You’re just talking past me. You are alleging that what I am saying is connected to reinforcing the logic of the cishet patriarchy and the stigmatizing of sexual orientations that I guess you say I at least implicitly find “icky,” but you make no effort to connect what I said to this, you just described people with shitty positions that I do not have. You have not established a basis for my argument being a “transpositon”.
Edit: I want to add that I generally think BDSM practices are generally exactly the opposite here of any problem I am mentioning, because they are intensely intersubjective and require attention to consent and the perspective of your partner. The opposite is true with the sort of robots we are talking about, where one is going to some truly extreme lengths to engineer solipsistic sex and/or sexual abuse. I don’t know how relevant this is to the overall point, I just want to affirm a conceptual difference rather than leave it open-ended as I did.
What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say, where they paint it as something especially harmful because of it mimicking violence or slavery or whatnot and just state this as an accepted natural truth despite all evidence being to the contrary. Meanwhile, as we all know the real harm of pornography (abuse and exploitation in the industry aside) comes from the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men, which is perfectly accepted and legal even though that industry really should not be tolerated the way it is (if nothing else because of the rampant abuse and exploitation in the industry we skipped over earlier).
Like the entire “this is a safe, accessible simulacra of [violence/slavery] which is why it’s bad” premise just doesn’t hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids. Like I can tell you 99% of them would just end up crying on their emotional support roomba until it cheers them up by microwaving a poptart and telling them how smart and right they are about everything. Which is bad, obviously, but it’s bad in a really boring way and in way more pathetic ways than this vision of unusual and deviant cruelty people are painting in this thread.
What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say,
I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so
the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men,
Which is very easy to apply to the present subject
doesn’t hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids.
I didn’t mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the “mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men” that you correctly cite earlier. I can go into more detail of you really want me to, but I’ve been trying to spare us both that.
I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so
I think I was also unusually fast in opening the inbox there - the inbox indicator changed in front of me right as I was tabbing through so I saw the post less than a minute after it was posted and missed any edits.
I didn’t mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the “mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men” that you correctly cite earlier.
You’re still focusing on the supposed imitation of violence as the issue, while I’m arguing that the problem is principally that it’s a pathetic recreation of like the most milquetoast basic straight guy fantasy except in the form of a roomba that gives them chatbot psychosis.
I’ll grant that we may just be using different rhetoric to describe fundamentally the same thing, although I’m still sticking with my prediction that this would be way more harmful to the person trying to do it than it would make them more dangerous towards others, except in the context of them becoming addicted to it and attacking someone who tries to get them to stop using it for some reason or another.
You’re just talking past me. You are alleging that what I am saying is connected to reinforcing the logic of the cishet patriarchy and the stigmatizing of sexual orientations that I guess you say I at least implicitly find “icky,” but you make no effort to connect what I said to this, you just described people with shitty positions that I do not have. You have not established a basis for my argument being a “transpositon”.
Edit: I want to add that I generally think BDSM practices are generally exactly the opposite here of any problem I am mentioning, because they are intensely intersubjective and require attention to consent and the perspective of your partner. The opposite is true with the sort of robots we are talking about, where one is going to some truly extreme lengths to engineer solipsistic sex and/or sexual abuse. I don’t know how relevant this is to the overall point, I just want to affirm a conceptual difference rather than leave it open-ended as I did.
What? Your argument is the same as what the UK press releases about the criminalization of BDSM media say, where they paint it as something especially harmful because of it mimicking violence or slavery or whatnot and just state this as an accepted natural truth despite all evidence being to the contrary. Meanwhile, as we all know the real harm of pornography (abuse and exploitation in the industry aside) comes from the mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men, which is perfectly accepted and legal even though that industry really should not be tolerated the way it is (if nothing else because of the rampant abuse and exploitation in the industry we skipped over earlier).
Like the entire “this is a safe, accessible simulacra of [violence/slavery] which is why it’s bad” premise just doesn’t hold water, nor does this salacious idea of chuds practicing abusing and tormenting their robot bang-maids. Like I can tell you 99% of them would just end up crying on their emotional support roomba until it cheers them up by microwaving a poptart and telling them how smart and right they are about everything. Which is bad, obviously, but it’s bad in a really boring way and in way more pathetic ways than this vision of unusual and deviant cruelty people are painting in this thread.
I apologize, I edited in a part to explain the difference but was late in doing so
Which is very easy to apply to the present subject
I didn’t mean some elaborate BDSM thing, I just mean straightforward eroticized r___, which is also a very prevalent aspect of the “mass market vanilla cishet slop as a commodification of women’s bodies aimed at incredibly boring chauvinist straight men” that you correctly cite earlier. I can go into more detail of you really want me to, but I’ve been trying to spare us both that.
I think I was also unusually fast in opening the inbox there - the inbox indicator changed in front of me right as I was tabbing through so I saw the post less than a minute after it was posted and missed any edits.
You’re still focusing on the supposed imitation of violence as the issue, while I’m arguing that the problem is principally that it’s a pathetic recreation of like the most milquetoast basic straight guy fantasy except in the form of a roomba that gives them chatbot psychosis.
I’ll grant that we may just be using different rhetoric to describe fundamentally the same thing, although I’m still sticking with my prediction that this would be way more harmful to the person trying to do it than it would make them more dangerous towards others, except in the context of them becoming addicted to it and attacking someone who tries to get them to stop using it for some reason or another.