Huffington Post Discussion

[Svengli]

Oddly enough, I've been scanning the Campaign Against Sex Robots website and found this link

A discussion of sex robots with anti-sex-robot woman and sex bot researcher live.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 3aff0001fb

[N6688]

Kathleen Richardson is such an idiot, she keeps claiming that it will hurt people (maybe people like her, yes).
Sex robots WILL reduce prostetution
Sex robots WILL reduce sexual violence
Sex robots WILL reduce child mollestation
And most importantly, it WILL give people that have NO CHANCE of having a sexual experience to have one.
It doesn't need to be about love or feelings at all, THAT'S THE POINT.

[33cl33]

I was already sick of seeing her get press - but glad I got to see Richardson in the heat of discussion.

Frankly, it would be a shame if she didn't lose her position at the university over this. Her entire perspective is based on projecting a very slim view of sexuality and gender dynamics onto the rest of the world's motivations. One that sounds an awful lot like the religious arguments against same-sex marriage in the USA.

She leaves no room for female empowerment, male-formed sexbots, couples who want to augment their bedroom activities, rehabilitation, etc. Or just good-ol' recreation. She seems to think that sex must only occur between a cis-male and a cis-female with no physical or psychological defects who've signed some sort of social contract acknowledging that both will respect the others' expectations.

And that's hilarious.

She's the very definition of unscientific in her ways - and I don't know how De Montfort can be okay with her waging this prohibition war on a future technology and individual lifestyles while calling herself a researcher and anthropologist.

[dale coba]

I put the moron Kathleen Richardson into the FTP.
Her reasoning is so poor.
She should be parodied on SNL.

- Dale Coba