Sinziana Gutiu
Technology profoundly affects the way humans interact with each other, especially in the most intimate spheres of life. It is therefore important for humans to consider the effect female-sexbots will have on male-female interactions. Sinziana Gutiu’s paper states that male interactions with female-sexbots will dehumanize sex and intimacy in male-female relationships. Her paper argues that three levels of harm arise as a result of human-sexbot interaction. First, sexbots will socially alienate users by impeding their ability to form human relationships. Second, they will dehumanize women by promoting rape fantasies. Lastly, male exposure to female sexbots will erode the need for consent in male-female sexual interactions. Ms. Gutiu will also discuss the potential legal implications of sex robots and potential regulation.
Sinziana Gutiu will present Sex Robots and Roboticization of Consent on Saturday, April 21st at the 3:30pm “Social Issues in Robotics” Panel Presentation at We Robot 2012 at the University of Miami School of Law in Coral Gables, Florida. Sinziana Gutiu is a J.D. candidate at the University of Ottawa. She holds a B.A. in Criminology from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. Sinziana is interested in the legal consequences of emerging technologies, with a particular focus on human rights, privacy and human computer interaction. Following the completion of her degree, Ms. Gutiu will work at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Watched the panel video and read the paper and thought it was interesting tho misguided. Your insistence that sexrobots would be damaging to our society due to their lack of ability to “give consent” anthropomorphizes what are essentially large sextoys beyond all reason and you draw a lot of unfounded conclusions using anecdotal evidence such as youtube comments and from completely unrelated industries such as human pornography and prostitution which have next to nothing to do with robotics, personal or otherwise. It really feels like you were grasping at straws here due to a lack of actual hard data and filled the blanks with your personal feelings which made for a fluffy inconsequential piece that came across more as anti-technology fear mongering than pro-consent progressivism.