- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
cdevlin addressed this issue on the first page in this exchange:
who knows?
In balance, access to a robot sex substitute like that, for the males so inclined, might wind up saving actual flesh and blood women a lot of trouble.
(But in the long run, it would probably demolish the guys.)
-- cabdriver
the on-balance thing...
To suggest the ability to buy fembots might save women from sexual assault is like saying if only the Catholic church would allow their clergy to marry then perhaps priests might stop sexually assaulting children.
-- cdevlin
This is the implied threat - "If men don't have access to robots they will rape real women." I have heard the same thing said too many times about prostitutes - "If men don't have access to prostitutes they will rape non-prostituted women." Do you not see the threat there? "Take away our access to prostituted women/sex robots and we will rape you."
Regarding my anecdotal friend - his girlfriend is pretty awesome. And they aren't that old. His problem was not "nice but shy," his problem was a frightening temper.
The point of the story was, if every woman you've ever met thinks you are an asshole, the problem might not lie with every woman you've ever met. And, that there is hope for people that have had a hard time creating lasting relationships.
I won't argue with you if you think cabdriver's analysis constituted an implied threat. To me, it constituted instead a fundamental misunderstanding of why men rape.
As for cdevlin's quote, it seems to jibe with what you're saying. I guess I'm missing your point on that one.
