Taking apart the interview, and the logic behind the argument, we get to these statements.
“Sex dolls and sex robots in the form of women and girls do something else. In the mind of someone buying and using them – they ARE women and girls. They are designed deliberately to resemble women and girls because they want the man buying and using the dolls to believe it is a woman or girl. These are markedly different things. Sex dolls and mechanical dolls in the form of women and girls play on the idea that women are orifices to be penetrated.
Imagery that dehumanises others in order to justify rule over them serves a political purpose. These sex dolls of women and girls are serving a political purpose to reinforce the idea that women and girls are sub-humans/orifices.”
“In the mind of someone buying and using them – they ARE women and girls.”
This doesn’t follow at all; it needs some evidence to back it up. It’s just as likely that someone having sex with a robot just wants sex with a robot. Maybe it plays on the idea, but also it’s likely that that’s just play. There are a huge number of presumptions here, none of which are supported by research.
“Imagery that dehumanises others in order to justify rule over them serves a political purpose. ” True. This is what makes the argument such a problematic one. Dropping in valid political statements, that everyone can agree with, but then indicating a consequence that is no consequence is a standard bait-and-switch ploy. You agree with statement A and A causes B, therefore you have to agree with B. Everyone can agree there is a systemic oppression of women in the patriarchal society. And that is formed by men with power in society. That sex dolls are contributing to this is not at all evident though. The power of this as a series of statements though is that if you oppose B (because “therefore” is not proven) then somehow you are against A. It’s a specious and underhand way of carrying your argument.
What makes this “therefore” unlikely is that although men with power rule over women, men with sex dolls are rarely men with power. One of the areas I looked at with avatars is the role of the zeta males in many of the activities in virtual worlds. It is the men who have little or not power that compensate for this lack of power in their own lives by playing at being powerful in their fantasies. Their actions have no impact on wider society because nothing they do has impact.
OK generalisation there, which I admit. See how that works as a way to obfuscate relationships between concepts though? Zeta males have no power, only zeta males have sex with dolls, having sex with dolls therefore has no impact on society.
There may be a link. There may not. Acting on suspicions though is not really very ethical.
I suppose the bottom line for any ethical debate is do you deny a group of (some would call creepy) males’ expression of their sexuality out of caution that their actions may exacerbate the oppression all females, or not? It’s a classical deentological vs consequentialist dilemma. Do you take that chance of conducting a possibly unnecessary act of oppression on a minority group as a member of a group owning more power than those you oppress? If you’re a woman looking at the Prof Richardson v. agalmatophiles debate, whose side do you take; those of the powerful majority, or the powerless minority?
While you’re considering that, I’ll remind you of another analogy. When the pigs finally get to run things in Animal Farm, they end up being just as bad as the people they replaced. Power is intoxicating, you get to control things so that you can make them the way you want them to be. The consequences for a few disenfranchised people needn’t worry you if you’re not one of them. Prof Richardson has a platform, the agalmatophiles do not; it is evident where the power lies in this debate.
“Four legs good. Two legs better.” should haunt anyone acquiring power; adopt the ethical stance of checking you’re not simply replicating the iniquities of those who’ve had the power before you.