Wednesday, September 04, 2019

Seriously?

The Conversation occasionally throws up an article that reads close to "peak Guardian".  Like this example from a part of academia that needs to be sacked if this is all they have to think about:

Sex robots increase the potential for gender-based violence 

I've complained before:  why does this topic attract so much attention, as if every second man in future is going to have one in his cupboard?  Has Westworld been way, way too influential?

How can I take this latest article seriously when it claims:
 Over 40 per cent of men who participated in an online survey said they could imagine buying a sex robot in the next five years.
The link shows it was to a survey of 263 men, with no details of where the survey was conducted.  Viz magazine? 

And this: 
 The concern is that if human-robot relationships continue to play out in such a manner, there is a possibility that the way users view and practise consent in their human relationships could shift, with negative consequences for women.

Acts of violence towards sex robots have also been observed around the world over the past few years. These include incidents of decapitation, mutilation and molestation. For individuals who might be inclined to act in this way, the availability of a robot to violate could feed these behaviours.
And the final paragraph:
The way sex robots are currently programmed is obviously problematic. It encourages the porn-ification of women, devalues consent and does not punish violence and aggression. Providing intelligent and somewhat autonomous machines with a full set of rights is excessive, but finding ways to protect them from harm is a positive solution. This ethical approach could preclude harmful human behaviour and in turn protect us from ourselves.
 I really can't believe people make a living fretting about giving some sort of rights to masturbation devices.

No comments:

Post a Comment