Although robots built for sex are not yet available to the public, the Campaign Against Sex Robots has already launched. The group believes that companies should cease developing sex robots with artificial intelligence on grounds of feminism. Presumably
the group fears that sex robots will somehow challenge the social control structures related to sex. The group has published its aims on its website:
We believe the development of sex robots further objectifies women and children.
The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing
(just like the robot).
The development of sex robots and the ideas to support their production show the immense horrors still present in the world of prostitution which is built on the "perceived" inferiority of women and children and therefore
justifies their uses as sex objects.
We propose that the development of sex robots will further reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship.
We challenge the view that the development of adults and child sex robots will have a positive benefit to society, but instead further reinforce power relations of inequality and violence.
We take issue with those arguments that propose that sex robots could help reduce sexual exploitation and violence towards prostituted persons, pointing to all the evidence that shows how technology and the sex trade coexist and
reinforce each other creating more demand for human bodies.
Engineers have long strove to make sex toys and dolls as life like as possible. Realistic looks and feels have been about as far as the manufactures have been able to come so far. In the last few years, however, the artificial intelligence technology has
opened a brave new world for sex toy innovation.
Lead campaigner Kathleen Richardson, a robot anthropologist and [feminist] ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester spouted:
When I first started looking into the subject I thought, 'oh sex robots, that's harmless and perhaps these robots would reduce demand for real women and children.
But then as I researched the subject more I found that the opposite was true, that rather than reduce the objectification of women, children and also men and transgender people, these robots would contribute and reinforce their position in society [as
True Companion, a company which as been making sex dolls for years and claims to have introduced the first sex robot- the Roxxxy. The company explained on its website and in statements:
Roxxxy knows your likes and dislikes, carries on a discussion and expresses her love to you and [can] be your loving friend. She can talk to you, listen to you, and feel your touch. She can even have an orgasm.
Roxxxy provides physical and sexual pleasure but also provides social interaction and engagement It's customizing technology to provide a perfect partner, she's not meant to replace a real partner but is meant as a supplement.
As long as we're not hurting anyone, there's no problem with it.
A question or two for the anti-sex-robot feministas:
a) is a dildo/vibrator a primitive form of sex robot?
b) if so, are you prepared to disavow the use of them?
In truth, men have no more interest in having sex with robots than they have in having sex with trees or a cup of tea. Meanwhile, women like the idea of pleasuring themselves with plastic objects. Men generally do not.
So, if the sale of sex aids is anything to go by, sex robots are more likely to be called `Big John` than `Melinda`.
So, dear feminists.
Women may like vibrators. Feminists may like vibrators.
It does therefore not follow that men like vibrating holes.
By publicly protesting against the latter you are merely broadcasting the former.
And as for academic Kathleen Richardson, being a 'robot anthropologist' and 'ethicist'. Well anthropology is the study of humanity, so robots are human, extreme feminists are ethical and 2 + 2 = 5!
About 7,000 people have signed a petition calling on British craft beer company, BrewDog, to remove a humorous advert which the petitioners claims is transphobic.
The video named Don't Make Us Do This asks fans of the company to become investors while reiterating their mission statement - Equity For Punks .
The petition claims the advert is: Mocking trans women, sex workers and homeless people and that by doing so - is not punk or ethical.
During the three minute advertisement, co-founders James Watt and Martin Dickie ask viewers not to force them into any humiliating experiences. Watt and Dickie are then shown in a series of embarrassing scenarios, which includes begging for money
on the streets and in a window dressed in women's clothes as sex workers.
In a statement, James Watt, Co-Founder of BrewDog told the Huffington Post UK:
The video we created was to launch the CrowdCube aspect of Equity for Punks and was made in the spirit of fun and sending ourselves up, it's a shame that some people have taken offence where none was intended. We have a history of supporting and
championing the LGBT community, and will continue doing so. watch this space.
Does Object even have a future? I am sure that when this is read someone will try to make object look active but over the last couple of years they have had less and less impact and failed to deliver anything other than a jolly to Brazil for Roz Hardie,
certainly hope that wasn't the last of the funds. And if I donated to Object in the past I would be stopping any standing orders.
Travellers have complained about Ofcom's decision to clear the BBC after Jeremy Clarkson was shown on an episode of Top Gear with a sign reading Pikey's Peak .
The Traveller Movement are 'outraged' that the communications regulator has green-lit the use of the word pikey and claim it is a victory for racist bullies .
A Traveller Movement spokesman told the Guardian:
We are appalled that Ofcom have followed the BBC Trust's line and have green-lit the use of 'pikey' on Top Gear.
Their decision that this particular use has no reference to Gypsies and Travellers is bankrupt.
The viewing public are not that stupid and Ofcom need to give them more credit. The decision is a victory for racist bullies and we will be meeting with our solicitors, Howe & Co, to consider our options.
An Ofcom spokesman said:
Following thorough investigation we found this programme did not break broadcasting rules by showing a placard which said 'Pikey's Peak'.
We found that, while some in the audience would perceive the word pikey as a derogatory term for Gypsies and Travellers, on balance there was sufficient context in the way the word was used to minimise offence.
However, we have advised broadcasters this doesn't mean the use of the word is acceptable in any programme in any context and that it is capable of causing significant offence in certain contexts.
Ofcom did not rely on the BBC Trust's findings in reaching its decision. As the UK's broadcast regulator, our team investigated this programme completely afresh and reached an independent decision.
It is Ofcom's view that the broadcaster ensured there was sufficient context in the way the word was used to minimise offence and therefore that the use of the word in the context of this programme was not in breach of [...] the Code.
Nearly three-quarters of people questioned for a survey for a christian morality campaign said all websites
offering adult movies and pornography should introduce age-verification systems
The Government should impose age verification checks on all websites which offer pornography and 18-rated entertainment such as horror films , Fifty Shades of Grey and Game of Thrones , according to the survey.
The survey of more than 2,000 adults was conducted earlier this month for Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), which is campaigning for internet censorship.
The ComRes survey found 74% of the people they asked said the Government should require sites offering pornography in the UK to put age verification checks in place. A further 73% also said that age verification should apply to 18 rated films
The timing of publication of the survey was timed to support Elspeth Howe's latest Online Safety Bill, which was debated in the House of Lords today. The
Online Safety Bill
required default website blocking for mobile phones, requires strict ID verification for adult internet video and also required foreign porn sites to get a UK licence for its operation on threat of banks denying payment services for unlicensed
The Bill passed its 2nd reading in the Lords and now moved to committee. But the government did rather point out that Howe was stepping on their toes for initiatives that the government would be introducing in the near future.