Are sex robots winning the war against feminism?

[LJ_Reloaded]

Very slowly, but then again all sea changes happen slowly.

Back in the day no one would deal with a cell phone. Today, that's all we have for phone communications!

The world's oldest profession is about to end with, "Damn robots ate our jobs!" And that'll be just the beginning.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/643384/Sex-robots-dolls-brothel-prostitutes-buy-video

Austria has been gripped by sex robots since it was revealed that a bot named Fanny was more popular at a brothel in the capital, Vienna, than the actual prostitutes.

And after research revealed a third of us would happily have sex with a robot – and 40% would not consider they were cheating on their partner – the bots are growing in popularity more than ever before.

Since then, a growing number of Austrian brothels have been making the switch to include sex robots.

Meanwhile, the feminists are panicking:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/05/19/podcast-feminists-care-sex-robots/

Kathleen Richardson launched the Campaign Against Sex Robots, but her aims are actually much broader than humanoids built for male pleasure. Richardson is an abolitionist, and sees sex robots as very much connected to the sex trade and a larger culture that treats people as tools and objects. Through the campaign, she says, she wants to “radically disconnect the idea of sex from rape.”

Sex robots have been in the media lately on account of a new prototype, developed by the Matt McMullen, the CEO of Abyss Creations and the man behind RealDoll. A recent report in The Guardian introduces us to “Harmony,” a humanoid that exists to service men. She is programmable, so that customers can choose certain “personality traits,” as well as physical details, like nipple size, colour, and shape. Harmony exists not only as a thing to-be-fucked, but as an ego boost for her owner, as she learns details about him, so her communication is wholly centered around his needs and interests.

Translation: sex robots rob women of their source of power over men: sexual manipulation. And there's fuck all women can do to stop this.

The era of using pussy to get ahead is about to close, and in this century no less. And despite all the whining of feminists, this won't mean the oppression of women: it'll mean women will use their non-sexual wiles to get ahead. 100 years from now women will be more liberated than feminists of today could ever imagine.

 

[KimGordon67]

Here, I fixed this for you.

Very slowly, but then again all sea changes happen slowly.

Back in the day no one would deal with a cell phone. Today, that's all we have for phone communications!

The world's oldest profession is about to end with, "Damn robots ate our jobs!" And that'll be just the beginning.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/643384/Sex-robots-dolls-brothel-prostitutes-buy-video


Meanwhile, a feminist has expressed concerns:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/05/19/podcast-feminists-care-sex-robots/

My highly biased interpretation: sex robots rob women of their source of power over men: sexual manipulation. And there's fuck all women can do to stop this.

The era of using pussy to get ahead has never been a thing for the vast majority of women, and certainly not for feminists, and in this century no less. And despite all the whining of feminists, this won't mean the oppression of women: it'll mean women will use their non-sexual wiles to get ahead, just like they always have in the vast majority of cases. 100 years from now women will be more liberated than feminists of today could ever imagine.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Here, I fixed this for you.

When you can't win an argument, just straw man the hell out of your opponent.

More than one feminist has waged war on sex robots:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/feminism-sex-robots-women-technology-objectify

https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

and so on.

And now you deny that any woman has ever used the promise of sex to manipulate a man? Really? Literally every gold digger, ever. And that's a HELL of a lot of women:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*N0OGjZ9WDff4gOrf.png

Not to mention all the women who read romance novels.

Even the liberal Huffington Post admits sexual manipulation is a thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/franchesca-warren/sex-relationship_b_1659021.html

And as the OP article explains, prostitutes will be the first ones to lose the income that they get from using their sex.

 

[KimGordon67]

'More than one feminist' =/= 'the feminists', which is what you said in your OP. As always, I'm just trying to make clear that 'feminism' isn't a monolithic whole. The woman you original referenced who is anti-sex robots is also a sex work abolitionist. A lot of feminists don't have a problem with sex work at all - in fact, you'll find that feminists are at the forefront of movements to legalise/decriminalise sex work in almost all instances.

Re: the second point - no, I didn't say it never happened. I just said it wasn't a common thing for the vast majority of woman - this is not the same as saying 'never'.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm pretty agnostic on the whole 'sex robot' thing, and I very much doubt they're really going to have a huge effect on society. I'm utterly in favour of sex work as a professions. I've never used sex to gain an advantage in my career nor, that I can recall, any other situation. If sex robots make some guys happy, I don't see this as any sort of threat as a woman or as a feminist. I'm just, as usually, sick of you constructing 'feminism' as this monolithic whole and then making ranty statements on behalf of 'the feminists'.

When you can't win an argument, just straw man the hell out of your opponent.

More than one feminist has waged war on sex robots:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/feminism-sex-robots-women-technology-objectify

https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

and so on.

And now you deny that any woman has ever used the promise of sex to manipulate a man? Really? Literally every gold digger, ever. And that's a HELL of a lot of women:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*N0OGjZ9WDff4gOrf.png

Not to mention all the women who read romance novels.

Even the liberal Huffington Post admits sexual manipulation is a thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/franchesca-warren/sex-relationship_b_1659021.html

And as the OP article explains, prostitutes will be the first ones to lose the income that they get from using their sex.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

'More than one feminist' =/= 'the feminists'

Actually, more than one feminist = feminists. You know the rule about plural terms in basic sentence structure, right?

which is what you said in your OP. As always, I'm just trying to make clear that 'feminism' isn't a monolithic whole.

Why is #NotAllMen so "unhelpful" but you're so quick to scream "#NAFALT"?

The woman you original referenced who is anti-sex robots is also a sex work abolitionist. A lot of feminists don't have a problem with sex work at all - in fact, you'll find that feminists are at the forefront of movements to legalise/decriminalise sex work in almost all instances.

Well, she's not the only one who hates sex robots.

Re: the second point - no, I didn't say it never happened. I just said it wasn't a common thing for the vast majority of woman - this is not the same as saying 'never'.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm pretty agnostic on the whole 'sex robot' thing, and I very much doubt they're really going to have a huge effect on society. I'm utterly in favour of sex work as a professions. I've never used sex to gain an advantage in my career nor, that I can recall, any other situation. If sex robots make some guys happy, I don't see this as any sort of threat as a woman or as a feminist. I'm just, as usually, sick of you constructing 'feminism' as this monolithic whole and then making ranty statements on behalf of 'the feminists'.

Good, then if you're so agnostic and you're not like one of those feminists then why are you protesting so much?

 

[KimGordon67]

Actually, more than one feminist = feminists. You know the rule about plural terms in basic sentence structure, right?

You said 'the feminists', which is quite different from 'feminists'. Which is my point. Now you're just reinventing your own words.


Why is #NotAllMen so "unhelpful" but you're so quick to scream "#NAFALT"?

I haven't here or elsewhere said anything about the #NotAllMen campaign. Now you're diverting from the actual point. (Also, I haven't 'screamed' anything - I was simply making a statement.)


Well, she's not the only one who hates sex robots.

Probably not, but she's the one you made the post about. I was responding to the evidence you provided.


Good, then if you're so agnostic and you're not like one of those feminists then why are you protesting so much?

Saying 'those feminists' is basically the same as saying 'the feminists'. I'm agnostic about sex robots, as was utterly clear from my statement. Now you're trying to imply I'm not a feminist because I don't agree with everything ever feminist ever has says. That's just patently untrue.

So you've reinvented your own words, diverted from the actual point, danced around your own evidence, and excluded me from a political position that I actually identify with, and have done so repeatedly.
How exactly is that you assume you 'win' all these arguments?
You're not actually arguing - you're just putting words on a screen and calling it 'an argument'.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Saying 'those feminists' is basically the same as saying 'the feminists'. I'm agnostic about sex robots, as was utterly clear from my statement. Now you're trying to imply I'm not a feminist because I don't agree with everything ever feminist ever has says. That's just patently untrue.

So you've reinvented your own words, diverted from the actual point, danced around your own evidence, and excluded me from a political position that I actually identify with, and have done so repeatedly.
How exactly is that you assume you 'win' all these arguments?
You're not actually arguing - you're just putting words on a screen and calling it 'an argument'.

I didn't reinvent anything. All I did was ask a question - why doth thee protest so much? And you obviously don't understand the rule about plural terms in basic sentence structure, so this is more about you shooting yourself in the ass than me winning anything. At this point all you're doing is banging your head on the keyboard and posting whatever comes up.

 

[KimGordon67]

I didn't reinvent anything. All I did was ask a question - why doth thee protest so much? And you obviously don't understand the rule about plural terms in basic sentence structure, so this is more about you shooting yourself in the ass than me winning anything. At this point all you're doing is banging your head on the keyboard and posting whatever comes up.

Sigh ... again, when you say 'the feminists', you are quite clearly implying 'all feminists'. You then later tried to backtrack and say you just meant 'more than one feminist', but you handily neglected to include the fact that your initial phrasing used the term 'the feminists', not just 'feminists'.
I've responded to your points, and made my point utterly clearly, as always, but here, again, because you obviously missed it the first 13 or so times:

the fundamental issue I have is that you forever make sweeping and universalising statements that feminists and feminism as though it's some monolithic whole. As I keep saying to you, but you somehow cannot understand, there is no 'one' feminism​

.

 

[pointless]

relevant

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Sigh ... again, when you say 'the feminists', you are quite clearly implying 'all feminists'.

Being wrong again doesn't make you right, it just makes you wrong twice.

You then later tried to backtrack and say you just meant 'more than one feminist', but you handily neglected to include the fact that your initial phrasing used the term 'the feminists', not just 'feminists'.
I've responded to your points, and made my point utterly clearly, as always, but here, again, because you obviously missed it the first 13 or so times:

the fundamental issue I have is that you forever make sweeping and universalising statements that feminists and feminism as though it's some monolithic whole. As I keep saying to you, but you somehow cannot understand, there is no 'one' feminism​

.

There is one mainstream feminist movement. The ones with all the political and media power are a bunch of bigots. You laypeople mean shit to them.

 

[KimGordon67]

Being wrong again doesn't make you right, it just makes you wrong twice.


There is one mainstream feminist movement. The ones with all the political and media power are a bunch of bigots. You laypeople mean shit to them.

I'm not wrong. You used a term that implies exactly what I said it implies, and then you omitted half the term so as to 'win' your argument. Well done.

Us 'laypeople'? I don't even know what the fuck you mean by that.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm not wrong. You used a term that implies exactly what I said it implies, and then you omitted half the term so as to 'win' your argument. Well done.

Us 'laypeople'? I don't even know what the fuck you mean by that.

If you don't understand what 'laypeople' means then this explains why you are so lost in this entire argument, and why you don't see where you're wrong.

It is obvious that you also do not understand even the concept of what mainstream feminism means, even though I explained it to you in detail.

Again, this is not about me winning anything, it's about you hitting your head on trees as you wander, lost in the forest.

 

[KimGordon67]

If you don't understand what 'laypeople' means then this explains why you are so lost in this entire argument, and why you don't see where you're wrong.

It is obvious that you also do not understand even the concept of what mainstream feminism means, even though I explained it to you in detail.

Again, this is not about me winning anything, it's about you hitting your head on trees as you wander, lost in the forest.

I understand what 'laypeople' means, I just don't get how you can apply it to feminists ... there's hardly a professional body of which some of us are members and the rest are 'laypeople'.

When on earth have you explained 'mainstream feminism' to me 'in detail'?

 

[AnneSexton]

Dear LJ:

I'll fuck you. Bring the robot. She sounds fun.

AnneSexton
The Mainstream Feminist Movement

 

[KimGordon67]

Dear LJ:

I'll fuck you. Bring the robot. She sounds fun.

AnneSexton
The Mainstream Feminist Movement

A dead poet and a robot ... that's some party. Will there be tequila?

 

[AnneSexton]

A dead poet and a robot ... that's some party. Will there be tequila?

Of course! Wanna come?

 

[AnneSexton]

You should come. All the feminists and laypeople and power will be there. We'll invite the mainstream media. It'll be awesome.

 

[KimGordon67]

You should come. All the feminists and laypeople and power will be there. We'll invite the mainstream media. It'll be awesome.

Only if LJ's going to be there. Because of my secret crush on him.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I understand what 'laypeople' means, I just don't get how you can apply it to feminists ... there's hardly a professional body of which some of us are members and the rest are 'laypeople'.

When on earth have you explained 'mainstream feminism' to me 'in detail'?

Once again: Mainstream feminists are the ones with all the political and media power. You're not one of them, which makes you a layperson feminist.

This is the end of this discussion. You either understand it or not. I'm not wasting time with your trolling or your feeble cognitive skills, and whichever is your problem, it is now yours and yours alone.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Dear LJ:

I'll fuck you. Bring the robot. She sounds fun.

AnneSexton
The Mainstream Feminist Movement

If I were single I'd keep the robot and you can stay home. Much better that way, at least for me!

 

[KimGordon67]

If I were single I'd keep the robot and you can stay home. Much better that way, at least for me!

I think everyone would be fine with that arrangement.

 

[KimGordon67]

Once again: Mainstream feminists are the ones with all the political and media power. You're not one of them, which makes you a layperson feminist.

This is the end of this discussion. You either understand it or not. I'm not wasting time with your trolling or your feeble cognitive skills, and whichever is your problem, it is now yours and yours alone.

Actually, I don't remember you ever saying this to me.

I'm not trolling ... I'm just point out some fundamental flaws in your conceptualisation of 'feminism' as a monolithic whole to which 'the feminists' adhere. It's a simple fact that you seem to struggle with. But, you know, god forbid that you would engage with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

If you don't want people to respond to the points you make, maybe don't make them in a public forum. Start a blog or something.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Actually, I don't remember you ever saying this to me.

I'm not trolling ... I'm just point out some fundamental flaws in your conceptualisation of 'feminism' as a monolithic whole to which 'the feminists' adhere. It's a simple fact that you seem to struggle with. But, you know, god forbid that you would engage with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Considering your faulty memory and your poor cognitive skills (since you say you're not trolling)...

If you don't want people to respond to the points you make, maybe don't make them in a public forum. Start a blog or something.

... it's not that at all. It's that you've run your course and outlived your usefulness in this discussion.

 

[KimGordon67]

Considering your faulty memory and your poor cognitive skills (since you say you're not trolling)...


... it's not that at all. It's that you've run your course and outlived your usefulness in this discussion.

LOL - there's someone else contributing who IS useful? Did you teach the robot to type?

 

[SelfTawt]

I have not read any of this thread and only looked in to see what its all about and i spotted the phrase:
"..Feminism as a Monolithic hole to which the feminists adhere"

That is some funny shit.. Nice work.