Sexual preference is based on some very basic principles: "Does it look/act human? Can it believably indicate sexual interest? Does it understand what it is?".
These three core questions form what I consider the very key components in what humans look for in their sexual partner. Those are my objective points. My subjective points in relation from to the above points.
A human child has an appearance and behaviour that gives the impression of an incomplete human. It is the duty of "completed" humans to make sure that the incomplete one becomes as complete as them. Raising and nurturing the child, in short. A complete human could also be called an "individual".
Cloned humans, without a sense of "self" (i.e, an incomplete human) loses a very important trait to myself: the ability to choose for itself, and what to do with it's life. A "real" person, an individual has this ability and drive since birth: conditions around it while maturing affects how much is sees or believes itself capable off.
In my mind, one of the greatest abilities that humans have are their ability to question. Social norms and or religion could, and have proven themselves to be very good at limiting that ability: but not break it down completely.
Though, this ability depends entirely on a person's ability to express itself: it requires higher thinking, and a language that others understand.
A clone could be deprived of this: and as a result of that, it'd look like a human, but it'd be trapped in the Uncanny Valley, which robs it out of it's seeming humanity, which would also rob it of the dignity normal, mentally healthy people attribute to other people.
To me, the "human dignity" is integral to sexual attraction. The notion of "throw-away partners" (meaning you sleep with different people each time) reflects immaturity and insecurity, but also a lack of empathy and recognition of other's value, and their dignity as humans, which indicates that all you are looking for is a masturbatory device with a body temperature and the ability to do what you want it to do.
Gynoids/andriods falls squarely under that definition as well: an robotic artificial human lacks even the notion of human dignity by default: they aren't even human.
They might look human, but go deeper than skin-deep, and you find they are fake. They are as deep into the uncanny valley as they come. And seeing as they have the appearance of humans, but aren't- they simply become very realistic masturbation tools, and a chance for the user to feel like they have control over a full-grown (complete) human.
In short:
Cassita said:
Rape is about control and dominance; it has nothing to do with sex.
If there is no sense of power and struggle, the individual would gain nothing from it.
I agree, except for the last part: there is a sense of sexual satisfaction- similar to masturbation. If you rob the "satisfier" of human dignity and sense of self, you have exercised the illusion of control over someone else.
Rape is rape. No matter the motivation behind it. Let's not make it less of a moral crime than it is by making the potential "victims" not human, 'aight?
