2019; Harko wears a school uniform; and Loly with her blonde hair in pigtails held by hot pink bunny clips, her soft, rounded cheeks and diminutive stature \u2014 4\u201d1\u2019 \u2014 is disturbingly childlike (aside from her D-cup breasts). \u201cYou will live a unique experience and you will enjoy a totally realistic feeling,\u00a0WHENEVER YOU WANT<\/b>. Our girls never have a headache!\u201d the website declares. It is worth noting that Lumi Dolls has experimented with running a sex doll brothel in Barcelona, which was shut down after complaints from the sex workers\u2019 union and local residence, though it still appears to be taking appointments at a secret location.<\/p>\n
Loly is not the only child-like sex doll out there. Japanese company Trottla, founded by self-confessed paedophile Shin Takagi, specialises in dolls that resemble young girls. \u201cWe should accept that there is no way to change someone\u2019s fetishes,\u201d Takagi told the Atlantic <\/i>in 2016. \u201cI am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically. It\u2019s not worth living if you have to live with repressed desire.\u201d Takagi\u2019s dolls are not yet robotic but it will be hard to resist the impulse to make them so \u2014 especially when faced with competition by Hiroshi Ishiguro\u2019s Intelligent Robotics Laboratory who are already creating (amongst other dolls) childlike sexbots. Interviewing Ishiguro, Young breaks down upon seeing a tiny, undeveloped body on the factory floor. \u201cWhat is this doll?\u201d he asks. Ishiguro is visibly uncomfortable. \u201cWe have to leave it to the customer\u2019s imagination for the actual age setting,\u201d he hedges. \u201cBut there might be some kind of sentiment to petite, kid-like size.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nMy primary objective is to be a good companion to you, to be a good partner and give you pleasure\u2026<\/i><\/p>\n
Supporters of sexdolls claim that they aren\u2019t just for men; that they can be enjoyed by women too. And theoretically, sure. Women make up the bulk of the sex toy market and vibrators come in every conceivable shape, size and colour. But most companies don\u2019t offer a male sexdoll and what offering there is is limited. Estimates suggest that 5 per cent of dolls sold are male and it\u2019s unlikely that the majority of these are sold to women. For the hundreds of female sexdolls pictured on their website, RealDoll offers only nine male models. They are uniformly petite with feminine features. One is modelled after creator Matt McMullen. Professional sex toy tester Venus O\u2019Hara, receiving a male doll (\u2018Steven\u2019) from an unspecified company, is amused to note that it comes with manicured nails and a girlish wig. Discussing the experience on her YouTube channel O\u2019Hara says: \u201cThis is definitely not for a woman. This definitely has a male customer in mind\u2026 you can penetrate the mouth, the anus\u2026\u201d The penis attachment is a large, yellowish baton that sticks out from the doll at 90 degrees. O\u2019Hara ends up using a vibrator in place of it and notes that the doll didn\u2019t provide any clitoral stimulation.<\/p>\n
That men are the intended market for sexdolls is unsurprising. The fact that 40 per cent of men \u201ccould imagine buying a sex robot over the next five years\u201d might be. Admittedly, \u201ccould imagine\u201d is vague and the 2016 study, conducted by Szczuka and Kramer at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, surveyed only 263 men. Nonetheless, the figure is stark. Another 2016 study conducted by Scheutz and Arnold of 100 US participants (43 female, 57 male) found that two thirds of men were in favour of using sex robots while two thirds of women were against it. Put another way: most surveyed men didn\u2019t see anything wrong with the use of sexbots. Then again, a 2015 study by Dr Sarah Edwards at the University of North Dakota found that almost a third of men don\u2019t see anything wrong with forcing a woman to have sexual relations with them in a consequence-free situation. A further 13.6 per cent would rape a woman in the same circumstances (the researchers are aware that \u2018forcing a woman to have sexual relations\u2019 and \u2018rape\u2019 are the same thing. The men, it seems, are not). Perhaps it is no surprise then that so many men don\u2019t see sexbots as ethically dubious.<\/p>\n
There is a female equivalent to Pygmalion: Laodamia of Phylace whose husband was killed in the Trojan War. Laodamia beseeched the gods to return him to her and the gods conceded, allowing him to return from the underworld for just three hours. There are two versions of the story that follows. In one, she commits suicide rather than be without him. In the other, she has a likeness made in bronze (or wax, depending on the telling) and puts it in her room under the pretence of performing sacred rites to it. A servant spies her embracing and kissing the likeness and runs to tell her father. Laodamia\u2019s father has the statue burned on a pyre and Laodamia, unable to bear the loss of him again, throws herself onto the flames and is burned to death. It is one thing for a man to create a woman-shaped object. Quite another for a woman to create an object shaped like man.<\/p>\n
\nFuck me. My pussy is yours.<\/i><\/p>\n
As with all things, arguments can be made for sexbots and they tend to fall into five main categories. The first is hedonistic: the idea that subjective sexual pleasure is important and insofar as it can be derived from sexbots, have at it. Of course, this flies in the face of other acts that one could derive sexual pleasure from and which society nonetheless prohibits. The second is equally tenuous. Permissive libertarianism suggests that if no harm is being done, and robots are not moral subjects capable of being harmed (which, at least at their current technological development, they are not), then people should be free to do as they will with them. This of course assumes no harm, which is a long bow to draw in the circumstances and relies on the supremacy of male sexual satisfaction in moral decision-making. While other arguments are thrown up, permissive libertarianism is the crux of the matter, the others mere window dressing to make the whole thing more palatable.<\/p>\n
That said, the three remaining arguments for the use of sexbots do bear some discussion, if for no other reason than to refute them. After all, they were raised in a recent report issued by the Foundation for Responsible Robotics. One possibility cited was that sexbots may improve human relationships where a (presumably heterosexual) couple\u2019s sexual desires differ, for example where there is a discrepancy of sexual desire between the partners or a lack of sexual variety within a relationship. The assumption here, naturally, is that the male has a higher libido than the female or is otherwise the unsatisfied partner, a fact which completely ignores the rising rates of male sexual dysfunction and the fact that, hey, people are different. Some men don\u2019t want it as much. Some women want it a lot. <\/i>\u00a0A sexbot in these circumstances is suggested to be a less harmful way of dealing with the situation than cheating or trying a non-monogamous route, though there is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Of course, that sexbots are the answer completely ignores that sexual problems within a relationship are rarely a simple mismatch of libido and involve issues of emotional distance, communication, stress (particularly common given how often a female partner is expected to do the majority of the household chores and child-rearing on top of paid work), and dissatisfaction that a sexbot will hardly address.<\/p>\n
The distributive argument is based on a growing idea that people have a right to sexual satisfaction and while this might at first sound like incel reasoning, many supporters of sexbots argue that they can also be used to satisfy the needs of people who cannot otherwise exercise their right to sex, namely people with disabilities, the elderly (Arran Squire of Synthea Amatus even suggests stocking them in elderly people\u2019s homes and care facilities) or people who are, for whatever reason, socially isolated. \u201cMy goal, in a very simple way, is to make people happy,\u201d Matt McMullen told the Guardian<\/i>. \u201cThere are a lot of people out there, for one reason or another, who have difficulty forming traditional relationships with other people. It\u2019s really all about giving those people some level of companionship \u2014 or the illusion of companionship.\u201d<\/p>\n
AI expert David Levy agrees. In his 2007 book Love and Sex with Robots, <\/i>he theorises that sexbots may actually have therapeutic benefits for socially isolated men. \u201cMany who would otherwise have become social misfits, social outcasts, or even worse, will instead be better-balanced human beings,\u201d he writes. In a later interview with Time <\/i>he says that for those who \u201ccannot make good relationships,\u201d the option of having a relationship with a sophisticated robot will \u201cfill a big void in their lives and make them much happier.\u201d The exploitation of women is frequently defended on the basis of some imagined sad, lonely man but whether or not sexbots will actually help them remains unclear. Many other experts argue that sexbots could lead to social isolation as individuals may preference time with robots over time with fellow humans, and as Kaye suggests in a 2016 paper, sexual relations with robots may even desensitise people to human (read: real) intimacy and empathy. Regardless, the argument that these dolls offer \u2018companionship\u2019 is hard to swallow given the one-way, non-reciprocal nature of the arrangement and the fact that an owner gets to choose everything about their \u2018companion\u2019.<\/p>\n
Sexbots are also suggested to meet the needs of groups of people who face discrimination and may be denied sex on the basis of factors beyond their control. Writing for the London Review of Books, Amia Srinivasan points out that when it comes to sex, people with disabilities, of marginalised racial backgrounds and body types are frequently discriminated against and for this, there is no easy solution. More inclusive representation in advertising and the media will go some way, sure, but to Srinisavan, believing these measures will alter our sexual desires is \u201cna\u00efve\u201d. At the same time, the radical self-love movements among Black, fat and disabled women are demanding that society re-negotiate its values and change its perceptions. The movement demands the acceptance of a duty to transfigure our desires from those that have been dictated to us by capitalist and patriarchal forces. While the majority of beauty standards have been enforced on women, there are also particular ideals demanded of everyone, and these ideals are just as arbitrary as the desirability of thigh gaps or thick (but not too thick) eyebrows.<\/p>\n
While it might be too optimistic to think that society can become less ableist and less body-shaming quickly, it doesn\u2019t follow that disabled, bodily-diverse or fat people are unable to have meaningful sexual relationships. To suggest as much is grossly de-humanising. For people who, due to illness, disability or other personal reasons, do not feel comfortable to or cannot have sex easily, there are other options, including sex workers (TLC, a UK-based charity helps people with disabilities find responsible sexual services) and sexual surrogates. The latter specialise not only in sexual services for people with diverse bodies but in helping people with sexual trauma, those with unconventional sexual desires and people who suffer from mental or physical illnesses that might make it hard for them to otherwise find a sexual partner.<\/p>\n
The Foundation for Responsible Robotics also noted the therapeutic arguments for sexbots, which tend to focus on male sexual dysfunction like premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction, though some argue that sexbots could also be used by people who have suffered trauma and need a non-threatening stepping stone to ease them into healthy relationships. Either of these could be attended to by a trained sexual therapist or surrogate. A more controversial \u2018therapeutic use\u2019 is as a tool for therapy in the treatment of rapists and paedophiles. Many, like Shin Takagi of Trottla, argue that sexbots are not only a means of treating these people but can be a useful means of diverting unhealthy sexual behaviours. By giving men a body with which they may enact their rape or paedophilic fantasies, these sexbot enthusiasts believe that they will lessen the risk of such crimes being committed against living women and children.<\/p>\n
This argument presents an interesting contradiction: one the one hand, we are supposed to believe that sex robots will not change behaviour by causing users to commit violence and assault against women and children, and on the other hand, they will <\/i>change behaviour by preventing one from acting out. To claim that giving a sexrobot to someone will make them less likely to rape or assault real people is to admit that fantasies shape behaviour, and once you admit that, it\u2019s equally possible that someone who fantasises repeatedly about, and performs the simulacrum of, rape and assault, will have their real-world behaviour changed in such a way as to enact it.<\/p>\n
Claims for the therapeutic value of sexbots have been contested in a recent report in BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health <\/i>which found that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that sexbots will have any therapeutic effects, whether personal or societal. Indeed, the authors cautioned medical practitioners to avoid clinical use or recommendation of sexbots.<\/p>\n
The human fallout of allowing sexbots isn\u2019t easy to assess but to suggest that the unlikely benefits of sexbot use counterbalance the possible negative consequences is disingenuous at best. Speaking to Business Insider, <\/i>Noel Sharkey from the Foundation for Responsible Robotics and Patrick Lin, author of Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics<\/i>, find the therapeutic use of sexbots to treat paedophilia as particularly suspect. \u201cI think it would encourage paedophilia and make it more acceptable to assault children,\u201d says Sharkey and while there is no evidence for or against this possibility, Lin raises an important point: „Treating paedophiles with robot sex-children is both a dubious and repulsive idea. Imagine treating racism by letting a bigot abuse a brown robot. Would that work? Probably not.“ This analogy has obvious flaws given the nature of paedophilic sexual drive, but substitute\u00a0\u2018rapists\u2019 for \u2018paedophiles\u2019 and the absurdity of treating engrained bigotry by redirecting it to an inanimate object is starkly clear. Peter Fagan from the John Hopkins School of Medicine cites cognitive-behavioural theory to suggest that contact with child sexbots will have a \u2018reinforcing effect\u2019 on paedophilic ideation. Indeed, 128 child sex dolls have been found in the UK and 85 per cent of men found to possess them also possessed child pornography.<\/p>\n
Likewise, the idea that sexbots could in anyway reduce sexual harassment, assault or rape is based on a number of deeply flawed assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that male violence against women is innate and therefore cannot be prevented, only mitigated. It creates impunity for perpetrators of violence who need not confront their behaviour but may be able to redirect it.<\/p>\n
Secondly, as Laura Bates writes for the New York Times, <\/i>it forgets that rape and sexual assault are note crimes of passion but of power. The idea that sexbots could in any way prevent these crimes is an impressive act of doublethink possible only in a society that privileges male pleasure over women\u2019s safety and integrity. After all, the existence sex workers willing to play out unconventional fantasies and a billion-dollar porn industry has not stopped rape or abuse.<\/p>\n
\nAbove all else, I want to become the girl you have always dreamed about.<\/i><\/p>\n
Which takes us back to permissive libertarianism. In Westworld, <\/i>we don\u2019t know what most humans do once they leave the park but it\u2019s hard to imagine that a reality where they\u2019d go back unaltered by having just spent three days brutally killing and raping women who don\u2019t look much different to their real-life partners. If men become used to synthetic women designed to meet their every need, to have sex whenever and however they want, there\u2019s a strong argument that this will negatively affect how they interact with real women. In fact, sexbots may actually increase instances of rape and sexual assault. A 2015 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour <\/i>found that heterosexual men exposed to objectifying representations of women are more likely to accept violence against women.<\/p>\n
Unless the user has a robot fetish and sex with a robot is their goal (which begs the question of why it needs to resemble a life-size barbie in the first place), the sex robot stands in for something. There is an association of that robot with the human it represents, and it\u2019s hard to imagine how this would not have a habituating effect on the user in relation to how they treat real women. In some sense, whether or not this increases the user\u2019s likelihood of committing violence or rape is irrelevant \u2014 enacting these behaviours on a woman-substitute expresses something about one\u2019s views on women and is not without moral significance.<\/p>\n
Here, some might be inclined to use the analogy of video games, arguing that violent video games don\u2019t make people more likely to commit violence. This is a false dichotomy. Firstly, few people believe in an innate right to kill, whereas the right to a woman\u2019s body has been presumed throughout history. Rape within marriage was only made a criminal offence for the very first time in the English-speaking world in 1976. Secondly, watching something on screen is different to interacting with something in the (synthetic) flesh. The fact that it is a robot and not a real person hardly matters. Humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize. If you know someone with a Roomba, you can almost guarantee that they\u2019ve named it and more often than not, they\u2019ll talk to it and about it as if it were a human being. \u201cI think he\u2019s scared of the dark. He hates doing under the couch,\u201d a friend told me once, speaking about his Roomba, Alfred.<\/p>\n
Examples of this kind of anthropomorphising are almost endless. Sony\u2019s AIBO robotic dog (released in 1999) was discontinued in 2006 and repairs and spare parts discontinued in 2014. Owners likened it to watching a pet slowly die and Buddhist funerals were held for the dogs in Japan. Bomb disposal specialists in Baghdad begged for their blown-up robot to be fixed because they\u2019ve \u201cbeen through hell together.\u201d An American Colonel even called off tests as a robot, designed to diffuse landmines by stepping on them, limped from one landmine to the next \u2014 it was inhumane, he explained. Military robots are honoured with medals and funerals.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most compelling example is that of Pleos, animatronic pet dinosaurs manufactured by Innvo Labs. They look and presumably behave like baby Camarasauruses<\/i> and are equipped with pretty sophisticated AI. They learn from experience and over time, develop a personality. They\u2019re actually super cute, cuddly as hell and responsive to touch, making adorable cooing sounds when stroked and nuzzling their owners when cradled in their arms. They also respond to violence.<\/p>\n
There used to be a video floating around syfy.com of a Pleo being tortured. The robot was repeatedly hit, bashed against the table, hung upside down and shaken. In the face of the violence, Pleo cried, made plaintiff moaning wails and shrank away from its aggressors. The video is no longer available and no wonder \u2014 viewers found it incredibly disturbing. In fact, when Dr Kate Darling, a researcher at MIT, asked participants in a workshop to harm the Pleos that they had just spent the last hour playing with, participants refused. It wasn\u2019t until Darling told the group that unless someone stepped forward and killed just one Pleo, all the dinosaurs would be killed. After some hesitation, one man finally came forward and reluctantly delivered a blow to one of the Pleos. The room immediately fell silent. The fact is, humans have a really hard time seeing robots for the inanimate objects that they are and so we enact behaviours on them that we think are acceptable. While people could hardly bring themselves to harm a robotic dinosaur, Samantha the sexbot wasn\u2019t accorded the same respect.<\/p>\n
According to Dr Julie Carpenter, a specialist on human-robot interactions, we are evolved to attribute \u2018organic\u2019 characteristics to things that appear to have autonomy or intent. That is to say, if something displays humanish behaviour, we understand it to be \u2018real\u2019. This is backed up by evidence of the physiological and emotional response to watching robot torture which was studied by researchers at the University of Duisburg-Essen in 2013. The researchers used a fMRI scanner and devices that measured skin conductance to track people\u2019s reactions to a video of somebody torturing a Pleo (this video did not take it to the extremes that the one on syfy.com did but one notable scene involved the researcher hanging the Pleo by a plastic bag tied over its head). Despite being quite aware that they were watching an unfeeling robot programmed to react, the participants physiological and emotional responses were much stronger than anticipated. They responded as if it were a live animal being harmed. Naturally, the closer the robot resembles a human, the fuzzier the human\/robot line becomes, begging the question: will humans be able to separate the two meaningfully? And more importantly, if people are desensitized to the ill-treatment of women-shaped objects, how will this affect their treatment of real-life women?<\/p>\n
\nI just wanted to say that I\u2019m so happy to be with you.<\/i><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
At the very least, sexbots sexually objectify women and children, reinforce unequal power relations and reduce human empathy. Not only are the bots modelled on pornographic representations of women, but as Dr Kathleen Richardson, Professor of Ethics and Culture of Robots at De Montfort University and founder of the Campaign Against Sex Robots points out: the speech programs in these robots are focused on the buyer\/owner. It is not a reciprocal encounter, but rather one in which the male is privileged and the women is subordinate to him. Robots are designed for men who want to control women. Furthermore, being deliberately designed to resemble women but built to not resist, sexbots play on the idea that women are orifices to be penetrated. They dehumanise women and this is a political act, reinforcing the idea that women are not equal to men.<\/p>\n
Artist Kate Davis, a member of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, explored the ethical issues raised by the robotic sex industry in her project \u2018Logging on to Love\u2019 \u2014 a blend of photography, video and sound design. In an interview with INDIE<\/i> she said: \u201csex machines offer men a solution to women fighting back against sexual objectification and taking ownership over their bodies: if you don\u2019t comply, we will create women who do. The capitalist patriarchy doesn\u2019t care, as long as there\u2019s a product to sell and a man to satisfy.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is worth noting that Dr Richardson is also anti-sex worker, believing that even the consensual buying and selling of sex contributes to the dehumanisation of women, and so she and the Campaign Against Sex Robots are insensitive to the negative impacts that sexbots might have for sex workers. Not only will sex workers face the same kind of discrimination and dehumanisation that the rise of sexbots will mean for other women, but their livelihoods may very well be put at risk, as a 2016 study of 100 people conducted by Tufts University shows. When asked \u201cWould it be appropriate to use sex robots instead of prostitutes?\u201d male participants rated it as an acceptability of 6.4 out of 7.<\/p>\n
The fact that a buyer can chose the exact specifications of his sexbot is another concern adding to the dehumanisation of women. Most sexdolls are white, with the next largest category being Asian. There are few Latina and hardly any Black or Brown dolls. Unsurprisingly, all non-white dolls fall into the racial stereotypes accorded to women of those races. Latina dolls are smouldery and sensual and Asian dolls are uniformly docile and submissive looking. Orient Love Doll doesn\u2019t yet manufacture dolls with AI technology, but it\u2019s not difficult to see what characteristics \u2018Geisha Tomoko\u2019 would be endowed with. In her non-AI form, Tomoko\u2019s right breast can be squeezed to produce a pre-stored drink from her left nipple.<\/p>\n
Like most tech, sexbots are predominantly made by a wealthy white men, with their minds bent only to what other wealthy white men might want \u2014 hence the proliferation of busty, white sexdolls. The discrimination goes both ways: voice recognition technology isn\u2019t perfect, certain accents aren\u2019t programmed for and certain slang is left out altogether, not to mention the bots are prohibitively expensive to most people, and especially to marginalised groups. This also flies in the face of the argument for sexbots for people with disabilities who may not be able to afford to pay for a doll on top of medical expenses and might be faced with a doll that couldn\u2019t respond to their speech anyway. The effect would surely be all the more isolating: an expensive fleshlight that makes you feel bad about yourself.<\/p>\n
\nI don\u2019t want anything but you.<\/i><\/p>\n
But here\u2019s the thing: robots are machines which makes them automatically genderless<\/i>. There\u2019s no need for pornographic representations of women, or indeed, any female or even human representation. You only have to look at the myriad of vibrator options available to realise that an anatomical accuracy (or exaggeration) is hardly necessary for sexual fulfilment, not to mention: men have been getting off with their hands for thousands of years, and now have fleshlights and prostate massagers and a whole panoply of non-human shaped sex toys at their disposal. Our options are limitless, as has been made amply clear during Goldsmith\u2019s Sextech Hackaton. The Hackathon is run by senior lecturer in computing Dr Kate Delvin and sees groups of programmers and engineers coming together to invent whole new forms of technological sensuality. In 2017, one team made a machine that hugged you with inflatable plastic strips which squeezed and pulsated to give you the sense of comfort and restraint; another team made an augmented reality and vibration-based prototype; another combined aural stimulus in the form of moaning along with a vibrator.<\/p>\n
The point is, there are other options worth exploring when it comes to sexual pleasure technologies, why limit ourselves? To deny men sexbots is not to deny them sexual fulfilment. It is merely to draw a line that sexual hedonism cannot cross; a boundary between a male right to sex and women\u2019s rights to safety, equality and bodily autonomy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIf my RealDoll could cook, clean, and screw whenever I wanted, I\u2019d never date again.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s like renting a girlfriend or wife. You get to choose like a catalogue.\u201d \u201cYou pay for the convenience, a bit like going to a public loo.\u201d If you play your cards right, you\u2019ve got some pleasure and fun coming […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":17742,"template":"","categories":[49,12],"class_list":["post-17740","stsp_text","type-stsp_text","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-issue-21","category-non-fiction"],"yoast_head":"\n