It is entirely true that the invention and existence of realistic sex robots will change the balance of power between the sexes. There’s an awful lot the average man will do in order to gain access to sex after all. The restaurant and nightclub industries are proof of quite how much too, to say nothing of the cut flower and posh shoes ones. Thus some technology which provides that end goal without the effort and expense is going to change matters.
Yes, of course, they’re a substitute and an imperfect one but then everything is a substitute and what matters is not the imperfections but the number and magnitude of them.
The thing is, which arguments against the change in that balance of power, who decides and who gets what because of that power, which of them apply to sex robots and do not apply to Rampant Rabbits and other such devices to pleasure the distaff side?
Ministers are “lagging behind” in efforts to tackle sex robots, experts have warned, amid concerns they could “make women interchangeable with technology”.
Human-like robots are sold as substitutes for women and are marketed as “companions”, “girlfriends” or “wives”, a coalition of academics, abuse victims and activists have claimed and MPs and ministers are ignorant of the potential dangers.
This is not to say that anyone should or should not be using such devices on either or any side. It is, instead, to pose an uncomfortable question. Indeed, there are arguments that sex without human contact will change things. But how and why do those apply to men gaining access without women and not to women without men?
What regulations anyone proposes for sex robots don’t apply to vibrators?
This is before we even consider whether people might make sex robots designed for women of course…..the answer that the machines don’t have wallets isn’t going to be a politically acceptable one now, is it?