What's the ethical difference between owning a sex robot and owning a character?

[JMJW]

https://medium.com/athena-talks/no-sex-dolls-arent-going-to-end-rape-7f35764026a9

Quote:

Giving it names, complaining about 'hurting' 'her' and even giving her personality traits is pygmalion to the point I would advice you to see a psychiatrist. Your relationship with women being one where you have to create, completely control and own one illustrate deep level dehumanisation.

Writers give their characters names and personality traits. And have complete control over them.

Ownership of a 'woman', even in the form of AI or modeled mannhekins. I've written on and researched the objectification of women and again and again, we see men who desire to have complete control over a woman demonstrate a tendency towards sadistic behaviour, homicidal thoughts and behaviours and destructive actions

Why is there a tendency toward sadistic behaviour etc here and not when a writer seeks to control a woman through storytelling? Especially visual storytelling? If a sex robot qualifies as a woman in the article, how does a female character not? Why is the effect on a a sex robot owner's mind argued to be  so damaging when the fact is a character can have sex with you, if you put an avatar of yourself in a story. Does the reality this control is taking place in really make that much of a difference?



 

[Julia1996]

A sex robot is not a woman it's a machine.  It's not alive.  People tend to humanize objects that look human. Reborn dolls for example. That's probably why the owner of the owner of the sex robot treated it as human. It's the ultimate fantasy of guys to own and control a woman. I'm not saying all guys, but I think most guys are that way. While most guys wouldn't act on it some would.

Do they have realistic sex robots now? My roomba has never appealed to me. Lol

[Roll]

If it's just a robot, no difference. A robot by definition can't think and is not self aware, it is a thing. If it is no longer just a thing, it is no longer a robot.

If it is a functioning artificial life form (the common cliche of AIs in movies, though that's not really what AI is), huge difference, as there are a myriad of ethical considerations to take into account involving the nature of awareness and identity. I'd probably through a Locke quote in here but I have to leave for dinner.

[Dani]

Sex Robots need batteries. 

[Artesia]

If it's just a robot, no difference. A robot by definition can't think and is not self aware, it is a thing. If it is no longer just a thing, it is no longer a robot.

If it is a functioning artificial life form (the common cliche of AIs in movies, though that's not really what AI is), huge difference, as there are a myriad of ethical considerations to take into account involving the nature of awareness and identity. I'd probably through a Locke quote in here but I have to leave for dinner.

Marriam-Webster definition of robot:

1
a :a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (such as walking or talking) of a human being; also :a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
b :an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2
:a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3
:a mechanism guided by automatic controls


Self awareness not necessary to be or not be a robot.

I think, that if it had self awareness, then it would really come down to social discussions, and whether we provide them rights or not.

[Roll]

Marriam-Webster definition of robot:

1
a :a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (such as walking or talking) of a human being; also :a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
b :an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2
:a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3
:a mechanism guided by automatic controls

I shouldn't have said by definition, I just used a poor turn of phrase. I meant that the word in modern context (it's a relatively recent "made up" word to begin with) hinges very much on a usage that relates to its function as an automatic piece of programmed machinery that does not think or feel (making an assumption here that humans are not simply programmed organic machinery and that thinking and feeling are not illusions, which depending on your philosophy of choice is certainly possible), while other terms have come to encompass a synthetic or mechanical form of life that does think and feel, and more importantly is self aware. So it may not be inherent to its dictionary definition, but self awareness does play heavily into the philosophical context of how we use robot versus other terms for mechanical life. Particularly as the word is rooted in a word for slave/serf (I forget the language, I think a lot of people say Latin but it wasn't actually Latin? Too lazy to google right now ), also in a modern context, I do not think we can morally use the term to refer to something that is self aware, as any being that is self aware should not be considered a slave. Perhaps I should say that while it may not by definition no longer be a robot should it be self aware, but it is unethical in and of itself to consider it a robot if it becomes self-aware.

[flytrap]

It's the ultimate fantasy of guys to own and control a woman. I'm not saying all guys, but I think most guys are that way. 

Ouch...

[Kylo]

These same sorts of people blatantly figure a sex toy of any kind for a man takes his attention away from real women while at the same time failing to apply this 'logic' to the myriad sex toys and aids available for women - never will you hear them decry the reducing of a man down to a rubber penis or that this somehow takes away women from men, or causes women to see men as objects. You'll also see them shamelessly trying to associate sex dolls like this with pedophilia in articles like these. It's a regular ol' moral panic in certain feminist circles.

[Lady Sarah]

There is no shortage of people that treat people as if they are robots. Sometimes, this happens in the workplace, and other times, at home. This includes confiscation of all rights and privileges. It needs not be a story contrived by a novelist.
Sadly, some girls are raised to accept such dehumization. Even worse, are guys that get upset with any female not raised to be like that. In regards to the thread: the difference between owning a sex robot, and owning a character,  would be "do you feed her?"

[Kylo]

You're right. As I recall, my mother regarded my step father as something of an automaton that existed to keep her children fed while she was using another man as a bit of a pleasure-bot on the side.

OT - Yeah, I think owning a character and doing things with it is much the same as owning a piece of human shaped silicone, and that these people are even poking their nose into what other people get up to behind closed doors with bits of rubber shows just how bad our "first world problems" have gotten. . .

[Lady Lisandra]

Could you define "owning a character" please? I don't understand how you do it. Is it a fictional character that doesn't exist in reality? Is it a character Simeon's creates for roleplaying and plays it?

If we're talking about a fictional character, then you can't "own" a character. It's just an idea you have. You don't control it, you create it. The ethical difference is that with a robot you can actually control something, even if it's there's no difference between it and your dishwasher.

But, the sex robot usually is not just a machine. They are given personality, they are linked to a character in the owner's mind. They are given life by the owner. And then, owning a sex robot and "owning" a character are both part of the same thing. You said that you can have sex with a character by putting an avatar of yourself in the story. A sex robot could be the opposite thing, putting an avatar of a character in our reality.

I see no difference appart from the physical thing that happens with robots. The article's writer probably overreacts to the fact of men owning something that resembles a living, human woman, specially thinking that the only difference between a sex robot and a vibrator, or some of the more technological sex toys, is complexity. They're both things you own, program and use.