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.
Whoa. I’m not down with any MRA philosophy, but I’m not going to call their sexuality–whatever it may or may not be–damaged and diseased. Where exactly do you get off doing that?
You’re new, so protip: internet diagnoses, no matter how reasonable they may seem, are generally frowned upon. Unless you like showing you ass, in which case, rock the fuck on.
Noooooo!
I don’t think you can draw a line between the two all the time. Sometimes not even a blurry line.
At the end of the day, I think this should be up to the patient. I think it’s great that there’s so much discussion now about whether supposed disorders or disabilities really have to be seen as such, and how people are coming out more and more and argue that they’re fine the way they are. HOWEVER, it’s important not to forget that there are ALSO people who really want to be “cured”, as in getting rid of whatever they have, not just learning how to deal with it. And just going “oh, you don’t really mean that, you’ve just internalised society’s prejudices” is disrespectful to THEM.
And whether certain traits are essential to oneself or not, as in “I literally wouldn’t be me without this trait”, must also be up to the person zirself to decide.
It’s the same in Sweden. It’s probably the standard all over the world.
Sorry, posted too fast – I mean the democratic world, the part of the world that has at least some respect for human rights. You know what I mean.
Yeah, I do, and I sympathize with the posted too fast problem; having just tortured my fingers on violin strings, I’m not sure they feel like cooperating themselves.
I has thought psychosis was grounds in Britain, but I may well be wrong on that. It makes sense, from a certain patronizing view — if psychotic, then aren’t competent to refuse treatment.
And I really don’t know in that case, I’m inclined to side with personal liberty, but can sympathize with people wishing they could force a relative to seek treatment…but there’s way too much room for abuse there. Of course, Deinstitutionalization did leave many psychotic people (or otherwise severely mentally ill people) homeless…and now we’re into “dear gods could we fix the mental health system somehow!”
“Way to make assumptions.”
@pecunium, my only assumptions were that you were male (which you’ve repeatedly stated and here reconfirmed) and that you were younger than me (which you also seem to have here reconfirmed), apparently by a decade. I really am sorry you’re taking offense at my stating we’ve had different experiences, or that mine have left me with a somewhat different perspective. And I haven’t described any of my sexual life as other than as hetero (as I ID myself), so frankly you’ve made some assumptions about me and *my* sexuality.
“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’ve spent of my life being thought by many to be lesbian because I was affectionate and emotionally intimate with my female friends, because I presented as very androgynous, because my behavior and intellect did not fit into what was considered feminine, and because for a very long time I was attracted to mostly androgynous men (including gay and bi men). So I won’t even try to assume what your idea was : (
We seem to be at cross purposes here, and that saddens me, because I’ve read your posts here for some weeks with great admiration, and because I clearly am expressing my thoughts in a way that contradicts what I believe to be my actual values.
“So long as they claim to be heterosexual, I am going to take them at their word.”
So long as they claim to base their sexuality on its relationship to *my* gender while they utterly misrepresent my gender and its nature, I am going to claim gender prerogative and call BS. And you can call me what you will on that one.
Argenti: I think forced treatment of psychotic people could often make it worse as well. I mean, if you’re catatonic and stop eating, drinking etc you could be taken in on grounds that you’re dangerous for yourself. If you’re “actively” psychotic, thinking and talking and doing stuff, paranoia is very very often part of that. I know that when I’ve had psychotic spells I’ve always had some version of the idea that enemies were out to get me… SO bringing someone in by force could so easily make things worse as well.
Problems arise when personal liberty is merely used as an excuse for not giving a shit. There are SO many levels in between “letting psychotics fend for themselves” and “forcing them into asylums”: For instance, one could provide good asylums and good information about them, lessening people’s fear of being taken in, so that more people voluntarily seek help and allow themselves to be treated at facilities. And you could have all kinds of support for people who still live at home despite being mentally ill. Like fifteen years ago I would often get spells when I suddenly thought I was completely mentally healthy although I wasn’t, and then I would just stop seeing my shrink and stop taking my pills, until I eventually (usually after being in a pretty bad state for quite a long time, being prodded by stubborn friends and so on) realised I ought to get in touch with psychiatry again. Instead, psychiatrics could routinely seek out patients who suddenly stop appearing.
I used to be a member of an internet board for people with schizophrenia and related diagnosis. Occasionally some member would get a psychotic spell, stop taking zir pills and get all kinds of crazy ideas. Then the rest of the members would, over and over again, reason with zir and argue that zie ought to go see a psychiatrist. Usually zie would eventually listen, and sometimes zie would end up voluntarily going into asylum for a while until zie was better again. Which goes to show how much can be accomplished without actual force.
All this would cost money of course, which is why it’s easier to pretend that “not giving a shit” is actually an expression of “respecting personal liberty”…
“HOWEVER, it’s important not to forget that there are ALSO people who really want to be “cured”, as in getting rid of whatever they have, not just learning how to deal with it.
And whether certain traits are essential to oneself or not, as in “I literally wouldn’t be me without this trait”, must also be up to the person zirself to decide.”
I would never do the former (you can apply the similar arguments to the deaf community, some of whom will go to great lengths to function within the hearing world, and some who embrace their non-hearing and the rich community and culture that goes with it) That should be a personal choice, and not up to a doctor to dictate.
And I completely agree with the latter; my issue is with those who flail about and complain about their life, and make everyone around them their wheelchair so to speak, and manipulate and abuse them on the grounds that the needs of their trait are not being met, and insist that none of this is dysfunctional, regardless of how chaotically this disrupts the lives of everyone else, and how much everyone else has attempted to acomodate them.
PennyDreadful: It’s that you assumed there was no parallelism at all, and no way for me to understand where your statement came from.
But this is the part that’s giving me pause:
So long as they claim to base their sexuality on its relationship to *my* gender while they utterly misrepresent my gender and its nature, I am going to claim gender prerogative and call BS. And you can call me what you will on that one.
Who gets to decide what someone’s sexuality is?
The person who has it.
@Penny, I never meant to contradict what you said about some people using a diagnosis as an excuse to be a douchebag or just plain lazy. Yeah, there are such people, and that’s bad.
ABNOY ends the previous page with the picking of some lovely cherries.
Note that this means that regardless of the reality, or lack thereof, in regards to succubi, people have been executed because of the belief that they were associating with succubi.
Which isn’t touching the likes of Lilith and Lamashtu.
“Whoa. I’m not down with any MRA philosophy, but I’m not going to call their sexuality–whatever it may or may not be–damaged and diseased. Where exactly do you get off doing that?
You’re new, so protip: internet diagnoses, no matter how reasonable they may seem, are generally frowned upon. Unless you like showing you ass, in which case, rock the fuck on.”
I didn’t call their sexuality diseased, I called their sexual expression towards women so. If hatred and disgust at healthy women is healthy, I have no response to that. And if calling something unhealthy is an internet diagnosis, if someone is saying rape doesn’t exist, women are all abusive and manipulative and whores, unshaved pussies are filthy, slutshaming of minors is free speech, then go ahead and call me Dr Dreadful, because to me that attitude is pretty damned diseased : P
Dvärghundspossen — agreed, completely, and I’m sorry that I didn’t make myself clearly. You have functional ideas for solutions, whereas I had a grumbling “fix the damned system already”
“It’s that you assumed there was no parallelism at all, and no way for me to understand where your statement came from.”
I didn’t assume that, I am expressing myself poorly. Obviously neither of us can know anything about each other here other than from our posts or other internet information. You know very little about me, and if I’m writing badly, then that’s on me.
“Who gets to decide what someone’s sexuality is?
The person who has it.”
I can’t argue against that other than to say if someone is basing their sexuality on their perception of who I am within a group, and their judgment of that group is not only based on a complete fiction but a distorted and destructive one, it’s gonna be more than a day’s work to convince me to take them at their word.
“@Penny, I never meant to contradict what you said about some people using a diagnosis as an excuse to be a douchebag or just plain lazy. Yeah, there are such people, and that’s bad.”
@Dvärghundspossen, sorry, I’m feeling rather defensive here at the moment : / And among “such people” would be my recently-exed partner, so I’m a bit wound up on the subject *sigh*
Sorry for pissing everyone off this morning, I seem to be doing it here at home the last day or two as well…..
So Penny, one of your points is that you don’t use the word “disease” as in making a medical diagnose, but as a synonym for “evil” or “bad”? I get what you’re saying, but it’s still a problematic way to express oneself. There’s this VERY common belief according to which mentally ill=evil and/or an idiot, and not mentally ill=good and/or rational and/or has mostly true beliefs about the world. And it’s very common to honestly attempt to diagnose people over the internet because of this belief. That’s why it’s problematic to use words like “disease” to mean evil or bad or moron, it feeds into this prejudice. I think it’s better to use straight-forward normative words rather than going to medical ones.
Your point about heterosexuality I honestly don’t get. Surely a man can notice that he has an attraction to women, even if he has tons of fucked-up beliefs about them? All it takes to know that you’re attracted to X is to be fairly good at knowing when an X is around, and also recognise what attraction feels like. You don’t have to know shit about X to know that you’re attracted to X.
That sucks. Sorry.
PennyDreadful:
Help me out here. What do you mean when you say you think they aren’t heterosexual?
“There’s this VERY common belief according to which mentally ill=evil and/or an idiot, and not mentally ill=good and/or rational and/or has mostly true beliefs about the world.”
Considering I had a headache inducing conversation last night that came down to “[person] is more rational, and not subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect because [person] really is more rational”…yeah, defaulting to not rational because mentally ill isn’t going over well with me either.
(Pecunium — yes that’s the conversation I emailed you about, it’s still bugging me)
RE: PennyDreadful
I assume LBT don’t want to be “cured” of their identities.
Please, let’s not mince words. It’s not my identity that’s seen as the problem, it’s my existence. They want to “cure” me of my existence.
I’m well aware this only represents a small subset of LGBT experience,
Good. Remember it next time.
RE: Kittehs
No, it’s okay, I’ve done customer service before, so I know how it goes. I know what you intended. Just no more IQ jokes, eh?
@Pecunium (and then I’ll leave it alone if you’d prefer) I brought this over from the other thread rather than drag our disagreement there:
“MRAs, no matter how fucked up, are people. If they find partners who are willing to put up with them (or who happen to sincerely love/care for them) that’s their right.
Full stop.”
I am in complete agreement that everyone deserves love, and I am never for dehumanizing even the worst person by dismissing them as “evil” or a “monster” (I also think that puts off of us the responsibility of our own potential for such behavior); but when that behavior is abusive, I have a hard time saying “that’s their right” just because their partners love them and are devoted to them. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you here, but everything I’ve heard from the MRA philosophy is abusive to women. Misogyny is abusive to women. It’s not a lifestyle choice, it’s shittiness.
Ok, I’m rereading what you wrote, and I may have indeed misinterpreted you. You’re saying that their partners have the right to make the choice to be with them? Yes; but I also think abusers victimize their partners, so taking advantage of that right of their partners to make that choice is, to me, just another form of abuse.
“Please, let’s not mince words. It’s not my identity that’s seen as the problem, it’s my existence. They want to “cure” me of my existence.”
I kind of figured that was going to irk you, but what just occurred to me was that they want to “cure” you of Mac, which strikes me as an extra special kind of fucked up. (Not that curing you of Sneak, Gigi, etc wouldn’t be royally fucked up…)
Am I making any sense? In any case, you’re welcome to arm Gigi with a fish and send her at me if I make another IQ joke (idk why, but the idea of a child doing the fish slapping dance seems slightly fitting, though maybe a grown up doing it is more the right sort of absurdism? Whatever, some one can slap me with a fish of I do it again)
“Help me out here. What do you mean when you say you think they aren’t heterosexual?”
Heterosexuals are attracted to women. The people we are talking about are not attracted to women, they are attracted to a fake, non-existent construct that resembles the surface details of a stereotype of women that’s designed to serve their own needs and doesn’t take into account that their partners are actual autonomous people with legitimate needs. They’re hetero-fantasy-sexuals, I dunno what you’d call them! Maybe we don’t have the same definition of heterosexual??
Look, my views here are not policy-making; they are based on my own perceptions and experiences. As a woman I’m offended at being defined by someone who hates me for existing at the same time as insisting I exist only for their use. If they or you or anyone is offended by my defining that as *not* heterosexual, I can understand, but I also stand by my right to my own offense.