Yes, of course they reduce sexual violence - Bởi Artem Kuznetsov, Russia – Tác phẩm do chính người tải lên tạo ra, Phạm vi công cộng,

It is entirely true that the invention and existence of realistic sex robots will change the balance of power between the sexes. There’s an awful lot the average man will do in order to gain access to sex after all. The restaurant and nightclub industries are proof of quite how much too, to say nothing of the cut flower and posh shoes ones. Thus some technology which provides that end goal without the effort and expense is going to change matters.

Yes, of course, they’re a substitute and an imperfect one but then everything is a substitute and what matters is not the imperfections but the number and magnitude of them.

The thing is, which arguments against the change in that balance of power, who decides and who gets what because of that power, which of them apply to sex robots and do not apply to Rampant Rabbits and other such devices to pleasure the distaff side?

Ministers are “lagging behind” in efforts to tackle sex robots, experts have warned, amid concerns they could “make women interchangeable with technology”.

Human-like robots are sold as substitutes for women and are marketed as “companions”, “girlfriends” or “wives”, a coalition of academics, abuse victims and activists have claimed and MPs and ministers are ignorant of the potential dangers.

This is not to say that anyone should or should not be using such devices on either or any side. It is, instead, to pose an uncomfortable question. Indeed, there are arguments that sex without human contact will change things. But how and why do those apply to men gaining access without women and not to women without men?

What regulations anyone proposes for sex robots don’t apply to vibrators?

This is before we even consider whether people might make sex robots designed for women of course…..the answer that the machines don’t have wallets isn’t going to be a politically acceptable one now, is it?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Esteban DeGolfKendall9000John GaltSpikeTom Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

There are, of course, societal issues, as illustrated in the documentary *Futurama*:

John Galt

All humour aside, there is an argument that we have already reached the early phase of that problem with relatively realist TPE sex dolls (available in both Male and Female varieties, although the range of Females far exceeds the range of male dolls) coming in at a $2,000 – $6,000 depending upon the “reality” and features of the doll. An acquaintance of mine in his late 50’s struggles with relationships and has never been married, recently acquired on from The Doll House. His experience with it has been entirely satisfactory, not just happy, but delighted. One thing that is seldom… Read more »


What is the problem? other than living in a world in which there are constantly emerging alternatives to you?

An alternative that ensures that you will not bring conflict, negotiation, manipulation, and occasional bullying into your home should be enormously attractive.

John Galt

I don’t want the state in my home and I certainly don’t want the state in between my bed sheets.


Reading some of the feminist arguments for banning sex toys for men, they seem very confident that any legislation will be based on feminist ideas like “patriarchal objectification”. In their view men are too powerful to be objectified, so sex toys for women are harmless and empowering, while ones for men are sexist discrimination and cause rape. I think they take it for granted that law makers will simply accept that it’s different when they do it. As influential as feminism is, I could easily see it backfiring on them. In the same way that feminist calls for action against… Read more »

Esteban DeGolf

This seems like an issue destined to create a new “Baptists & bootleggers” coalition -Puritans who oppose this on moral grounds and feminists who oppose it because it objectifies women.