is one example of an article critiquing her work.
I did, admittedly, manage to find
which appears to point out that she consulted meta-studies ... on the other hand, it also indicates that (a) she's comfortable referring to spanking as physical abuse (b) she explains that "My failure to give a detailed definition of porn, or my refusal to celebrate porn as a diverse set of cultural products, comes not from laziness or oversight but a commitment to a radical political economy."
... and it ends with "So please don’t ask us radical feminists to waste our time coming up with scholarly definitions. We have an industry to close down."
Which seems to suggest that she believes that when you're trying to argue that X is bad, defining X clearly is a waste of time.
I ... really don't think I can see a reason to want to read her books now.
If you're going to choose to ignore a comment by someone who's actually bothered to read her 165-page book (which includes 200+ references) in favor of googling some web articles that support a position of ignoring feminist critiques of porn, in all likelihood you don't care about improving society for women.
I am taking a strong tone because your comment seems to say that if you believe feminism is bad, giving time to thoroughly investigate feminism is clearly a waste of time.
I've done plenty of reading on both sex-positive and sex-negative feminisms' attitudes towards porn, but Dines' mixture of disingenuous reframing and shrill moralising reminds me more of anti-abortion activists than anything else and contributes rather more to my opinion of Gail Dines than my opinion of the more rational sex negative critiques of porn.
(I'd recommend the blog series Prude's Progress - it's not a porn critique but an excellent exploration of sex negativity fully thought through)
I think the notions of 'sex-positive' and 'sex-negative' are kind of weird, personally. When I read those terms, my mind tends to translate it into "people who think mainstream pornography is fine" and "those who think mainstream pornography has issues."
I guess what I feel is missing from the comments you've made so far is your personal attitude towards pornography. It's easy for all of us to criticize this or that thinker, but it's much harder (and more painful) to introspect and consider what our own attitudes say about us.
Let me volunteer to go first: I've consumed a great deal of pornography in the past, and it's only this year that I stopped in earnest. Looking at pornography made me feel depressed, disconnected from my feelings, and I noticed that it made it hard for me to relate to women in my daily life. Not 'hard to relate' like I couldn't talk to them, but in that I felt uncomfortable talking to somebody as a human being when I'd just watched images that really degraded them.
Now, I was raised in a very liberal Scandinavian country, and my parents are far from prudes. Neither of my parents demonized sex, and growing up, they always said "it's okay if you do it, just make sure you use protection." So the discomfort I felt in looking at porn didn't come from being raised in a moralistic, Bible-thumping household.
When I read Gail Dines book, I find my own thoughts reflected back to me. I find your label of "shrill moralising" somewhat offensive, but you may also be offended by some of the things that I am saying.
Also, and this is important to me, I think it's very possible to get too rational about the whole discussion. You referenced "rational sex negative critiques of porn." I am fine with logic and reason, but I often notice that people who focus too much on rational arguments are avoiding a frank discussion about their own emotions or the emotions of the women being discussed.
Anyway, if you've read this much, thank you. Hopefully you have a better understanding of my perspective now.
I'd note also that I didn't intend to call your words shrill moralising; any offence involved was supposed to be directed only at Gail Dines' writing style.
I think ... mostly I think that an HN comment thread isn't going to be nearly an optimal vehicle for the relatively deep discussion I think we'd need to have just to get as far as having a shared set of terminology with which to debate things. If you think that it's worth continuing to try, mst at shadowcat.co.uk will reach me and we can take it from there.
Nice name. It has an obvious connection to the product, and if you want to give out pens with the name on them you don't have to pay for custom printing !
Interesting to see if Pilot would choose to pursue a trademark-infringement case. "Yes, your honor, we think our writing implements can be reasonably confused with a sex robot."
Sorry, I had to.
Or what the social ramifications would be of having an omegle/chat-roulette style chat system where people could have sex with anonymous strangers over the internet at a moment's notice without any fear of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.
Of course, none of the above should really be a surprise but they still caught me off-guard.
This is some real scifi stuff we're doing and it's very exciting
Very interesting ideas. I can only imagine how far this concept can be taken.
There's really nothing social to this particularly.
(Why am I imagining this?!)
Yeah, this is one activity I think I've going to stick to the old meatspace/wetware paradigm for, sorry guys.
OTOH I'm sure it's a fun device to work on :)
If anyone wants to "solve the problem of LDRs", I'd much prefer them to as a look at things like immigration laws, international transport, cultural barriers.
And sure, this is opening up a entirely new avenue on top of phone/cyber/webcam sex that wasn't available before, and marks a massive step forward in what's available when people are geographically separate.
I tend not to bother with LDRs either, I must admit, I think they're mostly a bad thing.
--edit-- wondering why the downvote? This is factual. If you want to downvote my negative opinions then go ahead, but this stuff has been showcased multiple times over the last 20/30 years and never delivered.
Now we're just up against society and challenging a traditionally "organic" space of someones life with artificial augmentations -- which some are excited for, but others are very defensive and scared, or just satisfied with their live-in partner that never spends the night away.
This is a transition period, and our approach is meant to provide the killer app for these devices as well as aggregate the demand for user to user haptic experiences. With this approach we are attempting to incentivise third parties to further innovate and provide new more exciting opportunities to connect over distance in the future knowing that they would immediately have an eager engaged community to appreciate their contributions.
Note the machine! You can't see exactly what it's doing, but you can see the way it's moving :)
In choosing this problem to "solve" much of the effort has been put into overcoming these bureaucratic obstacles to be able to bring a useful platform to market that isn't just gimmicky vibrators. We're super proud of our accomplishments not just with the robots, but to be able to make this a marketable and useful platform that can democratize remote intimacy to the advantage of everyone.
The distopian conversation is an interesting one, and it's been a constant banter here -- but for now what we're doing is trying to bring people closer, not isolate them. This is a tool, a supplement -- not a replacement for real sex. Also, I love that we have to say REAL SEX now to differentiate.
^^This is a Word?
Howard Rheingold column using the term in a 1990 issue of Mondo 2000. http://janefader.com/teledildonics-by-howard-rheingold-mondo...
I feel sad for people who think mechanized dildos bots are a good enough substitute for sex.
I hope I never get that jaded - or desperate :)
John Carmack will really need to outdo himself to make the technology for this sort of thing actually viable and not just easy "what will those pervy nerds think of next" news fodder. We are many multiple decades out. I'm speaking strictly as a person who actually had sex mind you.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_est_amoureux (no English version of this article exist, only French, Russian and very short Italian)
We have stronger devices that will also be supported day 1 on the beta, and these devices have their power and stroke length defined in the driver software. These more powerful devices aren't so much robots though, just single axis articulation and no bidirectional feedback -- good enough for accelerometer control though where there's no channel for feedback anyway.
ALSO, remember in encounters with humans communication is key! make sure they know what you want and how, just as if they were really there.
It's a 3D force feedback mouse essentially, you can use it for manipulating and creating 3D models and feel their texture, edges, material, weight, etc.
The realtouch is an "input only" device that sits motionless on a mans lap while the conveyor belts do their job either from an encoded video, or from a live model using a touch sensitive dildo called a joystick. This is flow of telemetry in a single direction -- to the realtouch. Our devices create a tethered sense of physical intimacy and connection. One partner feels whats happening with the other side, and vice versa, simultaneously. Also, our design has all the moving parts on the outside, which we feel is more appealing than sticking your penis into an opaque grinding box. (Our devices are very quiet btw, will be adding new videos next week to demonstrate)
You can imagine when we add support for the realtouch that other devices on the platfrom such as the robot itself and accelerometer products will be able to send telemetry to the device to control its functions, and vice versa, the joystick would be able to send telemetry to the robots to manipulate a fleshlight/tenga/sleeve. It's really a robust api that enables all devices to interact where their functionalities overlap.
However, we should all be supportive of realtouch right now -- it appears they're having licensing issues with a certain patent holder that is turning the screws on them and without intervention they wont be able to continue selling devices next year. Dealing with this minefield of patents and licensing has been an important predicate for our development at frixion, and we are eager to create a "safe haven" for other developers to deploy their devices under the agreements we hold in the future.