>>451810>>451812>i will not read your argument but instead suggest you to go read this person's book that i haven't myself read but support since it deflects serious criticism while affirming my intuitions… of course i will ignore the fact that the book doesn't at all conflict with the arguments you are making eitherat least don't interrupt ._.
>>451809 (OP) (You)
why exactly do some feminists believe that sexbots should be banned in the first place? it is grounded, ultimately on a phenomenological account of sex. sexbots not only repeat sexist stereotypes, but they literalize objectification since men would be fucking an object in which the coexperiencing of sex would not be possible. to me, this argument is fundamentally wrong. first i will review however a new materialist objection to the call for banning sexbots in order to contrast my own objection. this is the article i will be commenting on:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/8/224/htmfirst we will ask how they are they going to argue against this? well, their approach is to broaden subjectivity to the point in which objects can function as agents to coexperience sexual intercourse with
>Does loving and feeling loved necessarily require its object to ‘love back’? Or does it suffice, when the loving person assumes that their love is shared? I am leaning towards the latter. David Levy, one of the most outspoken advocates of robot sex, once predicted that within few decades, marriages between humans and robots would be widespread and perfectly normal (Levy 2007, p. 150). This bold statement obviously does not account for the fact that ‘marriages’ between humans are much more than just a vow of trying to make a relationship last. They bind together not just the bridal couple (or triple, or n-ple) but their respective families as well, thus creating complex networks of relatives and in-laws. However, we do not have to go that far to question the necessity of mutuality in loving relationships. Our love for pets and the manifold forms of objectophilia clearly show that the reality of our feelings does not rely on their reciprocation. I do like to believe that my dog in some way or the other loves me, but of course I will never find out, if that is true in an ‘objective’ sense. That, however, does not change the reality of my feelings nor does it deny the very existence of an affectionate relationship between usthis seems like a natural approach. the immediate issue however is that it doesn't completely address the anti-sexbot point. sure, it would be more accurate to say that sexbots subjectivize as opposed to objectivize, but it doesn't address the other concern that they reinforce unhealthy expectations and views of women. indeed, the new materialist still recapitulates this sentiment
> Now, the dolls, on which Harmony’s robotic head is to be mounted, may be impressive from an artistic perspective. From a feminist point of view, they are—there is no other way to say it—horrific. The same is true for the accompanying app that comes as a female avatar designed to serve as an interface to the robotic head. Both can be ‘customized’—meaning that the client can choose from a selection of skin and lip types, labia, pubic hair (trimmed, ‘natural,’ shaved), nipple shades, breast sizes (all of them perfectly round and oddly defying gravity), and so on.so how exactly are they going to try and solve this glaring problem? their solution is instead to look to dildos and suggest that these are a "better" approach to sexbots. after some remarking about how dildos became far more popular when they started to resemble male sex organs less. they go on to conclude:
>the obvious question we have to ask is: why should a sex robot look like a human?this is, in my opinion, an exceptionally disappointing thesis, and there appears to be two competing forces taken. on one side the author is trying to subjectivize these robots, but at the same time, she tries to argue against their subjectivizing tendencies. what she said earlier has little efficacy for her ultimate conclusion, and it is ultimately symptomatic her position being too liberal
to elaborate, there is this focus on objectification which has negative effects on intersex relations, but it is my claim that the current moving against this is incoherent for much the same reasons i have called out traditionalism and standard feminist approaches that pretend education is sufficient for abolishing patriarchy. there is another fundamental problem here: these feminists are too attached to the sanctity of coexperiencing human subjects. to them, sex is still a good thing which must be protected from deterritorialization. really, they only care about having women enjoy these things more hence the plain hypocrisy in their position which celebrates female masturbation instruments which can do things that no man can do, yet are appalled by men consuming media that have female figures which obviously no women can achieve. in sharp contrast, i believe that a true solution should result in objectification being no longer relevant. as opposed to somehow "purifying" sexual relations, sexual gratification should be ultimately abstracted from such notions as romance. the obvious compromise would be a world in which the only reason why a man would desire a woman would be precisely this coexperiencing that only they can provide. meanwhile, various paraphillic hyperpornographic fixations should be capable of being directed to other places. as opposed to trying to repress the shadow self, men should be capable of embracing it. it is clear that this approach actually works alongside technocapitalistic progress as opposed to trying to, once again, repress/regress up a mountain
the other part of why the focus on objectificaiton is the wrong way to go is ontological as well. the root of patriarchal ideology stems from women having wombs, as we have accepted in the previous post. pornography is not an independent phenomenon produced by some transcendent powers, but rather the explication of the logic of sex which has been present since agriculture. women have, for much of history, been understood as objects, so the focus on porn is merely treating a symptom
now that we have gone past that, why are fembots the way to go? well there is something about the mere focus on experiencing that ignores another vital part of robot subjectivity, namely that their being is one which is far more disclosed and open to artificial revision than a woman's. you can not install a patch in your wife for them to behave in a way which is entirely different. this manipulability highlights how they are capable of completing man. rather than fembots being a subservient being, they can be understood as a proper extension of man. thus one with a womb reflects man back into himself thus completing the dialectic. artificial organisms are the frontier in which man properly claims the vital creativity he sees in the womb, thus ending sexual history
lastly, we arrive at a final comment. the SCUM manifesto mistakenly pushes a matriarchy as the final end goal - one they mistakenly identify with biological females ruling. this is where my unironic support for its conclusions vanishes. we, after all, live in a patriarchial society, so the species that will be ultimately annihilated will be almost surely the female one. indeed, i do not come for some vulgar emancipation for womankind, or a simplex gender abolition. rather i believe that femininity will be all-together deterritorialized. make no mistake that the female and the incel will be annihilated. it is, after all, a final solution