And I don’t mean Roxxxy.
A campaign has been launched calling for a ban on the development of robots that can be used for sex.
Such a use of the technology is unnecessary and undesirable, said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson.
There we have it – “I don’t approve, so it should be banned”. You may want a Roxxxy toy – well, who knows, you might – but Dr Kathleen Richardson knows better and has decided on your behalf that it is unnecessary and undesirable. So there. Of course, never mind that some people will never get laid, so such a doll might help them. Oh, no, this upright guardian of our morals has decided that it is unnecessary and undesirable. Not that she is a self-righteous, pompous arse or anything…
But why?
Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.
Oh, God, no, not the “raising fucking awareness” canard. Fuck me, I’m losing the will to live already.
“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on – how they will look, what roles they would play – are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.
I’m not disturbed. Are you? And if you are, is anyone forcing you to buy one?
She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.
Ah, yes, the old radfem trope. Some relationships are purely physical. Presumably Doc Richardson has never come across the term “Fuck Buddy”. If she has, doubtless she would like to ban that as well. Good luck with that one.
“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.
Uh huh… And the evidence to support this wild assertion drawn from her arse is? Well?
Oh, right, it’s the standard “think of the children” bollocks that the new puritans roll out every time they want to justify their nasty authoritarianism. I’ll tell you what creeps me out; it’s vile creatures such as Richardson deciding on our behalf what we can do – or not – with our money and time and in this case, dangly bits. None of this is any of her concern. Ethics are a personal matter and if someone is happy to hump a robot, that’s up to them, not her. This is the way it is – or, in a sane world how it should be – we each look after our own ethics and Dr Richardson looks after hers. And minds her own fucking business.
How much taxpayer’s money is being ploughed into the organisation that sees fit to pour it away employing a “professor of robot ethics”
George! George! Over there mate… there’s some easy spending cuts available over there! Who the f*ck needs a professor of robot ethics?
I can only assume that “Joe’s Garage” isn’t in her album collection….
The best Zappa ever. “Crew slut” and “Catholic Girls” are my two personal favourite tracks.
Ban dildos which are bits of dismembered robot.
“She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.”
Where is it graven in stone that relationships need to be specifically anything at all? One can have a platonic relationship with f*cking Siri, or a physical relationship with an inflatable sex doll *right now*. Are such relationships any better or worse than this idiot’s own preferences? What difference does it make if the sex doll is inflatable, or a machine covered in ‘nuSkin’? (And why does this idiot think the market would only support female-shaped sex-bots anyway?)
This imbecile is a danger to ‘shipping. (Sorry.)
Well we have had bolts trying to mate with bolts, nuts trying to mate with nuts, nuts trying to mate with rust from bolts they have never met, nuts using rust from other nuts to mate with rust from bolts and, though I’m not sure it is still legal, bolts mating with nuts.
I’m sure bolts and nuts mating with robots won’t make much difference, we have long gone down the road of self before anything else.
“Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester…”
I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that a university has a robot ethicist. I can sort of see why ethics related to robots might become an issue in the future when artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where, for example, robots might be considered to have rights and some thought needs to go into what those rights should be. But at present I can’t imagine what the hell she does with her time. Also, for a supposed expert in the subject, she doesn’t seem to have much of a clue.
Dear Mr Longrider
” …and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.”
The good Dr Richardson ought to be careful what she asks for: rethinking developers might come up with some even more innovative and exciting ways to use their robots. She may have cause to regret that particular line of persuasion.
I wonder if she’s watched Westworld …
DP