gynoids, fembots, and androids
famous Canadian Science Fiction novelist
Mark A. Carter pushes back against "The Campaigne
Against Sex Robots."
rage against the machine has hit a new low. No, I'm not
talking about Luddites or
the singing group RATM. I
am speaking about "The Campaign
Against Sex Robots. Yes, Virginia, there really is such
a group. Dr. Kathleen Richardson,
a Senior Research Fellow
in the "Ethics of Robotics"
at De Montford University
in Leicester, is the leader
of "The Campaign."
She believes that sex robots objectify
women. And we don't even have them yet. Nevertheless,
she is esthetically offended,
before the fact, by the notion
of sex robots ever being developed.
Richardson is such a hypocrite.
Firstly, she assumes
that when sex robots are developed
they will be solely female sex robots
and not robots to
satisfy both sexes. Secondly,
let us turn a blind eye to
how women have been pleasuring
themselves for years by objectifying men or at least the vital
parts of men. The colors, shapes, sizes, and variations of
"butt plugs," "ben wa balls," and
"dildos" that women
use to satisfy themselves, in all of their
polymorphous perversion, going by names like
"fat man©," "cherry bomb©,"
are all fine and good. But
when men want something to do the same, the cry of outrage is
issued from the hilltop of one-sided
moral judgment. Give me a
break. If anything, the "pussy
"Mackenzie Lee Union Jack vagina©," and
the "sexy flight attendant inflatable
doll©" of old objectify women or at least the
sexually satisfying bits of them, despite the vinyl squeaking.
So, what the heck is Dr. Richardson
complaining about? By the sounds of it, she is a
man hater or just wants to make a name for herself.
we are currently nowhere near the
android sophistication of
Weyland Corporation's David in
Ridley Scott's 2012 Science Fiction film
Prometheus or Ava
from Alex Garland's 2015 Sci-Fi
film Ex Machina, production
of rudimentary sex robots has
begun. Call it free enterprise that fulfills a societal need.
your dreams ... a custom designed sex robot
delivered to your front door from the factory circa 2050.
terms of android manufacture,
at the moment, we are a few years away from anything convincing.
But that hasn't stopped entrepreneurs from rushing out primitive,
rubber companions, whether you call them
fembots, gynoids, sexbots or
synthoids. No matter what
sex robots end up being called, anything is an improvement
over the blow up "Diva Love Doll©."
The True Companion
Company is developing a sex robot
later this year. Chief executive
Douglas Hines believes there is a need.
"We are not supplanting the wife or trying to replace a
girlfriend. This is a solution for people who are between relationships
or someone who has lost a spouse. People can find happiness and
fulfilment other than via human interaction." He
informed the BBC that
"Roxxxy©" will eventually be equipped
with a self-learning engine
that is able to talk with her owner and to learn his preferences.
Come on. I can't even get Microsoft's
Cortana© to work right on my computer.
Replicant Zhora and her snake
from Bladerunner (1982)
sit on the floor of the uncanny valley
in terms of human looking robot design. We can produce
what looks close to realistic creations. But they are slightly
off and make us feel unsettled. Robot technical design has improved
by leaps and bounds lately
but no one has merged the two
to create anything resembling a sex
robot. If Boston Dynamics,
the creator of Atlas©,
was in the sex robot
business, we would likely have a robot that
runs like a lawnmower and spews
carbon monoxide out its ass.
And that ain't sexy. So, for the time being,
sex robots remain more fiction than reality and little
more than simple blow ups
or plastic, stiff-jointed automatons.
But I predict
that will change quickly. Like Ava
from the 2013 Sci-fi
film The Machine, directed
by Caradog W. James, a military
need exists to develop realistic robots indistinguishable from
human beings. And that military need will push development. Unlike
the clumsy, tactless, unidirectional, mission-oriented
cyborg in the 1984 Sci-Fi
film The Terminator,
directed by James Cameron,
a realistic looking, intelligent,
android will be necessary for covert military missions
of infiltration and assassination, as in
The Machine. Robots used for the
sex trade will be developmental
fallout. I can well see covert
android operatives, possessing
artificial super-intelligence, who have lost their
cutting edge being farmed
out to the sex trade
or becoming free agents. Yikes.
That's a frightening thought. Hookers
and whores of the
world protest now. Your livelihoods are in danger of being taken
over by automation. Of course, automation has always been part
of the sex trade per se. Donovan
wrote a song about it called
"Mellow Yellow" back in
1966 where he sang: "E-lec-tri-cal
so-called sex robot is little more than a homely, sexually
equipped, cross between Mattel's Chatty
Cathy© and Hasbro's
original, articulated joint, twelve
inch G.I. Joe.© I do not mean to disparage
Mattel for their pull-string
"talking doll" manufactured from
1959 to 1965 nor do I mean to disparage
G.I. Joe©, which came out in
1964. I only mean to make the point that the current
so-called sex robot is little
more than "pull string"
with joint articulation. Big
deal. It is hardly a robot. It is actually more of an
ankylotic, talking mannequin.
And, as opposed to what Dr. Richardson
argues, it does not deserve rights. It is not a human
My question is
this: there are so many utterly beautiful mannequins out there;
why haven't these so-called sex-robot
designers modeled their robots after one of them? Aren't
sex robots supposed to excite
you visually? The Replicant basic
pleasure model Pris was attractive in a
whorish way, and the assassin
Replicant Zhora was hot and
sexy in a stripper
way, in the 1982 Science Fiction
film Bladerunner, based
on the 1968 short story, written
by Philip K. Dick entitled
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Similarly,
Ava from Ex Machina
was also attractive. And that's the point. I say this
because the sex robots I have
seen are akin to plain faced, overweight,
fifty year old women with
wheat belly. Plutarch
said, "When the candles are out
all women are fair." But give me a break. With these
so-called sex robots, you
can't make the room dark enough.
And how would
they feel and smell? They don't possess the
human-like skin of Ava
from The Machine, which
is indistinguishable from human skin. They are covered in
tough, slippery vinyl. Really? And vinyl smells like
vinyl. It is a distinctively artificial smell that we associate
with soft plastic. I have too many associations with the vinyl
smell of my yellow, rubber ducky
from childhood bath time to associate that smell with
sensuality or sexuality.
So yuck to both touch and
You have to be
caught up in a fantasy, as
portrayed in the 1987 film
by Michael Gottlieb, to be
excited by these current inanimate
objects passing as sex robots.
But more likely you need to have no sense of smell, and
be blind, have peripheral neuropathy,
and be socially retarded,
or suffering from psychotic
delusion and hallucination
to believe that they are anything resembling a woman.
And any way you slice it,
that doesn't equal satisfaction. Just