• 

• 

A couple of ivory tower geniuses have advanced a theory concerning the interaction between humans and robots. Not all robots or all humans. Just sex robots and the mild mannered perverts (MMPs) that use them. The authors posit that in order to use the robots, in the manner for which they were designed, the MMP must first, obtain consent from that bundle of silicon and rubber.

The figure on the left is a sex robot or “sexbot.” The figure on the right Lindsey Lohan bears a striking resemblance to the sexbot. Lindsey could teacher her a thing or two. If the sexbot was capable of learning, Only Lindsey is capable of giving consent. She is a human endowed with the ability to think independently, after a fashion.

Here is the abstract that describes their premise with all sorts of wondrous make believe terms like “Virtue ethics” and “virtue ethical account.”

The Entry to the Rabbit Hole

Designing Virtuous Sex Robots

Article (PDF Available)inInternational Journal of Social Robotics · September 2019 with 3,766 Reads DOI: 10.1007/s12369-019-00592-1

Abstract: We propose that virtue ethics can be used to address ethical issues central to discussions about sex robots. In particular, we argue virtue ethics is well equipped to focus on the implications of sex robots for human moral character. Our evaluation develops in four steps. First, we present virtue ethics as a suitable framework for the evaluation of human–robot relationships. Second, we show the advantages of our virtue ethical account of sex robots by comparing it to current instrumentalist approaches, showing how the former better captures the reciprocal interaction between robots and their users. Third, we examine how a virtue ethical analysis of intimate human–robot relationships could inspire the design of robots that support the cultivation of virtues. We suggest that a sex robot which is equipped with a consent-module could support the cultivation of compassion when used in supervised, therapeutic scenarios. Fourth, we discuss the ethical implications of our analysis for user autonomy and responsibility.

Reality Intrudes

When a premise is constructed on a foundation of quicksand, the path it takes is influenced by the already shaky ground it rests upon. Maybe the guys who came up with this concept, should have started with a dictionary.

Here is the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of consent. According to Black’s, consent is a purely human endeavor. No machines need apply.

CONSENT A concurrence of wills. Express consent is that directly given, either lira voce or in writing. Implied consent is that manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given. Cowen v. Paddock, 62 Hun, 022, 17 N. Y. Supp. 3SS. Consent in an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. 1 Story, Eq. Jur.

Black’s Law Dictionary

Just like Spock or Commander Data of Star Trek fame found out, some human thought processes, can never be duplicated by a machine.

These guys theorize that if mild mannered perverts (MMPs) were required to obtain consent prior to sex, the process of gaining consent would instill compassion. I would point out that, if MMPs possessed a full range of acceptable human emotions, they wouldn’t be screwing a rubber doll. Guess these intellectual types are unfamiliar with the concept of rape.

Assuming consent is part of the sexbot routine. When the lack of consent does not stop an MMP, what happens next? How does one force an inanimate object? Who would make the outcry? In order to prove force who does one call, a doctor or a mechanic? Is such an act a crime or does it just void the warranty?

I’m just a broke down retired cop. My solution, if I was to buy off on this ridiculous proposition, is more direct. Equip the sexbots with internal pruning shears at the various orifices. Upset the consent routine and the MMPs will soon learn that No means No.

My concern with this gambit is not about MMPs beating up and boffing sexbots. It is the violence done to the concept of consent. Consent isn’t a mathematical formula, especially when sex is concerned.

It has been my experience just because a guy did A, B and C and ended up banging the old lady on three occasions, that is not a predictor of future success. Replicate A, B and C and it is no guarantee of success a fourth time.

Giving a non human the power to consent to conduct erases firmly established boundaries. If a sexbot can grant or withhold consent, then how about the family dog, a Shetland pony, or an infant? Certainly a child is more self aware than a sexbot.

Consent and sex in the Muslim world is not an issue, to the detriment of women, sheep and goats throughout the land.

The concept of consent by a sexbot is a misdirection play. It has been played out in regards to the contemporary understanding of marriage, gender, and biological understanding of male/female identity. There is a bigger game in play here.