Grinding Halt

Like many people, I suspect, I have become fascinated by the advancements made in robotics — not from a technological standpoint (because I’m a high-tech retard), but from a sociological one. I’m also not interested in robots which will perform brain functions: the arrival of spreadsheets and their macros in programs like VisiCalc and Lotus 1-2-3 foreshadowed all that, and considering that most of life is incredibly boring bureaucratic shit (e.g. legal documents), I have no problem with delegating the mundane tasks of life to the bots — as long as I still have final control over the output, that is.

No, I’m very interested in the effects that sexbots will have on our society. I’m completely ignoring the bleats of womyn who see, correctly, that female sexbots will eventually replace actual women in  terms of the male meat market, where schlubs who used to live in their parents’ house will now be able to score with a “woman” who won’t castrate him and/or pillage his wallet. Sure, sex with a bot isn’t going to be as good as with a live, breathing woman, at least until the technology improves anyway (although quite frankly I can think offhand of about half a dozen women in my experience who would make the most basic sexbots feel like porn stars, so indifferent were they to sexual activity).

I often use the old movie Cherry 2000 as an example: the “housewife robot” (played by the exquisite Pamela Gidley) was charmingly termed a “gynoid” (vaginoid would have been a better description) who is in all respects a perfect wife: she cooks, cleans does laundry for her owner, and has a voracious sexual appetite. (Evil Kim also points out that she has an OFF switch, which would be a major selling point to most men.)

Given the transition of modern women from Donna Reed:

to this (fortunately anonymous) specimen:

…it’s not too difficult to understand why a great many men might prefer a Cherry 2000 — here’s Pam Gidley:

CHERRY 2000, Pamela Gidley, David Andrews, 1987, (c) Orion

…or, in realistic terms, they’d even choose instead a RealDoll:

Well and good. Now let’s assume we’ve made at least a partial leap from inanimate RealDolls to something a little more lifelike so we can take this situation to the next level. Of course, men being the fantasists that they are, it was only a question of time before sexbots could be offered in “custom” finishes: apparently, for a small premium, one can order a RealDoll which is a licensed replica (replicant?) of various porn stars. Which leads to the next logical step: why not a non-porn star, such as the lovely Mila Jovovich? (Who kinda looks RealDoll-y in this pic anyway.)

With advances in 3D printing, such a concept is eminently doable. Needless to say, this has caused a scramble among movie stars to seek legal protection from having their likenesses used for this purpose without their consent. (As I understand it, a couple of them were too late, and anyway, I foresee a booming black market for unlicensed sexbots replicating all sorts of fantasy women. Can’t find the “Nigella Lawson” model anywhere, incidentally.)

Even this situation is all well and good. It’s actually an example of how “the market” works: there is a desire [sic] for a product, and the market rushes to satisfy it, with all the little complications involved.

Now let’s take it to the next — and perhaps darkest — level: what about LittleGirl sexbots?

Aaaah, well now we have a problem, don’t we? Because pedophilia is super-doubleplusungood — and yes, justifiably so — one might say that having little-girl sexbots is Beyond The Pale. Which was my initial reaction.

But let’s talk about this logically, if we can. We know (from Science) that as a psychopathology, pedophilia is largely irreversible / incurable — once a pedo, always a pedo, hence the Sex Offenders Registry. That being the case, and as we seem to be incapable of locking these criminals up for life, why not LittleGirl (or, ugh, LittleBoy) sexbots? Is it completely unfeasible to think that if these sick assholes have a surrogate child with which to play their abhorrent little reindeer games, then they’d be less likely to hit the playgrounds and schoolyards? Maybe, maybe not. If there’s one thing we know about the human condition, it’s that once sated, a sexual urge will tend to seek greater titillation and stimulation, often through deviant ways and practices. So maybe we draw the line on this side of child sexbots, and say, “No” to the Pedophile-Industrial Complex. But I’m tempted to give it a chance nevertheless — with all sorts of safeguards and caveats. Even the Supreme Court may be thinking as I do, in that they held that cartoon porn, in all its variations and including pedophilia, is not the same as real-life porn.

I have to say that I’m undecided on the issue.

Because I am who I am, however, if we were to allow the manufacture and sales of child sexbots, I would support drastic punishment for a pedophile who owned a child sexbot and then still went out and molested a real child — and I say “drastic” in the sense of “summary execution” (and yes, I know that this might suppress sales of said sexbots; don’t care).

This is a complex issue, and it goes far beyond the topic of driverless cars, autonomous shopping carts, drones and so on. As I said earlier: this group of things addresses the mundane tasks of life; but when we start talking about things which affect us on so personal a level, it starts becoming difficult. I hope I’ve been able to shed just a little light, or at least a slightly different perspective, on the topic — because make no mistake: this issue is not going to go away. We need to address it in terms of our societal principles and mores, and start deciding on boundaries, sooner rather than later and before it runs away with us.

19 comments

  1. Donna Reed: An examplar of what I call “the complete package”. On the pretty side of plain, but well endowed with a complete set of meta physical charms.

    >>”once a pedo, always a pedo, hence the Sex Offenders Registry”

    A great theory, ruined by the ugly fact that one periodically reads of people getting Sex Offenders Registry Lifetime Achievement Award for the bad luck of being caught pissing on trees in a park, or for otherwise youthful indiscretions (such as teens sending each other sexy selfies) in draconian jurisdictions. One would like to believe that inclusion on such a registry is proof positive of irredeemable villiany, leaving little room for doubt, and that escaping the scarlet branding was highly probable for tree pissers and Romeo/Juliets.

  2. I’m going to leave the issue of pedo-bots aside for the moment.

    While the idea of a robot sex toy might have appealed to me in my younger days, being preferable to the chafing involved in using my heavily callused right hand, the potential popularity of such toys in the long-term points to a societal problem which will someday need to be addressed (and is unlikely to be until I’m long in my grave). Sex, in its fullness, requires you to bare yourself in a manner far beyond mere removal of clothing. It requires you to expose yourself in your deepest vulnerability, to leave yourself totally open to another person (and they to you). This, for what it’s worth, is the reason most religions consider marriage to be the only permissible environment for sex, and marriage itself to be dissolved only under the most extreme circumstances (such as violation of the exclusivity of sex to your marriage partner). Beyond the actual act of sex, it requires a level of trust in the other person. In a natural state (meaning without contraception), it means that (a) the woman has to trust that the man isn’t going to run out and leave her with the children and (b) the woman isn’t going to put the man into a position of supporting a child he didn’t father. In other words, it requires extremely careful selection of the partner (exactly why thru much of human history selection of such partner was much too important to leave to the vagaries of youthful hormones, and such selections were made by older, wiser,and less hormonaly involved people). Now, due in large part to reliable contraception (and mind you, I have no wish to put THAT genie back in the bottle) there’s somewhat less risk, and we’ve forgotten the underlying requirements.

    So men are looking to toys to satisfy their urges rather than spend the effort to find a real live partner who meets the criteria of trustworthiness. We’re looking for a technical solution to a social problem instead of solving the social problem. Much the same as automatic-braking and lane-departure warnings are technical solutions to the problem of putting the phone down and paying attention while driving.

    How to fix society? If I had that answer I’d be a gazillionaire from selling advice at ten cents a pop.

    1. You fix it the same way most things that have been screwed up by bureaucrats are fixed– shoot the bureaucrats and let nature take its course.

      The War on Men that lead to this kind of thing becoming quasi-mainstream was engineered by the Usual Suspects– it’s easy enough to un-engineer.

  3. Action vs identity — banning little-kid sexbots because they might induce undesireable real-world activity smells to me a lot like banning firearms because they might induce people to shoot each other. Actual external behavior may be a valid concern for the State, but how you’re bent inside should concern only you and the greys in the mother ship.

  4. I’m pretty ambivalent about sex bots. I learned long ago that the after sex conversation was at least, if not more satisfying, than the act itself. On the other hand I would pay good money for robot cook that could also do my internet biding. Make it so..

  5. This is some real creepy shit…. making a realistic survey sex bot that can interact to a certain degree while mechanically stroking a person off, to me, is just wrong. She can be programed to say things like, “Hi Big Boy, I love you long time.” and other endearments. In the 1990’s made for TV two part movie the ‘Rough Riders’ right before going into combat Teddy Roosevelt is asking the men what they are thinking both about the next day and after they get home if they survive. The best answer was from the gruff old western guy who says, “I want to go to New York City, drink champagne on ice, eat fresh oysters and have the most beautiful whore in the world who is so good at her job she will convince me she is in love with me.”

    The personal emotional contact is an important part of the act of sex and without that I would think getting off on a machine would be a very short time thrill. The bonding between partners which I have had for the past 25 years with my second wife I could not conceive of trading for anything else and yes, I had a prolonged starter marriage with a beautiful, difficult woman where things never settled down so I know how it feels in that kind of situation too. It’s complicated.

    As for the kiddy perverts I really doubt if they would get the thrill of degradation and vanquishing a youngster because like rape I don’t think it is just about the sex. A friend of mine who is a criminal defense lawyer in Fort Worth told me, years ago, about being assigned to a child molestation case by one of the judges as defense for the molester. He told me that from time to time when there is a difficult case the judge would pull in an experienced defense lawyer and order him to team up with the public defense lawyer to assure a good defense which cuts down on appeals. I asked him if he could refuse and he said sure but he would never have to go before that judge again if he turned him down.

    Anyway my friend met with the other defense lawyer who was creeped out about having to defend a pedophile and my friend explained to the new lawyer that the man who they were to meet at the jail would look just like a regular guy, they would not ask him if he were guilty or not and they would do their best to assure he was well represented and received a fair trial and the jury would decide the guilt or innocence. Right off the bat when they met the pedophile things went south because he looked like a pervert out of central casting for Law&Order, slimy and creepy and sounded the same when he started to explain to his defense team that it was a mistake for him to be charged since he and the eight year old girl were in love with each other.

    The defendant refused to plead guilty because he knew he was not guilty of a crime and when they during the trial it was difficult to put forth a good defense and the little they had fell apart after the prosecution presented their case and the defendant insisted, against the advice of his lawyers of telling his side so the jury could understand. My friend said that when the pedophile started telling his story everyone in the room wanted to hide and crawl away because the creep’s story was stomach churning as he explained how his relationship had grown and become so beautiful when he seduced the eight year old girl. That is why I doubt if making kiddy sex bots would help pedophile’s get their jollies and of course a lot of them are kiddy rapers who their own special needs. I don’t think you can fix these pedophile’s and since it is too expensive to execute them I would just farm them out to Mexican prison and let them experience life south of the border.

  6. Tough topic for some, I know. For me, not so tough. Sex dolls that look like kids? Or that look like your favorite movie star, or like a penguin? If you can find the victim in this, then you should go ahead and charge the criminal. If not, then you should simply chase the people who commit crimes and leave the people alone who’s only crime is that they are abhorrent to polite society. Or who choose to smoke something that you don’t like, or even years ago drink something that polite society didn’t like. Regulating behavior is a road that should be narrow and one that leads only to people that harm others, not themselves.

  7. Any other Futurama fans here? They dealt with this very issue back in Season 3 in an episode called “I Dated a Robot.” (well, not the kiddie issue – ew…) but the issue of “sex bots” as well as the likenesses of famous people.

    The beginning of the episode featured a “public service announcement” warning boys not to date robots because dating robots would lead to the destruction of civilization.

    It was typically Futurama and over the top (which is what made it so funny) but there was a bit of a serious, almost existential question to it: If men could get sexual pleasure without making any effort to better themselves, how many would do so?

    How many men (and I do think this is a primarily male drive) pursue the brass ring of “success” because “success” (defined as economic success, education, good job, ability to support a family, etc) is what is appealing to women, i.e. potential mates?

    Obviously sex isn’t the ONLY thing men get from women, and arguably it’s not even the most important thing, but while that may be true for most emotionally mature men, it certainly isn’t true for all men and not at all for hormone-crazed teenage boys.

    If a teenage boy could spend his newspaper route money to buy himself a “Marilyn Monroe – Bot” (you have to watch the Futurama episode!) that could give him sex when he wanted, would he even bother to try and make himself more attractive to other women? Many would, certainly – but just as certainly, many more would NOT.

    Incidentally, I don’t see this as being a “mirror mirror” issue where women could just as easily hook up with hunky male robots because the things women seek from men are not necessarily just sex. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the “sexual revolution” notwithstanding, men are at least 10 times more likely to be interested in a sex-only relationship than women are, and those men that are interested in sex-only might be more than happy to give up the true companionship of a real woman in favor of a sex-bot, whereas I don’t see women really being likely to do the same in return.

    So where, then, does that leave women? So many of our sexual customs and mores assume that men will pursue young women of child bearing age for pleasure (that pleasure being nature’s tricky way of ensuring the survival of the species) but if that was no longer neccessary, what would that do to our sexual customs?

    And now that I think of it, there are other repercussions as well. Would the happily married wife be OK with her husband bringing home a sex-bot? After all, unlike a real mistress, the sex-bot is not going to ask him to leave his family, nor is the sex bot going to get pregnant and take the husbands resources away from the wife and her children.
    And if the sex bot means her husband can fulfill his darkest fantasies without involving her, then maybe the wife would be OK. After all, it’s not like he has an actual human connection with “her” because “she” is just a machine.

    1. Continuing my train of thought – maybe this whole issue of sex-bots is a non-issue though – because if scientists could figure out a way to stimulate the pleasure center directly, they wouldn’t have to actualy MAKE anything. If the purpose is to stimulate the brain and give the brain the pleasure it craves, then why not just cut out the middle man and send it straight to the brain, with no “meat space” involved. Create a mental fantasy where a guy gets to fuck the woman of his dreams, or the child, or the horse, or whatever. There’s no real “person” or even real “thing” involved – it’s all 0’s and 1’s coded into a computer program.

      Hippie Sci Fi writer Norman Spinrad wrote about that once. A long-ish short story called “The Lost Continent.” I won’t spoil it for those who want to look it up (really, you should and Spinrad is a great writer) but the story is of a civilization that creates a “pleasure helmet” that stimulates the brain directly.

      To paraphrase Dilbert’s Scott Adams (from an essay he wrote about 20 years ago), I’m pretty sure the “direct pleasure stimulator” will be humankind’s last invention. 😀

  8. I loved Cherry 2000, but had to suspend my disbelief in order to do so. The very things that would make a man love a particular woman (or vice versa) aren’t programmable. They’re unique. The obsession required to sustain his quest despite the danger and risk in the movie? Not buying it. Besides, if Cherry 2000 is so great, why did they discontinue that model? Market demand. Just sayin.

    BUT, that issue aside, I suppose a sexbot would be better than nothing, if the man in question is for whatever reason unable to find a mate or unable to open himself to a relationship with a human woman. And of course, they won’t get pregnant, cheat on you or sue you into poverty. So there’s that.

    Now, with regard to the child porn-bots, I’m really on the fence. Well, no I’m not – I’m against them, but I can’t put together the correct argument. It may have something to do with my attitude about porno – I think it’s bad for your brain and ruins you for relationships with real women. But I’m not prepared to outlaw it.

    I suppose you could have “Pedophile Island” as a prison for known pedos, and supply them with pedobots. But why bother? Let them suffer. While I’m not a psychologist, I don’t think pedophilia is just about sticking it into something that looks like a kid. I think there’s an emotional dominance component that makes real kids much more attractive than any pedobot. Would a rapist be satisfied with a bot? No, because you can’t rape a bot.

  9. I know that the stereotype is that men want “a perfect wife: she cooks, cleans does laundry for her owner, and has a voracious sexual appetite.”

    But we really, really don’t. That would be great for about a week, and then would get to be really boring, really quick. Real men want an honest partner- an equal, a challenge, a person to love. And even the shallowest of the PUA community is more into the thrill of the chase and the challenge of the game over just getting laid.

    Relationships based solely on sexual attraction fade quickly. As the old saying goes, even the most beautiful woman in the world has a man who is bored with making love to her. With a bot, the boring happens that much faster.

    1. I’m not sure I agree. The fact that the porn industry is the internet’s biggest money maker by several orders of magnitude shows that there must be a demand for sexual gratification without emotional or even physical interaction.

      I suspect there would be a strong social taboo against an actual sex bot, but taboos can weaken, especially once they become commonplace. Many things that were taboo even in my childhood – interracial dating, cohabitation before marriage, homosexuality – have now moved into the mainstream. Are we certain that sex-bots would not? I wouldn’t bet that way, as sex is such a powerful drive.

  10. ” a booming black market for unlicensed sexbots replicating all sorts of fantasy women.”

    There was an SF story about a VR simulator for surgeons, so they could practice an operation before doing it. The simulator would be loaded with an exact model of the particular patient’s body (inside as well as outside – that was the point, of course).

    This led to a market for bootleg body models of celebrities (especially noted beauties) for use in VR slasher games, with medical staff being bribed or even blackmailed to get them.

  11. Women already have what equivalent sexual tools that are widely sold even by drug stores. The back massagers / vibrators. An article from the Volokh conspiracy that Instapundit linked to a while ago. Vibrators have not been ended sex, so I doubt sex robots will.
    http://volokh.com/2011/04/21/vibrators/

    Sex Toy industry is $15 Billion dollars in 2013
    http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/what-15-billion-sex-toy-industry-tells-us-about-sexuality-today

    A bigger issue is what impact will this have on the war on men. Will some men, as is already happening per the Instapundit wife in her book, Men on Strike, give more up on women? Deciding they are not worth the trouble? This seems to be happening in Japan. Of course the requirement for being married socially is so onerous for both parties.

    My guess what will happen, that is already happening, is this will have an impact on the gene pool. On who is reproducing. And over time this will impact our society and weed out those that get addicted to sex robots and don’t reproduce. This is already happening culturally in the US, with some cultures / classes reproducing more than others.
    Of course artificial wombs may impact this.

    Sex robots / androids are pretty far off that can cook and do more seem a bit far off. Sex dolls do exist – I have no idea on the market size.

  12. The underlying question is, if kiddie sexbots become available, who is harmed? No victim, no crime.

    How much actual pedophilia it would prevent is questionable. For some, the simulation would be enough. For others, like the creep OldTexan discussed, won’t be deterred from the “real thing”. And there will undoubtedly be arguments that making the bots available will entice people towards kiddies. It’s within the realm of possibility.

    What I think it will do is create sexbot fetishists. If your preference is toward a simulation rather than a person, then the form of the robot will matter less than the functions it can perform. If we distinguish between hardware and software, we can put an adult’s “personality” into a child body and vice versa. So will it be the child body that attracts the pedophiles, or the child mind?

Leave a Reply