So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that
provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?
The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?
Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.
If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)
Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the
This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …
One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.
Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.
NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.
“And not to answer for LBT, but it’s usually Rogan posting, and since Rogan *is* one person…”
That helps, especially as I’m quite likely to make the blunder you did, I don’t keep track of things well. And was trying to inquire if dealing with the “one person” as the “collective you” (if that makes sense, my brain is past its bedtime : P) would be acceptable, not discounting any of the individuals involved : )
Oh yeah, the Sybil case, yeash. When the book and movie came out, I was fascinated; but I read the wiki on the whole debacle a while back, and man, what an ethical mess.
The problem with Sybil is that, despite the evidence against it, it’s seen as the definitive case of multiples. Because the experiences of real people don’t
Count unless they’re written up in a journal.sigh.
RE: Argenti/lumi/PennyDreadful
Argenti’s right. Generally it’s just me posting here; my system members consider my liking of trollsnark to be a peculiar eccentricity to be indulged and otherwise ignored, so I won’t be bothered being treated as one person. As a system, though, it’s a definite no-go.
The rarity of multiplicity is something argued about; there was a veritable explosion of diagnoses in the 90s, which caused a bit of a furor. It became a bit of a fad diagnosis, causing some major whiplash and the renaming of MPD to DID later, in the attempt to try and undramatize it a bit.
And yes, Sibyl has had some people really side-eyeing it. and it kind of was a major stage-setter. So was ‘Three Faces of Eve,’ and that system later wrote some things of their own experiences, saying that some of the original was wrong. (For instance, the system was more like twenty people, not three.) Add that to the Minds of Billy Milligan, where you have a serial rapist on trial, and the traditional multi narrative was sort of set, with the dysfunctional multiple as a result of childhood trauma, the saintly therapist (who of course often was also the writer), and a lot of trauma voyeurism culminating in integration, with a healthy, happy singlet at the end.
(Never mind that Chris Coster-Sizemore, AKA Eve, felt exploited by the media and frickin’ SUED for the rights to her story and won. Never mind that Sibyll is a massive ethical WTF and now people argue over whether it was truly a case of multiplicity. Never mind that far as I know, Billy Milligan’s system has NEVER integrated. The narrative was set, and not challenged until the eighties with Truddi Chase and the Troops, who refused to integrate.)
“As a system, though, it’s a definite no-go.”
Of course, without saying. I’ll do my best, so I hope you’ll pardon any accidental offense : )
Rogan (and everyone else in the system if you’re listening), I apologise if my old joke from Museum days was triggering at all. I didn’t know you’d been through that particular brand of shit and wouldn’t have said anything if I had. My take on IQ testing is that it’s so narrow and biased it’s largely a crock of shit anyway, and the old joke was a customer service reaction from the days before the phrase “teh stupid, it burns” existed. (You know what they say – if you’re not a misanthrope when you go into customer service, you will be by the time you come out.)
Again, my apologies.
“You know what they say – if you’re not a misanthrope when you go into customer service, you will be by the time you come out.”
This statement, it is true. And on that note, I’m going to bed, g’night guys!
Niters Argenti!
Cross thread confusion! (Chaos and confusion wherever I go ^.^ )
G’night!
@Kittehs’ Help, have you submitted that museum story to Not Always Right? It’d fit right in.
@Shiraz
You mean fallen angels aren’t all horny tsundere*? Anime lied to me again!
*I don’t speak Japanese, but the plural is usually the same as the singular, right?
1) Abnoy considers a story of successful demonic temptation to be an endorsement. That’s some quality stupid right there.
2) I’m not at all sure that succubi were fallen angels. Yes, they’re demons, but I think they’re actually daughters of Lilith. Like I said, if you want to bang a fallen angel, go for Leviathan.
Apropos of nothing, apparently there’s some study going around that has ridiculous claims about false rape reporting. Here’s a takedown from Alas!.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/
Hugs for LBT!
I think, and I’m neurotypical here*, that consent should trump efforts to make non-neurotypical people more neurotypical, unless the situation is such that the person(s) who do not fit the box are a danger to themselves or others. ‘Course, that’s a case of someone with privilege standing up and giving a prescription of how the world works, so feel free to tell me to fuck off (but I don’t think I’ve stepped on anyone’s toes).
*Or at least I’ve never been diagnosed with a “disorder.”
Did you actually read the story? Meridiana was nothing but good for Pope Sylvester. What a bigot, did you not learn anything from Wreck-It Ralph?
@Falconer
That’s pretty much my neuroatypical take – preserve the good stuff that comes from it and help in making the bad stuff manageable.
Most neuroatypicalities are integrated into personalities and to ‘cure’ it would be effectively killing the person and putting someone else in their body.
oh, I meant to paste that link in the most recent post. Sorry for the derail!
@Writingstudent:
I’m with Derek Parfit in that I don’t think you can draw a sharp line and say “this much psychological change means the old person died and a new person appeard in zir place, while a little less psychological change would have meant the old person remained in a change formed”. Even if you do, on some grounds, draw such a line, on what grounds do we argue that most cases of curing a psychiatric or neuropsychiatric difference would end up on the “killed the old person, put a new one in zir place” side of the line? I can’t see that the mere fact that it’s “integrated in the personality” would imply this.
(Btw, I’m a diagnosed mental case, if that’s even relevant.)
I’m sympathetic to the disability theory advocated by some philosophers according to which you’re disabled when you have certain chronic traits that stop you from or at least makes it way more difficult to fulfil some of your life-plans (which, roughly speaking, aren’t any plans, but plans that are vital to your happiness). Meaning something can be a disability to one person but not to another.
pennydreadful: I tend to suspect they *aren’t* hetero; except that the only people they may despise more than women are non-hetero men. And yes, very very confused.
This bothers me. 1: I don’t think it’s true. I suspect most of them are hetero, and don’t like that they aren’t able to just get some woman to do what they want/treat them like a king.
Resentment of being denied what you want often leads to hatred (see the fox and the grapes).
2: I sure you didn’t mean to have it, but there are overtones of, “gays hate women”, in the idea that rabidly misogynist men are (mostly) repressed bi/gay.
abnoy: So the definition of angels you use is from Catholic Christian Theology (as opposed to Catholic Jovian Theology)? but you use TV Tropes to define demons?
Wow… you are srmt.
Ah, you know that series? My favorite was Nocturne where I got the True Demon Ending.
@cloudiah
“Wow, look what other misandry is going on in Canada. They couldn’t print it if it weren’t true.”
(I don’t know how to quote properly)
Delurking to post about how much I love that newspaper article. I can’t wait for my free cats and bon bons to arrive.
I don’t understand why they think Canada is such a feminist haven, it sure doesn’t appear that way from where I sit.
Going back a topic, I think the idea that consent should trump “curing someone” except when they’re a danger to themselves or others is more or less the right idea. It’s the legal standard in the US, but has no leeway at all (which is why psychs are always amazed I’ve never been committed) — if you tell a psych, or (I think) other doctor/medical professional, that you attempted suicide, you’re getting a stay in the psych ward until they deem you no longer a danger.
Idk where the line on “replacing a person” would be, but I certainly understand the concept. Then again, I’m currently annoyed that the DEATH RASH drug has barely touched the depressive side of things, but seems to have killed the fun levels of hypomania (I *liked* wanting to be all artsy and going “fuck sleep, I’m creating things“). Loosing that really does feel a bit like loosing a part of myself.
And on that note, I have Beethoven to practice (or at least attempt not to fuck up horribly)
pecunium, you’re right, and I apologise for coming off the way I did. I’m coming from a slightly different perspective than you here. For one, I grew up as a young woman in a time when homosexuality was not at all integrated socially, and those who were out tended to be the more vocal and political about it. The friends and accquaintances I had who were out as gay women often got there from a life filled with horrible experiences with abusive men, and quite a few were frankly misandrist in their attitudes. And throughout my life I’ve had both lesbian and gay male accquaintances who (usually in the context of humor, but still…) expressed vocal disgust at each others’ genitalia and the idea of sex with the opposite sex. I’m well aware this only represents a small subset of LGBT experience, and that we’ve all moved on considerably in our awareness of human sexuality; but FWIW it does still tend to color the way I observe and analyze the way men and women perceive each other.
The other is that, as a (hetero) woman, everything I hear from MRAs directed at women is disgust at our sexuality (including our genitalia) unless it fits into some non-existent mythological idealized porn-style virginal perfection, hatred of our personalities except for the tiny sliver devoted to their selfish personal agenda, and dismissal of our intellect and individuality. What they describe as an acceptable female has no correlation in the actual world. Everything about me that makes me *me*, and that makes me a woman, is the target for their hatred, loathing and resentment. My mere existence is an affront to their being. All of this is not what I would ascribe to any man who calls himself a heterosexual. Obviously, this does not equate to being homosexual, and I’ll plead extreme tiredness last night for my wording implying that was my intent. But it does seem the only people MRAs respect is other male MRAs, so what their true sexual nature is is beyond me. I assure you I feel any sexual expression that makes all adult consenting parties happy is healthy; theirs is deeply damaged and diseased.
@Argenti et al, I know when I first was encouraged to get treatment for my depression, I did go through the fear that “I” would be cured into non-existence, so I can understand the concern some have with that. And my experience proved otherwise; at best, treatments have made me feel *more* like me than I do when I am simply not functioning, or driving everyone around me to irritated or concerned distraction.
Ideally, any treatment should be directed at the dysfunctionality itself, not the (supposed) disorder. I don’t want to be cured of my melancholy or introspection; I assume LBT don’t want to be “cured” of their identities. Doctors who treat their patients otherwise are not healing, they are “fixing”, which is dismissive of a patient’s actual need and autonomy.
The flip side of this I have dealt with are those people who truly are dysfunctional, and use their condition or difference as an excuse to not get treatment for the dysfunction. My ex-partner is neuro-atypical, and has steadfastly refused to turn to any professional who could help him have the kind of life he claims he wants (including having healthy relationships with others, which he does not, and adult independence, which he does not). In his mind, that responsabilty was on the world to conform to his needs and cater to his dysfunctions. His “condition” made him special in his eyes, and maybe it did. But he is incapable of separating the dysfunction from the atypicality, and refuses to see this as the source of his misery. Instead, he places that misery at the feet of everyone who doesn’t meet his needs, and then abuses them when they don’t comply.
PennyDreadful: pecunium, you’re right, and I apologise for coming off the way I did. I’m coming from a slightly different perspective than you here. For one, I grew up as a young woman in a time when homosexuality was not at all integrated socially, and those who were out tended to be the more vocal and political about it.
Way to make assumptions. Yeah, I’m male, but I’ve had vocally active gay/bi/queer friends since I was in my early teens, so call it ca. 1982. I had a health instructor giving very clear messages that homosexuality was bad for one’s physical health; and this was before AIDS was on the radar. No, it was just that men having sex with each other leads to anal fatigue, and an inability to “keep things in”.
I’ve got friends who were kicked out the Navy, and the Air Force, before DADT. My former housemate was a huge activist in the interest of making people aware of AIDS in SF in the late ’80s (she’s got a decidedly queer sexuality, and was non-involved with men for quite some time; and yes, she was sort of anti-men for awhile, for all the reasons you mention).
I spent years being thought to be bi (if not a closeted gay) because I had intimate relationships with out homosexuals.
So I had a good idea from whence came the sentiment.
I agree that MRAs sense of sex, and women, and how mena and women interact is six kind of fucked up, but I don’t think it make them not what they claim to be.
So long as they claim to be heterosexual, I am going to take them at their word.