In the world of sex dolls and robots, it is difficult to determine ethics

The older I am, the older I am, and the harder it is to find the clear boundaries that existed in my youth, the lines between written words (that is, what they say) and words that should be considered parody or irony.

For example, I just read a tweet from a transgender woman saying that a woman can have a penis, and anyone who disagrees with the statement “can suck my dick”. My first impulse was of course to laugh, but now, this response must always be questioned, so I did.

I want to believe this is ironic. Of course, even trans women should know that the expression “suck my [insert any part of the body here, including breasts]” will never come out of the mouth of a real woman. Women don’t talk like that. An angry woman might say, “… if you don’t believe it, you can joke, you will go crazy,” or something like that. But she never said, “Suck my [body part].”

Of course, unless she consciously tries to sound like a man. Because this is exactly what rude men say, and it always makes most women mess up their faces and say “ewww”. Therefore, I naturally thought of myself, oh, this is a brave creature, and although he has transitioned, he still shows his unshakable male character and is willing to laugh for his followers.

On the other hand, my experience with women entrepreneurs on Twitter convinced me that they (or rather the activists among them) were seriously lacking in irony. Therefore, it is likely that this aggressive tweeter did not realize the fact that her bullying masculine discourse was more likely to convince readers to believe in her basic masculinity than femininity.

It’s all messy.

All of this comes as a preface to the social tensions of gender identity, and I like the Libby Emmons article on these pages, “Is it time to add R for gay men to LGBTQIA +?” I read it with a similar ironic satiric Swift style or actual “humble suggestion”, but I still appreciate its sunshine and optimism, non-confrontational perspectives, such as my performance in the opening anecdote A brutal and delightful gasp. I find it weird and refreshing, but it truly presents a phenomenon in real life, and its existence is ironic.

Ms. Emmons dived into her thesis and suggested that “gay men” who have a sexual preference for inanimate objects (for example, the Korean man she married to a pillow) she should be given her Identity category. I think this article is a satire on the never-ending concept of gender mobility and the unscientific belief that biology and gender are completely unbound. I settled down and laughed.

But when Emmons made his argument, my smile faded. Ms. Emmons’ suggestion started to make sense. “Today, having sex with a robot is basically the only meaningful sex,” she wrote. Why? Well, to put it another way, having sex with a real person is full of fear of rape and / or false accusations. Plus there is no real family now-a child! -It’s too expensive and the whole world is in trouble, so why bother? True sex comes with so many drawbacks that robotic sex starts to look very tempting: “No talking, no texting, no communication, no supper, no drinking, no birth control, and no shame.”

Damn, this writer makes sense! Having sex with people is incredible. And the look and behavior of sex dolls becomes more and more realistic every day. Most importantly-I take you back to my opening anecdote-robots have no gender. Or rather, because they have no biology, they only have gender, and gender is the gender you assign to them. Of course, not at birth, because they were not born, only their creations were created by nothingness. Like Adam and Eve. Whoever is designed by God, an immortal is plagued by reproduction, and therefore focuses on the whole duality.

But God and the Bible are the nineteenth century. Your postmodern gender-free “mate” is designed by you! (Of course, I don’t mean their making here, I’m talking metaphysically.) Then you can “assign” their gender. Therefore, you cannot “sexist” them and cause terrible trouble to the human rights court. Spending $ 5,000 on a high-end doll is better than paying $ 55,000 to express your opinion that biological men cannot be women, are they?

As Emmons said, “Being gay is a non-sex sexual attraction. If you are gay, no one can accuse you of having phobia.” (In the references above QED.) There is another: “Human beings have a lot of annoying feelings, and they often want them to go back and forth. Such relationships are meaningless to single lovers.” On the spot, Ms. Emmons. I can imagine actor Aziz Ansari reading this article with fascination and cha. If he gets a sex doll, he should call her “grace.” The conversation with the robot “Grace” may be a bit monotonous, but at least she won’t humiliate him by complaining to the world that his proposal skills are not perfect, like Grace in real life.

This is not the first time I have been playing a sex doll cowboy. In order to honour my promise of a clear line between satire and serious intentions, I hereby inform me that I have now ended my interest in this subject and are now seriously considering the issue of sexual robots. Are they good or bad for society?

Two years ago, I wrote a column praising sex dolls as a positive invention, which surprised many of my conservative readers, who often agree with me. As you can imagine, most social conservatives are completely dissatisfied with their ideas. But even if someone regrets the artificial failure they have shown, they can’t be discarded just as a fashion-at least I don’t think so. As I wrote: “The doll brothel is already open in South Korea, Japan, and Spain. Last year, the first robotic blowjob coffee shop opened in London, according to a report from the Robotics Foundation (sounds like an Iron Man movie, but if If you are particularly interested in this topic, it is worth your attention. “

I was surprised because, in general, I was opposed to other sex-related artificial innovations, such as sperm donation, which gave the child no father and only half of his biological identity. But, as I pointed out, sex dolls are “harmless fetishes”. They will not hurt anyone else, but will please many who would otherwise be sexually deprived. I see them as a form of “harm reduction”, a principle that liberals love in the field of drug addiction.

On the one hand, affordable, lifelike sex dolls will greatly reduce sex transactions, which is a good reason to approve them. This will be a popular solution for those who are powerless, disabled, disfigured or suffering such great emotional harm from real-life entanglements, including rape, and they can no longer trust their bodies Humanity. Prisoners should be able to use sex dolls. This policy will reduce the shameful rate of rape in prisons and significantly reduce overall tensions. In my opinion, sexual deprivation in prison is a violation of natural human rights.

For humans, there is always a problem of “consent”. Obviously, sex dolls can eliminate the need for consent, as well as the widespread false allegations. But what about dolls designed for the cold to satisfy compulsive sex? What about those childlike dolls that appeal to children? Do they violate ethics? Should they be banned?

By the way, they exist. Japanese sex doll maker Trottla has been selling child sex dolls worldwide, created by a self-identified pedophile Shin Takagi, who claims the doll will prevent him from harming children. “We should accept that there is no way to change someone’s preferences,” Takagi told The Atlantic in 2016. “I’m helping people express their aspirations, both legally and morally.” I think his arguments are convincing. Pedophilia is a well-known irreversible tendency.

I myself am disgusted with the idea of ​​child sex dolls, but I am laissez-faire and liberal. Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said the state should stay away from state bedrooms. He was referring to the decriminalization of homosexuality. But the principle should also apply here. When people masturbate, the state government does not regulate them because it does not. Sex dolls represent a more complex and satisfying form of masturbation.

Therefore, sex dolls that conform to personal fantasies should not be banned, even if such fantasies work with humans, they would be considered immoral and fall under the Criminal Code. Discuss it yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Translate »