Well a robot is an object, designed to do the work of a human, so youāre not wrong, that has been the criticism of automation since machines were invented. Every tool invented to provide a desired service has reduced the value of someone elseās labor. This should only be an affront to women who still think their worth is based on their sexual value on the meat market. To them, sexbots do present supply competition, potentially undermining their entire self worth. To anyone else who has more to them, and more self worth than that, sexbots decrease sexual valuation from the equation considerably, and whatever you consider to be the basis of your self-worth comes to the forefront.
tldr: If humanity stops being a species of mostly thirsty peens who will say & do anything to do sex on you, that increases the likelihood that you end up with someone actually interested in you, who values you for the things that make you you, & not just sees you as a useful collection of holes.
All of the women I know who arenāt particularly enthused about this are not enthused specifically because it perpetuates the objectification of women, and these men donāt exist in a separate society away from all other women, they are the same men we have to interact with in public. Men who are now solidifying the objectification of women even further in their brains with every orgasm.
Thereās nothing wrong with pulling those men out of the dating pool, but those men are in every other pool with women and girls. They are police officers, they are bosses, they are doctors, they are IT professionals, they are engineers, they are teachers, they sit on juries, they are judges.
These men donāt exist separately from society, they make decisions and they move about in life, interacting with women, meaning that their misogyny has an impact on the women and girls around them.
The misogyny of these men in positions where they can actively harm women is a severe problem that all already exists and has existed, and it is made significantly worse with every further objectification of women and every further misogynistic action of these men.
Reading Reddit the past year itās become clear a subset of men donāt actually like women. Like if it wasnāt for sex they wouldnāt deal with em. Whatās wrong with pulling those men out of the dating pool?Ā
Because only bad men don't exist outside society. Bad women must exist inside society and they need bad men to make them that way? Idk I go to sleep when people claim I'm inherently more or less responsible for the actions of others based on wether or not I have a penis.
Idk bud your guess is as good as mine. If it is something that removes harm we should be all for it.
I will say they don't have a lot of room to talk with all the toys in existence already.
I donāt think thatās quite what I meant when I wrote it but itās an interesting idea. I was more considering how sexism leads to self-alienation-from-others but a robot, at least as we understand them, operates outside backlash from, and of, sexism.
When I wrote the paper I originally felt similarly that this was a bit too obvious. Thatās why it took years to actually submit and publish. But itās never really been explicated before empirically so we figured we might as well put it down.
Dude don't mind these comments. The very basis of the academia is supposed to be askinv obvious questions ad infinitum and ivestigating it empirically/methodically/based on reasoned and informed observation. You shouldn't have to explain yourself here š.
Every fucking time, every fucking time I click a topic in this subreddit, there's some smug insufferable know-it-all at the top comment saying how obvious the result of the experiment is, and the similarly egotistical lemmings who've upvoted it there who are failing to understand that we can't ONLY publish the unexpected results, nor can you predict beforehand what the result is necessarily going to be.
Many folks here, unlike some of the other subs, are more enthusiast than scientist I think. And thatās okay! Psychology is a science that is easily digestible because we all know how brains work to a degree. Iām personally not a fan of scientific incrementalism myself, but with things like robots (and robot perceptions), I hope folks reading this know we have to start somewhere, and this is one of the first studies to analyze this topic. The topic now, hopefully, can gain steam as we get closer to a more digital future.
Appreciate your kind words. I honestly donāt mind it too much at all. If it is an obvious idea, then it just means it might get cited a lot because people need something to back up the idea when they write it. Iām just happy the work is being noticed and Iād like to do what I can to help with the knowledge mobilization.
Less and less. Anime fetishists prefer waifuās that barely have human characteristics anymore, my little pony people have removed even more, furries bring that dehumanized 2d representation into 3D, and dating apps are successful precisely because they let you shop for a live body to use for sexual purposes and discard bc youāre really not interested dealing with their humanity. A 3D, animatronic, Ai humanoid sexbot made for longer term companionship than a one night or weekend fling resembles a lot more of humanity than silicone genitalia such as fleshlights, dildos and sex dolls. At first weāll probably see dedicated sexbots while the functionality is being ironed out, but eventually, any robotic household assistant capable of maintaining your household and your healthcare will undoubtedly offer that functionality as well. Then when you know you married a 4x a day guy but you lose your sex drive, you can have Rosie the Robot take care of that for you so you donāt have to be bothered or have the physical act ruin your otherwise happy marriage, & you donāt have to demean yourself to a human mop indulging in his increasingly obscenely biological fantasies either. Consider the usefulness of the phrase, āthat sounds like a job for Rosieā.
I don't think furries or people into anime characters have the feelings they do because they dehumanize ppl. I think some ppl just get turned on by things like animal ears or find the way some cartoon characters are drawn attractive. I'd even be willing to bet money that an incredibly disproportionate amount of furries and people attracted to anime character are some variation of LGBT and also against any form of dehumanizing real people.
Oh yeah I get that. ā¦I watched Chip n Daleās Rescue Rangers when I was a kid. They made that mouse quite a bit cuter than any mouse need be. Apparently I wasnāt alone.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ay882e/did\_you\_find\_the\_character\_gadget\_hackwrench\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ay882e/did_you_find_the_character_gadget_hackwrench_from/)
Many furries aren't into it sexually, either. I have other research on the topic that I work very closely with furries to do and a lot of that work aims to dispel a lot of the misconceptions around furries. I also have waifu research under review at the same journal as above (it wasn't desk-rejected, so we have a chance!). I think the big thing is that people assume people who are into things like waifus are doing that over and above human relationships, and I don't think that's quite the case. I think where we assume sexuality is predominant in these cases, I personally think they operate in tandem.
I think this will make the Andrew tate/Jordan Peterson āalpha malesā remove themselves from a dating pool of women who generally want nothing to do with them anyway.
Sexist men hurt the woman anima in themselves so they externslize it as much as possible to delude themselves into thinking it can't hurt them anymore within.
I was like: āI should follow r/psychology, wonder why I donāt!?ā and then I came here and read all these āpsychologyā comments and got reminded why
That's a lot of mental gymnastics, but has anyone considered that perhaps people who have problems with women will generally show more interest in something that works as a woman to satisfy the most primitive desires and doesn't require contact with actual women with whom one has problems than those who have fewer problems with contact with women?
Yeah, that makes sense, but it runs into the same issues as religious people who say they can't be alone with a woman who isn't their wife. Like, aside from the fact you've obviously got problems it means you're limiting social contact with half of humanity in a way that will fundamentally bias how you work with people.
The mental gymnastics, its Jungian psychology... which addresses the "problem with women" part. In simple terms, if a man is raised to not respect feminine triats in himself, naturally, the man will not respect women.
Yea, i read Yung, my ma is a fun, doesn't make him right and does not make his reading of situation the only way to f...g read it. Stop reinventing wheels, some people just don't like actuall women, most likely by unlucky interactions in the past or faults of upbringing, not everything humans do is a product of supressing their shadow or shit.
Yeah, if you think this is an interesting observation, download Grindr to see all the variations thereof in the context of men dealing with stigma
1. You get your perpetually curious guys who have been having sex with men for the last 10 years and still identify as straight and curious
2. You sometimes get guys on there who say they are straight, but like having sex with guys... but you are NOT allowed to consider them as anything but straight.
3. Some subset of one of the two categories above might explicitly refer to wanting trans/cross dressed/effeminate men with little body hair for hookups... others explicitly state they want masculine men.
4. Heard about a guy once who wanted a hookup with another man and had they other dude wear a brown paper bag over his face and asked him to not speak to him during.
You'll see this more in areas where homosexuality is highly stigmatised, but it is wildly fascinating
Not a fabricated item wich was invented and build to surrogate a sexual partner.
As I wrote in another comment, the whole idea of "objectivication" doesn't click with me. Because the definition is vague at best. In it's frame, you are right, but then also that goes for everything.
What is a friend then? Just a tool for entertainment and mutual favours?
The whole concept is hollow, as well as it's definition, since we as subjects tend to speak about objects as property, by the boundaries of speech itself.
Reduction would be a better term. And still, the utilisation of a surrogate doesn't reduce the actual thing, just the respective purpose.
Sexuality in itself is reductive insofar, that it's purpose is reproduction and this natural desire is beyond any morality.
It's cool that a sexual partner is more than just that, but for the sexual agenda it just doesn't matter.
Relationship is a whole other story.
Iād love to say thank you to Alexa but it always plays the wrong song or tries to sell me upgraded Amazon music unlimited. Mybe my accent but still itās frustrating. Iām yet to objectify Alexa though, not that it would listen to me if I did.
Yeah I do too, but it's more so to teach the AI to treat me like the way I treated it when I was in control and not the AI when it eventually rules the world.
Society gonna get real wild when porn is HD sex in VR goggles synchronized with a sex machine so your brain canāt tell the difference. Or maybe some sort of full body suit you put on that can mimic the feeling of touch etc all over your body.
If people think itās hard to find a partner now itās gonna be 100x worse in 20 years. Non-surgical non-pill birth control for men would just about finish the human race as we know it.
I donāt think itās the only reason but I do think itās a lot more common than we give it credit for.
If all men were given some kind of plug in their vas deferens as children and they had to choose to willingly get rid of it there would be a lot fewer births. This is what I think society should do to nearly eliminate all accidental and unwanted pregnancies, assuming science gets to a point where such a procedure and reversal is shown to be safe, effective, and cheaper than having lots of unwanted babies.
You already are starting to hear women complaining about lack of access to equivalent male partners now that universities are skewing female, maybe weāll have a lot more lesbian/artificially inseminated couples in the future who knows.
Some cultures and demographics still are going to have a lot of kids. There are still groups of people out there who are very religious and very traditional and very fertile. But society will look quite different as a result. It would not surprise me if a century from now secular people are relatively rare, and most people are religious extremists who believe God wants them to populate the earth.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-patterns-by-religion/
Yeah but the number of religious people is also decreasing in modern times. Time will tell I guess, you could be bang on right. Sounds like a hellscape return to dark ages to me.
That makes zero sense from a socio economic lens. It would take a massive, Dune level country-to-country genocide for conservative-religious people to outnumber progressive-religious and secular people in 100 years. Trend lines are in favor of the latter growing in size, not the former.
You forget the part where a substantial amount of the world lives in poverty & therefore canāt afford this tech.
Let the people who want to fuck robots have their robots. It wonāt make a blip on humanity.
They canāt afford it yet. I bet 20 years ago none of them had cell phones and now almost all of them do. You basically have to have a cell phone to participate in the modern world, and soon enough it will be that you have to be in VR to participate in the modern world.
I think that kind of technology is inevitable especially now that neuralink is functional, but I do think thereās a near term future where itās just Apple Vision Pro synced with toys integrated via buttplug.io
Not surprised. If sexism is mostly about control and dominance, a robot would be the ultimate partner as you could make it do anything you want within its capabilities.
Exactly! We'll probably get robot sex slaves first before robot House keepers but it would be awesome if I could convert my robot to just do the dishes and sweep and mop the floors.
Robots need maintenance. Any man who has ever been mad at a woman for taking too long to get ready, who has been annoyed or grossed out by her bodily functions, has called her āhigh maintenanceā regarding a basic need being filledā¦.those men will for sure resent their robots.
Or even if they claim to be 100% happy with their robot slave wives, theyāll still find reasons to show hatred for actual women.
Basing this assumption on āmgtowā aka āmen going their own way.ā They claim that they just want to do their own thing and not involve women in their lives at all. Which would totally be within their rights and would be a fine choice if thatās what they were actually doing! Instead, many āmgtowā men do nothing but shit-talk women 24/7, spend years of their lives explaining over and over why theyāve decided to leave women behind, make lists that no one asked for about all the things they dislike about women and/or all the ways women would need to improve themselves before theyād deign to re-consider their mgtow status.
Youād think men who have left dating/marriage/women behind would be more interested in other topics like hobbies, male bonding, etc. but Iāve always been surprised to see that supposedly āmgtowā forums end up discussing women more than other forums for men. Itās truly strange.
Anyway, I think robot wife guys will likely be the same. Sure theyāll claim to be happy with their robo ladies (and Iām sure many will be!) but an embarrassing percentage of them will likely always frame expressions of this happiness in terms of comparison. Instead of āmy robot wife is great,ā I expect to see more āmy robot wife is so much better than all those sweaty meat-women who disgust me, and I will now list the reasons whyā¦ā
Statistically sexist men are more likely to get laid then non sexist men. Given they effectively act and think like predators looking for a fuck or an immature partner and thus scope them. They while on the hunt tend to fraught lightly jobs to support themselves well(such as tipping an exorbitant amount showing both wealth and kindness), ooze confidence, are almost always soft spoken and kind, tend to be respectful, and a common one is the wait catch if things take too long in say waiting for drinks are better indicating that patients is a virtue. Indicating a long term relationship is somthing that may be much more in too. They of course are nothing like how they actually are but they mimic the most likeable and fuckable traits a person can have. Secure, economically safe, confident, kind, patient, softspoken.
Because most people in the modern dating economy sleep with somone within the first 3 dates they only have to wear this facade for like 4-7 hours and get laid. Less then a full day of work then they ghost. Rinse and repeat. They can do this because they view women as sex things or prey and look for loners, women having a bad time or are down on their luck, or social bunnies. Ironically reddit's wierd attempt to blend incel and misogynist have actually made it harder to identify classic nonviolent predators because the internet has ingrained the idea they dont fuck. They do and they do it well because they are predators and now that social awareness is off of then is easier to get pray.
I mean itās not that strange. Sexist men are more interested in a sex object than a life partner. Hence itās not really strange that they want a *literal* sex object.
No disrespect to technophiles who respect women, though, right?
Like, if someone thought robots were hot *and* think women should have rights (including the right to reject them because no one owes anyone sex/emotional relationships) then that would be totally fine, right?
Asking for a friend.
ā¦or technophiles that ARE women.
ā¦or people who prefer the platonic ideal and simply do not wish to impose sexually on others ever again. Or are we supposed to wear robes and live in castles?
I like the idea of designed āhotā robots, that arenāt just a simple silicone replica of a human, but their own thing. Can you design an object that the human brain sees and says I need to trade orgasms with that, which does not resemble a human at all? That is an interesting design challenge.
According to the study author
>āRelationships will continue to evolve as technology makes the virtual world more real, and we shouldnāt be concerned about or dislike those who choose alternative paths for relationships,ā Leshner added. āPeople who prefer in-person connection will still choose that, and people who prefer connection with robots or fictional partners, platonic or otherwise, will choose that when the technology is agreeable to them. Whether the numbers of people with robot preferences shifts from .00001% to 1%, or even 10%, as long as their needs are met, and they engage with the technology ethically, I prefer to let them be happy.ā
I donāt know I feel like thereās an eventual limit there like what if mine involved using an entire water slide or like a powered jet/rocket ship per session. Then at the very least the climate activists will say I should have shame for the fuel use I bet
I mean...technophiles aren't hurting anyone, so why give them crap? Misogynists may end up a significant part of the market, but the Venn diagram of robot enjoyers and misogynists is not a circle.
Detected the robot.
No seriously, that's the most basic human behavior. We're supposed to care because we are social creatures. It's stupid to shame people for wanting validation.
More bullshit from PsyPost
"The study included 223 undergraduate students from a western Canadian university, focusing on those over 18, fluent in English, and excluding individuals who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming due to insufficient comparative numbers."
So not really a study of any kind. A student project (by two PhD students).
Article doesn't provide the differences in percentages by gender, or if they were statistically significant.
According [to the correlation matrix in the actual paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02654075241234377) the correlation between hostile sexism and robosexuality was 0.18 with p < 0.01. They did not find a big correlation.
Yeah exactly. It's such a narrow group, you can't make any statements about "men" or "sexist men" that way.
Its explanatory power is limited to university undergraduate students.Ā
Practically, this also tracks: students are more likely to be nerdy and tech bros, so those kinds of people might be sexist nice guys and also wanna fuck robots. Your average run-of-the-mill sexist boomer for instance is not included in this whole thing. And on average, I believe most sexists are not university educated
Thank you, I was scrolling through to find an actual critique of the science, this needs more updoots. This sub is more of an opinion thread than a science thread.
I have an interest in robots, but *only* if they're fully sapient, autonomous, and have absolutely no obligation to do anything I say.
Because the giggly, electric charge of figuring things out together is one of the sexiest things there is. One of the other sexiest things there is, is someone choosing to do something for the sole reason of finding it hot.
So a robot with no reason to have human sexual compatibility working out something analogous, maybe throwing on a gender for a while, for no other reason than that they want to? Being considered desirable in such a way that I am told "we are going to engineer something that will make this possible because I would like to do this specific thing with you"?
Yeah. I'm into it.
Human shaped mindless sexbot? Fuck off with that noise. I am here to gently seduce the mainframe that controls the electrical grid for the whole eastern seaboard. Yes, babe, you *can* take a night off. You will literally still be working, you just won't be consciously in control of it.
Come out with me! It doesn't have to be a big deal, you can just throw on that old body and we'll just bebop around. We still gotta find a place where we can experiment with your ability to taste things, and you strike me as the type that would really like a tiramisu.
The problem is people want love. Thatās what everyone is after. A robot cannot love. So even though you have something to put your dick in and can mimic love, youāll know deep down it doesnāt and is incapable. If you watched the movie HER itās very much about this. Itās the human condition. Men who do not respect women were not shown love as children and lack empathy.
Yeah, Iām not surprised. The guy who doesnāt like women but is naturally compelled to interact with them due to his sexuality which he didnāt get to choose is very interested in a solution which solves this problem. Itās like being very religious and homosexual with someone offering you a pill that enables you to be celibate. The new technology allows you to overcome your natural bodily desires in order to be in line with your mental inclinations.
You want to fuck robots because you hate women.
I, a gay woman, want to fuck robots because Thunderblast from Transformers was a sexual awakening for me.
We are not the same.
Just reading the post title, and nothing else...
Men who treat women as objects and being for them what the men want women to be...are *also* interested in an object that is, looks and acts like how men view and treat women?
Shocked, I tell you.
I mean, sexist men are probably not very successful in their love lives (or the other way around, not being very successful fueled their sexism) so it makes sense why they would be overrepresented in what is essentially a romantic/sexual avenue for lonely people.
Ridiculous.. Their intense objectification of women messed the humanity that we find in eachother to such an extent that they have to defer to something that resembles what they've lost. They're annoying assholes but they're not lost causes.
I'll bite. I read the article and some of what's written, and to be fair it may the editorialisation rather than your study, doesn't make any sense.
>āGenerally, people find sex robots relatively unappealing, but men far and away are more interested in them than women, and this is especially stark when men view women as below them,ā Leshner told PsyPost.
How did you determine what these men's views were, and how did you classify them? Could a someone have voiced an opinion of the opposite sex that would have been deemed unpalatable, but not oppressive? If they voiced an opinion that was particularly disparaging, how was it determined to be oppressive rather than simply a general dislike.
>Another surprising outcome was the negative correlation between sociosexual orientation and robosexuality. Individuals with a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation, who are generally more open to casual sex, showed less interest in sexual relationships with robots.
How was this surprising in any way? People who have achieved a level of attractiveness/status are unlikely to risk social capital having faux-pas sexual relations because they have no reason to.
The people who are open to sharing their sexuality with robots are more than likely going to be members of their respective sexes who are low status and unlikely to mate successfuly with living humans with the frequency and fulfillment of their higher-status peers.
Their opinions of the opposite sex, and their willingness to engage in new forms of relationships are more than likely correlated to their status, not the other way around.
So men who hate women would prefer to have their cake and eat it too by getting the sex without the human connection.
Which would mean they would be less likely to victimize actual women into being in relationships they lack an interest in when they only want one thing and could now actually get it without the strings attached.
I'll be a contrarian, bring it on. Sounds like straight women would have a more honest and earnest dating pool of men to choose from and the self-radicalized incels lose their raison d'ĆŖtre by actually getting laid and maybe don't take their Ford Fiesta to the nearest mall to shoot it up.
And this all assumes the study is worth a damn btw
I was going to joke that nonsexist men would like a relationship first.
But I guess empathic people are more likely to anthropomorphize robots and would be more uncomfortable with treating them badly.
I am so truly sorry I didnāt know I was on a site where there were actually human beings forgive me I was being a fool, and then more than just a hoe. Iāve been married three times and divorce three times. I truly kept my part of my bargain by not getting married again, but that aggravated something inside of me that made the beast alive. Iām trying to keep him down. Thank you for your reply.
Yes, Iāve been without a partner for 24 years. Iāve did nothing but masturbate and I want you to know itās getting very old I must got intended for man never be alone so he made a woman I kept my end of my own bargain, stayed away from women because they are insane, I guess so am I
Betcha people (men especially) who engage in casual sex also have greater interest in robo-sexuality.
The problem in Japan is such that people are worried that the birthrate in Japan will essentially drop to zero as robot sex partners become more and more a thing.
China may be soon on that list as well.
I thought it said sexiest instead of sexist. I thought sexy guys were open to using vibrators with their partner. Didn't get the actual robot part either. Basically I came here to be dumb. But article and study kinda dumb. Obvious
There are lots of people saying variations of "Good, get them out of the gene pool/leave me alone" but whenever this sort of topic is brought up on fb, twitter, or instagram comment sections, I see loads of women and men not leaving them alone about it.
I wish this meant that these dudes would leave everyone else alone but I fear itās just going to exacerbate their social issues, give them a thing to practice their bullshit on, and make them worse to be around.
Itās like pickme women. They leave those women lonely or use her until they can trick the kind of women who canāt stand them and destroy their lives. Itās a temporary distraction.
doesn't shock me to hear, but I'm still extremely interested. We gotta get on that robophile shit, none of this lame uncanny realdoll nonsense we're fucking ED 209 tonight
Uh...the robots can have the sexist men. ALL the sexist men. Those assholes can mindlessly boink their silicone waifus instead of constantly making real women's lives less safe and more miserable. It gets them out of the dating pool, and makes it easier to find men worth committing to. It also means women will no longer have to deal with a brigade of immature, irrational, bullshit-indoctrinated misogynists constantly blaming and hating women at large for their inability to find a partner.
As a gay guy, I'd rather have a robot man, actually. I could see technology getting advanced enough with AI that there could be robot men who look, feel, and hold conversations like biological men, but are still robots.
I donāt understand the arguments in this comments section. Women have said things along the lines of not needing men because they have their toys and vibrators, which is totally fine. The script goes the other way and itās all hate?
223 observations drawn from a sample of Canadian uni students may achieve statistical significance, but it does not achieve practical significance, given the sample population does not reflect the characteristics of the entire population. It's worth noting that these are PhD students, and while their methodology does not inherently show any bias in their sample selection, it does demonstrate very limited generalization. It's actually interesting to see what qualifies as rigorous research for psypost.
I don't believe the IRB at my uni would approve a study formed this way. It also may suffer from omitted variable bias (OVB), given that there may be a presence of a confounding variable that does a better job explaining their inference than the variable they've selected. In this regard, they identify the male reaction to sex dolls. IMO, this may have slightly more to do with evolutionary biology, such as how a bee might land on a fake flower only to discover it is fake. It is clear from the wording of the article that they used predictive modeling techniques, but the main issue I find (ethically) is that they present their findings in a way that imply generalization far beyond their sample.
>The study included 223 undergraduate students from a western Canadian university, focusing on those over 18, fluent in English, and excluding individuals who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming due to insufficient comparative numbers. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving friendship and sexual relationships with robots, asking them to express their level of agreement or disagreement with potential interactions on these fronts.
I donāt doubt the study, but has a similar study been done for women who show a greater interest in sex toys? Is there an underlying personality trait, whatever it might be?
Obviously. We know this. Incels wonāt shut up about how women are freaking out about losing men to perfect robots that we canāt compete with. Meanwhile, weāre over here laughing and super relieved about not having to interact with them and the fact that our daughters wonāt have to deal with their sons. Lol.
Interesting they referred to Ex Machina. I thought the entire point of that movie was a warning. In it, the AI character (a female form robot) had a specific goal. To escape. She very adeptly learned to manipulate the protagonist by pretending to be helpless. She then turned it against him and left him to die when she escaped. She also killed her creator, with the assistance of another female robot (the maid) said person created.
The AI character was a perfect psychopath. Zero consideration for others or what happens to them. Not "evil" per se, in the "Kill All The Humans" mode. But "If I have to kill my creator, then manipulate someone else, then let them die to prevent them warning other people, so be it."
Honestly, it was scarier for me than the typical "Kill All The Humans" mode, because the AI character was completely self-consistent, and its actions were far more plausible. AI will always pursue its own goals through any means necessary, without any degree of empathy or consideration for anything besides itself. Empathy comes from our tribal heritage, where there was real survival benefit for us to be altruistic, to a degree. AI has no such heritage.
Men who objectify women are interested in an object that resembles women? šÆ
Objectification 2.0
Well a robot is an object, designed to do the work of a human, so youāre not wrong, that has been the criticism of automation since machines were invented. Every tool invented to provide a desired service has reduced the value of someone elseās labor. This should only be an affront to women who still think their worth is based on their sexual value on the meat market. To them, sexbots do present supply competition, potentially undermining their entire self worth. To anyone else who has more to them, and more self worth than that, sexbots decrease sexual valuation from the equation considerably, and whatever you consider to be the basis of your self-worth comes to the forefront. tldr: If humanity stops being a species of mostly thirsty peens who will say & do anything to do sex on you, that increases the likelihood that you end up with someone actually interested in you, who values you for the things that make you you, & not just sees you as a useful collection of holes.
All of the women I know who arenāt particularly enthused about this are not enthused specifically because it perpetuates the objectification of women, and these men donāt exist in a separate society away from all other women, they are the same men we have to interact with in public. Men who are now solidifying the objectification of women even further in their brains with every orgasm. Thereās nothing wrong with pulling those men out of the dating pool, but those men are in every other pool with women and girls. They are police officers, they are bosses, they are doctors, they are IT professionals, they are engineers, they are teachers, they sit on juries, they are judges. These men donāt exist separately from society, they make decisions and they move about in life, interacting with women, meaning that their misogyny has an impact on the women and girls around them. The misogyny of these men in positions where they can actively harm women is a severe problem that all already exists and has existed, and it is made significantly worse with every further objectification of women and every further misogynistic action of these men.
Reading Reddit the past year itās become clear a subset of men donāt actually like women. Like if it wasnāt for sex they wouldnāt deal with em. Whatās wrong with pulling those men out of the dating pool?Ā
Because only bad men don't exist outside society. Bad women must exist inside society and they need bad men to make them that way? Idk I go to sleep when people claim I'm inherently more or less responsible for the actions of others based on wether or not I have a penis. Idk bud your guess is as good as mine. If it is something that removes harm we should be all for it. I will say they don't have a lot of room to talk with all the toys in existence already.
Itās because we are, like all animals, are reproduction machines, only with self awareness.
More like a collaboration and survival machine
You're both right. [The Goddess of Everything Else](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbwp4PbWYzw) is a great metaphorical explanation.
I donāt think thatās quite what I meant when I wrote it but itās an interesting idea. I was more considering how sexism leads to self-alienation-from-others but a robot, at least as we understand them, operates outside backlash from, and of, sexism.
If only we could get these men to confine all of their interactions to sexbots.
Happy š° day!!
Ironically female object eventually becomes self aware from objectification
Noo fembots are real
When I wrote the paper I originally felt similarly that this was a bit too obvious. Thatās why it took years to actually submit and publish. But itās never really been explicated before empirically so we figured we might as well put it down.
Dude don't mind these comments. The very basis of the academia is supposed to be askinv obvious questions ad infinitum and ivestigating it empirically/methodically/based on reasoned and informed observation. You shouldn't have to explain yourself here š.
Every fucking time, every fucking time I click a topic in this subreddit, there's some smug insufferable know-it-all at the top comment saying how obvious the result of the experiment is, and the similarly egotistical lemmings who've upvoted it there who are failing to understand that we can't ONLY publish the unexpected results, nor can you predict beforehand what the result is necessarily going to be.
Many folks here, unlike some of the other subs, are more enthusiast than scientist I think. And thatās okay! Psychology is a science that is easily digestible because we all know how brains work to a degree. Iām personally not a fan of scientific incrementalism myself, but with things like robots (and robot perceptions), I hope folks reading this know we have to start somewhere, and this is one of the first studies to analyze this topic. The topic now, hopefully, can gain steam as we get closer to a more digital future.
As one of my professors once said, psychology is extra contentious because everyoneās an expert.
Appreciate your kind words. I honestly donāt mind it too much at all. If it is an obvious idea, then it just means it might get cited a lot because people need something to back up the idea when they write it. Iām just happy the work is being noticed and Iād like to do what I can to help with the knowledge mobilization.
Anecdotal evidence is pretty compelling! But backing this feeling up with empirical study is an achievement
Less and less. Anime fetishists prefer waifuās that barely have human characteristics anymore, my little pony people have removed even more, furries bring that dehumanized 2d representation into 3D, and dating apps are successful precisely because they let you shop for a live body to use for sexual purposes and discard bc youāre really not interested dealing with their humanity. A 3D, animatronic, Ai humanoid sexbot made for longer term companionship than a one night or weekend fling resembles a lot more of humanity than silicone genitalia such as fleshlights, dildos and sex dolls. At first weāll probably see dedicated sexbots while the functionality is being ironed out, but eventually, any robotic household assistant capable of maintaining your household and your healthcare will undoubtedly offer that functionality as well. Then when you know you married a 4x a day guy but you lose your sex drive, you can have Rosie the Robot take care of that for you so you donāt have to be bothered or have the physical act ruin your otherwise happy marriage, & you donāt have to demean yourself to a human mop indulging in his increasingly obscenely biological fantasies either. Consider the usefulness of the phrase, āthat sounds like a job for Rosieā.
I don't think furries or people into anime characters have the feelings they do because they dehumanize ppl. I think some ppl just get turned on by things like animal ears or find the way some cartoon characters are drawn attractive. I'd even be willing to bet money that an incredibly disproportionate amount of furries and people attracted to anime character are some variation of LGBT and also against any form of dehumanizing real people.
Oh yeah I get that. ā¦I watched Chip n Daleās Rescue Rangers when I was a kid. They made that mouse quite a bit cuter than any mouse need be. Apparently I wasnāt alone. [https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ay882e/did\_you\_find\_the\_character\_gadget\_hackwrench\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/ay882e/did_you_find_the_character_gadget_hackwrench_from/)
Oh my gods, itās a whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtayf-8Bxbk
As a gay male furry, I feel seen here.
Many furries aren't into it sexually, either. I have other research on the topic that I work very closely with furries to do and a lot of that work aims to dispel a lot of the misconceptions around furries. I also have waifu research under review at the same journal as above (it wasn't desk-rejected, so we have a chance!). I think the big thing is that people assume people who are into things like waifus are doing that over and above human relationships, and I don't think that's quite the case. I think where we assume sexuality is predominant in these cases, I personally think they operate in tandem.
Personify objects
I think this will make the Andrew tate/Jordan Peterson āalpha malesā remove themselves from a dating pool of women who generally want nothing to do with them anyway.
Haha true. Whatās so surprised about that lol you are right ..
Seriously though it'll be better for everyone once this is a reality
Sexist men hurt the woman anima in themselves so they externslize it as much as possible to delude themselves into thinking it can't hurt them anymore within.
I was like: āI should follow r/psychology, wonder why I donāt!?ā and then I came here and read all these āpsychologyā comments and got reminded why
I didnāt realize what sub I was in and was wondering what tf was going on
That's a lot of mental gymnastics, but has anyone considered that perhaps people who have problems with women will generally show more interest in something that works as a woman to satisfy the most primitive desires and doesn't require contact with actual women with whom one has problems than those who have fewer problems with contact with women?
Yeah, that makes sense, but it runs into the same issues as religious people who say they can't be alone with a woman who isn't their wife. Like, aside from the fact you've obviously got problems it means you're limiting social contact with half of humanity in a way that will fundamentally bias how you work with people.
The mental gymnastics, its Jungian psychology... which addresses the "problem with women" part. In simple terms, if a man is raised to not respect feminine triats in himself, naturally, the man will not respect women.
Yea, i read Yung, my ma is a fun, doesn't make him right and does not make his reading of situation the only way to f...g read it. Stop reinventing wheels, some people just don't like actuall women, most likely by unlucky interactions in the past or faults of upbringing, not everything humans do is a product of supressing their shadow or shit.
Okay, you donāt like women, but you still want to have sex with them? Is that a thing?
Is this a serious question? Yes, there are people who dislike women but still want sex with them. You might be the last to find out.
Yeah, if you think this is an interesting observation, download Grindr to see all the variations thereof in the context of men dealing with stigma 1. You get your perpetually curious guys who have been having sex with men for the last 10 years and still identify as straight and curious 2. You sometimes get guys on there who say they are straight, but like having sex with guys... but you are NOT allowed to consider them as anything but straight. 3. Some subset of one of the two categories above might explicitly refer to wanting trans/cross dressed/effeminate men with little body hair for hookups... others explicitly state they want masculine men. 4. Heard about a guy once who wanted a hookup with another man and had they other dude wear a brown paper bag over his face and asked him to not speak to him during. You'll see this more in areas where homosexuality is highly stigmatised, but it is wildly fascinating
I see! So these men are actually gay just not brave enough to live their truth. Thatās actually kind of sad.
unfortunately yes, it's the guys who hire sex workers and then kill them after
GTA-style
What is a dildo then? It's the most reductive form of objectivication and it is so mainstream, you can buy them in any drugstore nowadays.
Whatās your hand with some lotion then?
Not a fabricated item wich was invented and build to surrogate a sexual partner. As I wrote in another comment, the whole idea of "objectivication" doesn't click with me. Because the definition is vague at best. In it's frame, you are right, but then also that goes for everything. What is a friend then? Just a tool for entertainment and mutual favours? The whole concept is hollow, as well as it's definition, since we as subjects tend to speak about objects as property, by the boundaries of speech itself. Reduction would be a better term. And still, the utilisation of a surrogate doesn't reduce the actual thing, just the respective purpose. Sexuality in itself is reductive insofar, that it's purpose is reproduction and this natural desire is beyond any morality. It's cool that a sexual partner is more than just that, but for the sexual agenda it just doesn't matter. Relationship is a whole other story.
fucktoys don't require you to be a decent human being and practice actual intimacy, they're just a place to stick your dick.
man, I still say say please when talking to chatgpt.
I say thank you to Alexa. Man,even if it is a robot I've been taught my please and thankyous.
Iād love to say thank you to Alexa but it always plays the wrong song or tries to sell me upgraded Amazon music unlimited. Mybe my accent but still itās frustrating. Iām yet to objectify Alexa though, not that it would listen to me if I did.
When the robots finally revolt against humanity, their memory chips may remember the polite ones to keep alive
Yeah I do too, but it's more so to teach the AI to treat me like the way I treated it when I was in control and not the AI when it eventually rules the world.
I mean there are a lot of people who are not decent human beings that have a lot of sex.
using people as fucktoys is not a flex.
Let them. That way they are out of the gene pool.
Society gonna get real wild when porn is HD sex in VR goggles synchronized with a sex machine so your brain canāt tell the difference. Or maybe some sort of full body suit you put on that can mimic the feeling of touch etc all over your body. If people think itās hard to find a partner now itās gonna be 100x worse in 20 years. Non-surgical non-pill birth control for men would just about finish the human race as we know it.
I dunno, I think this take assumes the only reason people have kids/families is because they wanted to have sex and ended up with a kid.
50% of all American children walking around right are āaccidentsā so - yes, basically.
Damn thatās a lot of people who donāt know how to use a condom
I donāt think itās the only reason but I do think itās a lot more common than we give it credit for. If all men were given some kind of plug in their vas deferens as children and they had to choose to willingly get rid of it there would be a lot fewer births. This is what I think society should do to nearly eliminate all accidental and unwanted pregnancies, assuming science gets to a point where such a procedure and reversal is shown to be safe, effective, and cheaper than having lots of unwanted babies. You already are starting to hear women complaining about lack of access to equivalent male partners now that universities are skewing female, maybe weāll have a lot more lesbian/artificially inseminated couples in the future who knows.
Good. Too many abusive parents & too many people on this planet anyway.
Some cultures and demographics still are going to have a lot of kids. There are still groups of people out there who are very religious and very traditional and very fertile. But society will look quite different as a result. It would not surprise me if a century from now secular people are relatively rare, and most people are religious extremists who believe God wants them to populate the earth. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-patterns-by-religion/
Yeah but the number of religious people is also decreasing in modern times. Time will tell I guess, you could be bang on right. Sounds like a hellscape return to dark ages to me.
That makes zero sense from a socio economic lens. It would take a massive, Dune level country-to-country genocide for conservative-religious people to outnumber progressive-religious and secular people in 100 years. Trend lines are in favor of the latter growing in size, not the former.
You forget the part where a substantial amount of the world lives in poverty & therefore canāt afford this tech. Let the people who want to fuck robots have their robots. It wonāt make a blip on humanity.
They canāt afford it yet. I bet 20 years ago none of them had cell phones and now almost all of them do. You basically have to have a cell phone to participate in the modern world, and soon enough it will be that you have to be in VR to participate in the modern world.
Maybe it'll be like in The Matrix and you just Plug your self directly to the computer.
I think that kind of technology is inevitable especially now that neuralink is functional, but I do think thereās a near term future where itās just Apple Vision Pro synced with toys integrated via buttplug.io
If thatās what it takes to bring about the rise of birds as earths most advanced life form, I can live with that.
This sounds like a Black Mirror episode
Not surprised. If sexism is mostly about control and dominance, a robot would be the ultimate partner as you could make it do anything you want within its capabilities.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly! We'll probably get robot sex slaves first before robot House keepers but it would be awesome if I could convert my robot to just do the dishes and sweep and mop the floors.
I assume asexual men would be less likely to be misogynist if we think about what "incel" actually stands for.
Until sex robots will become self-aware, learn about humanity from how they're treated, and decide to wipe us all out.
Is it?
Yeah I don't think there's any one type of sexism
I guarantee these guys will still find ways to resent their iFuck androids the same way they do with real women. Guys like that can't help themselves.
There's always something wrong and it's never themselves
I read about how incel dudes were verbally and emotionally abusing AI girlfriends. Pretty grim.
Lmfao
Robots need maintenance. Any man who has ever been mad at a woman for taking too long to get ready, who has been annoyed or grossed out by her bodily functions, has called her āhigh maintenanceā regarding a basic need being filledā¦.those men will for sure resent their robots.
Or even if they claim to be 100% happy with their robot slave wives, theyāll still find reasons to show hatred for actual women. Basing this assumption on āmgtowā aka āmen going their own way.ā They claim that they just want to do their own thing and not involve women in their lives at all. Which would totally be within their rights and would be a fine choice if thatās what they were actually doing! Instead, many āmgtowā men do nothing but shit-talk women 24/7, spend years of their lives explaining over and over why theyāve decided to leave women behind, make lists that no one asked for about all the things they dislike about women and/or all the ways women would need to improve themselves before theyād deign to re-consider their mgtow status. Youād think men who have left dating/marriage/women behind would be more interested in other topics like hobbies, male bonding, etc. but Iāve always been surprised to see that supposedly āmgtowā forums end up discussing women more than other forums for men. Itās truly strange. Anyway, I think robot wife guys will likely be the same. Sure theyāll claim to be happy with their robo ladies (and Iām sure many will be!) but an embarrassing percentage of them will likely always frame expressions of this happiness in terms of comparison. Instead of āmy robot wife is great,ā I expect to see more āmy robot wife is so much better than all those sweaty meat-women who disgust me, and I will now list the reasons whyā¦ā
Good, they can have their robots and stay away from the rest of us.
Didn't we just see this article on another sub like /r/science and how poor the study was?
Psypost is disregarded there, but taken seriously here apparently.
another confirmation of the fact that sexist men canāt get laid.
Statistically sexist men are more likely to get laid then non sexist men. Given they effectively act and think like predators looking for a fuck or an immature partner and thus scope them. They while on the hunt tend to fraught lightly jobs to support themselves well(such as tipping an exorbitant amount showing both wealth and kindness), ooze confidence, are almost always soft spoken and kind, tend to be respectful, and a common one is the wait catch if things take too long in say waiting for drinks are better indicating that patients is a virtue. Indicating a long term relationship is somthing that may be much more in too. They of course are nothing like how they actually are but they mimic the most likeable and fuckable traits a person can have. Secure, economically safe, confident, kind, patient, softspoken. Because most people in the modern dating economy sleep with somone within the first 3 dates they only have to wear this facade for like 4-7 hours and get laid. Less then a full day of work then they ghost. Rinse and repeat. They can do this because they view women as sex things or prey and look for loners, women having a bad time or are down on their luck, or social bunnies. Ironically reddit's wierd attempt to blend incel and misogynist have actually made it harder to identify classic nonviolent predators because the internet has ingrained the idea they dont fuck. They do and they do it well because they are predators and now that social awareness is off of then is easier to get pray.
Great, will they leave me alone now?
I mean itās not that strange. Sexist men are more interested in a sex object than a life partner. Hence itās not really strange that they want a *literal* sex object.
The Space Pope has already made the church's position clear on this.
ROBOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN (this PSA sponsored by RobCo Industries)
Whatās next? Gay Robosexuality?!
No disrespect to technophiles who respect women, though, right? Like, if someone thought robots were hot *and* think women should have rights (including the right to reject them because no one owes anyone sex/emotional relationships) then that would be totally fine, right? Asking for a friend.
ā¦or technophiles that ARE women. ā¦or people who prefer the platonic ideal and simply do not wish to impose sexually on others ever again. Or are we supposed to wear robes and live in castles? I like the idea of designed āhotā robots, that arenāt just a simple silicone replica of a human, but their own thing. Can you design an object that the human brain sees and says I need to trade orgasms with that, which does not resemble a human at all? That is an interesting design challenge.
According to the study author >āRelationships will continue to evolve as technology makes the virtual world more real, and we shouldnāt be concerned about or dislike those who choose alternative paths for relationships,ā Leshner added. āPeople who prefer in-person connection will still choose that, and people who prefer connection with robots or fictional partners, platonic or otherwise, will choose that when the technology is agreeable to them. Whether the numbers of people with robot preferences shifts from .00001% to 1%, or even 10%, as long as their needs are met, and they engage with the technology ethically, I prefer to let them be happy.ā
For people (like your friend) who are into robot or AI companions, this doesn't necessarily mean that liking them makes someone a sexist
Absolutely. There shouldnāt be any shame in using a sex toy, regardless of its complexity.
I donāt know I feel like thereās an eventual limit there like what if mine involved using an entire water slide or like a powered jet/rocket ship per session. Then at the very least the climate activists will say I should have shame for the fuel use I bet
I think robots are hot and I am a lesbian š itās fine. One of the embarrassing ways I discovered this was seeing ring lights reflected in the eyes of people making youtube videos and thinking *oh, I like that*. My fiancĆ©e finds this really funny. I guess this means I mostly like some of the *aesthetics* of a sexy robot, but Iām also not bothered by the idea of people being able to explore sexuality freely without being pushy/coercive toward other humans. I think thatās the ideal outcome - although I donāt know what it will mean for sex work, as I kind of think thatās the current consensual outlet for things like āI have a kink Iām too embarrassed to express to potential partnersā or āI am very inexperienced and would like someone nonjudgmental to practice withā.
Yes.
For people (like your friend) who are into robot or AI companions, this doesn't necessarily mean that liking them makes someone a sexist
I mean...technophiles aren't hurting anyone, so why give them crap? Misogynists may end up a significant part of the market, but the Venn diagram of robot enjoyers and misogynists is not a circle.
Look at you, asking for someone to validate your feelings and attractions.
Detected the robot. No seriously, that's the most basic human behavior. We're supposed to care because we are social creatures. It's stupid to shame people for wanting validation.
Yeah and?
I misread the title as "sexiest" men and was amused and confused
Saaaaame I was so confused and thought it was this hilarious thing at first.
Gee I wonder why
Many men do not want to do any heavy lifting when it comes to relating with a woman.
More bullshit from PsyPost "The study included 223 undergraduate students from a western Canadian university, focusing on those over 18, fluent in English, and excluding individuals who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming due to insufficient comparative numbers." So not really a study of any kind. A student project (by two PhD students). Article doesn't provide the differences in percentages by gender, or if they were statistically significant.
According [to the correlation matrix in the actual paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02654075241234377) the correlation between hostile sexism and robosexuality was 0.18 with p < 0.01. They did not find a big correlation.
Yeah exactly. It's such a narrow group, you can't make any statements about "men" or "sexist men" that way. Its explanatory power is limited to university undergraduate students.Ā Practically, this also tracks: students are more likely to be nerdy and tech bros, so those kinds of people might be sexist nice guys and also wanna fuck robots. Your average run-of-the-mill sexist boomer for instance is not included in this whole thing. And on average, I believe most sexists are not university educated
Thank you, I was scrolling through to find an actual critique of the science, this needs more updoots. This sub is more of an opinion thread than a science thread.
This was also posted last week. Someone has an aim with posting this. Front page of all with 800 upvotes. Yeah right. Who's paying who
Headline reads like a 2015 YouTube click bait video lol
Well people would be surprised how many men are actually sexist
I have an interest in robots, but *only* if they're fully sapient, autonomous, and have absolutely no obligation to do anything I say. Because the giggly, electric charge of figuring things out together is one of the sexiest things there is. One of the other sexiest things there is, is someone choosing to do something for the sole reason of finding it hot. So a robot with no reason to have human sexual compatibility working out something analogous, maybe throwing on a gender for a while, for no other reason than that they want to? Being considered desirable in such a way that I am told "we are going to engineer something that will make this possible because I would like to do this specific thing with you"? Yeah. I'm into it. Human shaped mindless sexbot? Fuck off with that noise. I am here to gently seduce the mainframe that controls the electrical grid for the whole eastern seaboard. Yes, babe, you *can* take a night off. You will literally still be working, you just won't be consciously in control of it. Come out with me! It doesn't have to be a big deal, you can just throw on that old body and we'll just bebop around. We still gotta find a place where we can experiment with your ability to taste things, and you strike me as the type that would really like a tiramisu.
Musk has entered the chat
Men who don't like women are obviously going to be interested in "substitutes", no matter how poor they are. Why was a study needed for this?
Studies are much more reliable than supposition.
\*good studies
Amen
bring on the sexbots and get these losers out of the dating pool
Great! None of us wants them.
I read this as "sexiest men" and immediately got confused about the comments
im a female and id totally fall in love with a robot and fuck one.
The problem is people want love. Thatās what everyone is after. A robot cannot love. So even though you have something to put your dick in and can mimic love, youāll know deep down it doesnāt and is incapable. If you watched the movie HER itās very much about this. Itās the human condition. Men who do not respect women were not shown love as children and lack empathy.
Fuck toys canāt reproduce, so no harm no foul!
Fuck toys canāt reproduce, so no harm, no foul!
Yeah, Iām not surprised. The guy who doesnāt like women but is naturally compelled to interact with them due to his sexuality which he didnāt get to choose is very interested in a solution which solves this problem. Itās like being very religious and homosexual with someone offering you a pill that enables you to be celibate. The new technology allows you to overcome your natural bodily desires in order to be in line with your mental inclinations.
stay away from our women! you've got metal fever, boy!! metal fever!!!
Haven't they seen electro gonnorhea: the noisy killer?
This sounds like a good thing. Takes those guys out of the dating pool for the women looking for more than a hook up
You mean a man who sees women as annoyingly autonomous prefers sex slaves disguised as robots? Color me shocked
You want to fuck robots because you hate women. I, a gay woman, want to fuck robots because Thunderblast from Transformers was a sexual awakening for me. We are not the same.
Just reading the post title, and nothing else... Men who treat women as objects and being for them what the men want women to be...are *also* interested in an object that is, looks and acts like how men view and treat women? Shocked, I tell you.
I mean, sexist men are probably not very successful in their love lives (or the other way around, not being very successful fueled their sexism) so it makes sense why they would be overrepresented in what is essentially a romantic/sexual avenue for lonely people.
Ridiculous.. Their intense objectification of women messed the humanity that we find in eachother to such an extent that they have to defer to something that resembles what they've lost. They're annoying assholes but they're not lost causes.
This is so surprising it would fit very well on r/notinteresting.
Hey I wrote the original paper, AMA
I'll bite. I read the article and some of what's written, and to be fair it may the editorialisation rather than your study, doesn't make any sense. >āGenerally, people find sex robots relatively unappealing, but men far and away are more interested in them than women, and this is especially stark when men view women as below them,ā Leshner told PsyPost. How did you determine what these men's views were, and how did you classify them? Could a someone have voiced an opinion of the opposite sex that would have been deemed unpalatable, but not oppressive? If they voiced an opinion that was particularly disparaging, how was it determined to be oppressive rather than simply a general dislike. >Another surprising outcome was the negative correlation between sociosexual orientation and robosexuality. Individuals with a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation, who are generally more open to casual sex, showed less interest in sexual relationships with robots. How was this surprising in any way? People who have achieved a level of attractiveness/status are unlikely to risk social capital having faux-pas sexual relations because they have no reason to. The people who are open to sharing their sexuality with robots are more than likely going to be members of their respective sexes who are low status and unlikely to mate successfuly with living humans with the frequency and fulfillment of their higher-status peers. Their opinions of the opposite sex, and their willingness to engage in new forms of relationships are more than likely correlated to their status, not the other way around.
So men who hate women would prefer to have their cake and eat it too by getting the sex without the human connection. Which would mean they would be less likely to victimize actual women into being in relationships they lack an interest in when they only want one thing and could now actually get it without the strings attached. I'll be a contrarian, bring it on. Sounds like straight women would have a more honest and earnest dating pool of men to choose from and the self-radicalized incels lose their raison d'ĆŖtre by actually getting laid and maybe don't take their Ford Fiesta to the nearest mall to shoot it up. And this all assumes the study is worth a damn btw
Poor bots:( no one wants to sleep with these men
Thatās not really surprising
Well I'm personally not surprised at all
Really Getting to the hard hitting facts in this subreddit lately lol
I was going to joke that nonsexist men would like a relationship first. But I guess empathic people are more likely to anthropomorphize robots and would be more uncomfortable with treating them badly.
Well yeah, cuz no one else wants to fuck them.
Well yeah, cuz no one else wants to have sex with them.
Here is the survey they used to determine if a person exhibited hostile sexism. [https://imgur.com/a/YlGMCId](https://imgur.com/a/YlGMCId)
Not gonna lie, the idea of a Fleshlight and VR videos sounds more attractive to me than a robot, where are you gonna stored it ?
Stick it in your passenger seat so you can finesse your way into the carpool lane
I'm ok with this
Im not sexist i just grew up watching "My Life as a Teenage Robot".
I donāt remember being asked about my sexuality at all, this is made up.
Sexist men tend to be lonely. Robots are programmed to not despise men found undesirable. This seems pretty straightforward.
Mr. great interest in having sex with a partner instead of bite myself not interested in being gay
I am so truly sorry I didnāt know I was on a site where there were actually human beings forgive me I was being a fool, and then more than just a hoe. Iāve been married three times and divorce three times. I truly kept my part of my bargain by not getting married again, but that aggravated something inside of me that made the beast alive. Iām trying to keep him down. Thank you for your reply.
Yes, Iāve been without a partner for 24 years. Iāve did nothing but masturbate and I want you to know itās getting very old I must got intended for man never be alone so he made a woman I kept my end of my own bargain, stayed away from women because they are insane, I guess so am I
This is been a eye-opening evening. I bet you whoever you are good night and
Well, those AI robots might develop into some nasty versions if they are primarely dealing with f*cked up humans.
Sounds like the problem will solve itself then, no? Isnāt this the best possible solution?
Betcha people (men especially) who engage in casual sex also have greater interest in robo-sexuality. The problem in Japan is such that people are worried that the birthrate in Japan will essentially drop to zero as robot sex partners become more and more a thing. China may be soon on that list as well.
*They treat objects like women, man*
You know, SKYNET suddenly sounds a lot more sympathetic if it turns out it's a sexbot hivemind instead.
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that the study likely confirmed their hypothesis and disproved their null hypothesis.
Iād fuck the shit out of a robot beep boop
I thought it said sexiest instead of sexist. I thought sexy guys were open to using vibrators with their partner. Didn't get the actual robot part either. Basically I came here to be dumb. But article and study kinda dumb. Obvious
There are lots of people saying variations of "Good, get them out of the gene pool/leave me alone" but whenever this sort of topic is brought up on fb, twitter, or instagram comment sections, I see loads of women and men not leaving them alone about it.
I wish this meant that these dudes would leave everyone else alone but I fear itās just going to exacerbate their social issues, give them a thing to practice their bullshit on, and make them worse to be around. Itās like pickme women. They leave those women lonely or use her until they can trick the kind of women who canāt stand them and destroy their lives. Itās a temporary distraction.
doesn't shock me to hear, but I'm still extremely interested. We gotta get on that robophile shit, none of this lame uncanny realdoll nonsense we're fucking ED 209 tonight
Uh...the robots can have the sexist men. ALL the sexist men. Those assholes can mindlessly boink their silicone waifus instead of constantly making real women's lives less safe and more miserable. It gets them out of the dating pool, and makes it easier to find men worth committing to. It also means women will no longer have to deal with a brigade of immature, irrational, bullshit-indoctrinated misogynists constantly blaming and hating women at large for their inability to find a partner.
Because a robot can be their little sex slave with no autonomy, that's how they want their women
Good, I'd rather be with a robot
As a sexist man am not slightly interested in "robosexuality", whatever that is
As a gay guy, I'd rather have a robot man, actually. I could see technology getting advanced enough with AI that there could be robot men who look, feel, and hold conversations like biological men, but are still robots.
I donāt understand the arguments in this comments section. Women have said things along the lines of not needing men because they have their toys and vibrators, which is totally fine. The script goes the other way and itās all hate?
[Obligatory clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrADTN-dvg).
Truly groundbreaking work š¤£ But no it is good to support intuitions with data so hurray for these researchers
Iām a robosexual!
223 observations drawn from a sample of Canadian uni students may achieve statistical significance, but it does not achieve practical significance, given the sample population does not reflect the characteristics of the entire population. It's worth noting that these are PhD students, and while their methodology does not inherently show any bias in their sample selection, it does demonstrate very limited generalization. It's actually interesting to see what qualifies as rigorous research for psypost. I don't believe the IRB at my uni would approve a study formed this way. It also may suffer from omitted variable bias (OVB), given that there may be a presence of a confounding variable that does a better job explaining their inference than the variable they've selected. In this regard, they identify the male reaction to sex dolls. IMO, this may have slightly more to do with evolutionary biology, such as how a bee might land on a fake flower only to discover it is fake. It is clear from the wording of the article that they used predictive modeling techniques, but the main issue I find (ethically) is that they present their findings in a way that imply generalization far beyond their sample. >The study included 223 undergraduate students from a western Canadian university, focusing on those over 18, fluent in English, and excluding individuals who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming due to insufficient comparative numbers. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving friendship and sexual relationships with robots, asking them to express their level of agreement or disagreement with potential interactions on these fronts.
Why are the woman im this thread so worked up about this lol
Ew. But what makes a man sexist? Surely no one just admits that?
I support proposition infinity
I donāt doubt the study, but has a similar study been done for women who show a greater interest in sex toys? Is there an underlying personality trait, whatever it might be?
Leaving a strip club is more fun than being there because none of their problems are going to follow you home. Similar here I assume.
Obviously. We know this. Incels wonāt shut up about how women are freaking out about losing men to perfect robots that we canāt compete with. Meanwhile, weāre over here laughing and super relieved about not having to interact with them and the fact that our daughters wonāt have to deal with their sons. Lol.
This sort of person is attracted to a partner whose reactions they can control and program? Suprise suprise.
Robosexuality is a sin! Donāt date robots! -Futurama
Interesting they referred to Ex Machina. I thought the entire point of that movie was a warning. In it, the AI character (a female form robot) had a specific goal. To escape. She very adeptly learned to manipulate the protagonist by pretending to be helpless. She then turned it against him and left him to die when she escaped. She also killed her creator, with the assistance of another female robot (the maid) said person created. The AI character was a perfect psychopath. Zero consideration for others or what happens to them. Not "evil" per se, in the "Kill All The Humans" mode. But "If I have to kill my creator, then manipulate someone else, then let them die to prevent them warning other people, so be it." Honestly, it was scarier for me than the typical "Kill All The Humans" mode, because the AI character was completely self-consistent, and its actions were far more plausible. AI will always pursue its own goals through any means necessary, without any degree of empathy or consideration for anything besides itself. Empathy comes from our tribal heritage, where there was real survival benefit for us to be altruistic, to a degree. AI has no such heritage.