Call For a Ban On Child Sex Robots
Now they want to ban "Child Sex Robots". Should Child Sex Robots be banned? In theory, pedophiles who can have virtual sex or sex with bots would not be harming any child. What could justify banning something like this? Should sexuality be regulated even in virtual reality?
Experts have warned that the compliant robots, built only to service their owners, could encourage objectification, abuse, rape and paedophilia.
A robot pre-programmed to resist sexual advances was effectively a rape victim, said Prof Sharkey. "Some say it's better to rape a robot than a person, but others think it would encourage rape," he added.
In my opinion these are the same arguments people use to try to ban violent video games and porn in general. There have been no randomized controlled trials which have proven that video games cause violence, or that pornography causes rape. In fact, the rise in popularity in video games is correlated with a dramatic decrease statistically in violence.
In addition, if the rest of us can enjoy virtual reality why should only pedophiles have their toys banned? The argument being that if people can have fantasies about being werewolves, vampires, and whatever the hell else, why would we make an exception here and expect this one exception not to eventually be applied to everyone else?
While I'm not a fan of government spending, I think pedophiles that step forward, having never committed the crime, should be given their loli sex toys.
Think about it. They'll be less likely (in the majority) to commit a crime, because that urge would already have a satisfactory outlet for them. On top of that, it acts as a great red flag for anyone in a serious relationship with them, so the chances of that particular generic preference would get greatly reduced.
For those that actually fuck prepubescents though there is only one solution.
I pretty much agree. It's the same with drugs. People are going to do drugs legal or otherwise. England has been giving away heroine to registered addicts for years. I know the idea of the government giving away hard drugs chaps a lot of peoples asses, but this a situation where a pragmatic approach should be used. It's much less expensive to give away heroine than it is to police it and pay for incarceration. Also, the power is out of the hands of organized crime. I have an undergrad degree in anthropology, and can state with confidence that paedophilia has been accepted by many societies. The psychological harm that comes to the children is because they feel shunned or dirty because of societal norms. Paedophiles cannot be reformed. time has shown this over and over. As long as society decides it's a crime, then paedophiles should be given some outlet besides raping and eventually, due to fear of prison, murdering kids. The moral of the story is you can't legislate morality. people who want to fuck kids have always been here and always will be. I have absolutely no idea why, but it's true. Keep the kids safe and let people fuck what ever they want as long as no one is hurt.
Most offenders victimize hundreds of children before they are caught, so penalties are innective in protecting them. Therapy/reforms don't work as studies are shown. There is no cure. Preventing rape and a life time of emotional problems for children sounds like the best soloution to me. Just like an addict needs their heroin, a pedophile will seek "relief" one way or another.
It's all gas lighting. The truth is women (namely feminist activists) don't want to lose control of the sexual marketplace by having to compete with sex robots that don't stop a guy from sating himself (I'm talking normal adult with normal adult bot here). This criminal angle is the only vector of attack they have besides "it'll promote objectification" which is also BS. And they know that objectification angle has been losing steam as people become desensitized to being called horrible monsters for having biological urges.
As for the what if scenario in this post? I think whatever keeps someone from getting hurt is good. But this wouldn't be a treatment to anything. It'd be doping away symptoms. So while I don't think it should be banned, I also don't think it's going to be good for those who have criminal urges. Just as I don't think violent video games cause violent people but violent video games might be a little bad for people who already have it in them to commit violent crime.
Is there any human who doesn't have criminal urges? It's just most of the criminal urges aren't involving children. So what about the humans who have the urge to rob a bank or be a gangster so they play GTA or some other Mafia game? Why are these people allowed to create and play video games to live out their urges?
Can you also define what you mean by "people who have it in them"? Are you referring to psychopaths?
2nd question first - In the context of violence? There is a big difference between someone who enjoys GTA and someone who's going to go shoot a place up in real life. And all scientific studies show that video games don't cause that difference. So yeah, basically talking about mental illness and instability.
1st question - I think you misinterpret why people play video games. It's not to enact their urges. It's a power fantasy and competition no different than playing football. Some people find some settings more interesting. Like high fantasy and knights, or modern day with guns, or WW1 somewhere in there. Whatever. It makes the competition or power fantasy more appealing. But in the end it's just that.
However you also seemed to misinterpret me. I'm totally on board with things that cause no direct harm to others being legal.
I just said that in the case of someone with serious sex crime issues embedded in their personality (just as I think it's probably true with the unstable who, without video games, would still go on a shooting) your best outcome is medicating symptoms rather than curing anything and it might increase their urge for the real thing. Not because it does something to them. But because it lightly scratches a really itchy itch.
No activity that doesn't involve harm to others should be banned. No VR, no video game, no board game, no nothing.
If a person cannot control their urges then you have a point, but I think the people who have no ability to control their urges are quite rare and do not make up the vast majority. Since policies such as a ban would effect the majority the most then we have to consider the statistics of it all.
This is a logically consistent position to take but then how did you arrive at this position? And why do you go against the grain? It seems a lot of people want to ban this particular kind of sex bot, but of course there are some people who want to ban all sex bots and those people are logically consistent on the other side.
Consistency doesn't matter if there's no sound reasoning behind the position. If we have no reason to believe they'd do harm then why are they wanting to ban? I'd guess because they get weirded out.
You being weirded out is not a good reason to criminalize behavior. Furries weird me out but they aren't hurting anyone.
You can be logically consistent in your faith.
Not really. You can be faithfully consistent. At least when the framework of the discussion is motivation.
When you're pushing something that is innately illogical it's kind of fake to call it logically consistent. It's not founded on that in the first place. It's founded on religious faith, or emotion. Logic implies reasoning was used to get there.
If your argument is "I will not be using logic so I am logically consistent. Because not using logic ever is consistent use of logic." Well... you might be right on a technicality but it's kind of avoiding the meat of the issue.
" logically consistent on the other side."
Except they have no logic, as you have shown, the science is against them.
What they are really consistent on is their "feelings", and making decisions for others based on them.
You can be logical without being scientific. Religious people can be logical. Being logical simply means not contradicting.
So if the person really believes we should be able to ban stuff which causes no victims and which according to no studies has been proven to cause any harm, then in essence there does not need to be a justification to ban anything in the future as long as enough people feel it should be banned.
Extrapolate into a future where we are all extremely connected, high tech, and then tell me why wouldn't we have people who claim people who have violent thoughts should be monitored or policed in some kind of way due to the argument that if a person thinks about it too much they become more likely to do it?
"So if the person really believes we should be able to ban stuff which causes no victims and which according to no studies has been proven to cause any harm"
This may be a semantic point, but I think the "believes" part merits additional scrutiny. I have no beliefs that are not based on a logical argument that can be verbalized. Perhaps there's an exception on something that affects only me personally, like food flavors, but nothing comes to mind - all my positions can be rationally dictated to a third party.
I'm not against having disagreements about logic in good faith. For example, I drive a motorcyle, but a lot of people think that is basically insane because of the danger. My rational position that the risk is justified by the reward based on my riding skill and what I get out of it is equally as logical as another's hypothetical position that the risk of injury far outweighs the value of the reward (for them). The value is subjective, as is the risk, so as a result, so is the logic. This is fine when we aren't imposing our beliefs on others.
If someone just "believes" something, that is by definition in absence of a logical argument, until and unless they offer something resembling one. It's faith, feelings, etc.
As a result, I don't agree that having a "belief" for something with no rational thought process can be logical.
What I mean is, a theist can offer a logically consistent proof that God exists while an atheist can also offer a logically consistent proof that God doesn't exist. The premises really determine the flow of the argument.
So if someone starts with a premise like "my feelings are always right" and "I trust my feelings absolutely" then from this they can be logically consistent in saying they trust their feelings more than any scientific studies, and from there they can say their feelings are the only justification necessary to ban anything or create any law in the future.
In a feelings based society, the laws would be created based upon the mood of the zeitgeist. If a large enough demographic group of people feels a certain way about a certain thing then they can channel their feelings into policy and enforce their feelings through the law.
So a logical argument can be made that any law is justified if enough people feel the same way about it and the outcome of that law is irrelevant beyond how it makes people feel. This would in my opinion at first glance be a logically consistent argument where the number 1 priority in society is to protect the feelings of it's members.
Put these phrases into context?
People who live by these sorts of phrases could have a totally different way of justifying right and wrong. If something feels right or feels wrong will have the most weight.
The Law of Attraction may not be an actual law but it makes sense when a million people feel the same way.
References
I feel the use of sex robots is very contrary to nature and human instinct itself, why we should think to vent the sex so that no rape should use robot ..? I think we should better impart the teaching of faith to the child, unless we do not believe in faith and what about people who have no faith ..? Do we have to tell them here there is a sex robot, do it with this robot, for me it is not realistic..thanks
Faith is baseless assumption. We should teach it to nobody.
At least he started the sentence with "I feel" instead of "I think". I actually think his comment is very good and can respect the honesty of it even if it's unscientific faith based.
I'm not shooting down his right to believe. I specifically addressed teaching it. I'm against indoctrination.
Thanks for bringing this issue up in this community. In my opinion I think the robot should be banned.
I agree as its sets precedent for development of this " mental " illness and once the doll satisfies no longer the practiced pedofile steps up to the plate for a " real deal " and hopefully this first "kill " f is not your child?? Pedofile,s are sick and need to be treated not given objects of any description with which to feed their hunger !
I suspect none of your arguments are backed by scientific studies, just emotion. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, my suspicion is similar. But you can't say for sure what the impact is until it's studied.
Yeah, as opposed to them going straight to the child molesting first, giving them time to molest a lot more. THAT'S MUCH BETTER.
Yes, that is why we need to speak up.
Do you have any reasoning or evidence for this, or just your feelings?
No reason, is just my personal feeling. thanks .
Hmmm.. Aside from possible ethical concerns that this could raise, I don't know if having these bots are even enough to pacify paedo urges. It's one thing to argue aggressive nature and what can influence it into action. It's a whole different idea for sexual drives/urges. Sexual elements of humans are more needs than anything. Even after all the porn and simulated stimulation, the human body/psyche naturally craves/needs real sexual attachment. Including an emotional attachment that comes with it that bots may not be able to simulate. Top that off with the possible uncanny valley and there are doubts this could do much to pacify what is deeply rooted in humans. Honestly though we can only wait and see, if that is possible.
I found this post interesting. I think you did a good job
This comment has received a 0.13 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
This all about desensitising a certain behavior. Violent video games and horror movie with blood and gore desensitising the person who would otherwise be revolted. This makes training a soldier easier when they are already exposed it to it some way or form. In my view robotic therapy in this case is no different.
And no one who claims this has ever cited a successful peer reviewed study proving it. This is nothing more than a superstition until someone can prove that what people watch has any influence over what people do.
People watch porn and play violent video games yet are less violent than ever before. Rape also is not common and no one has been able to link porn to rape. Soldiers get trained to kill but the video games don't actually make it easier to kill. It's the drones that actually have an impact perhaps but do you really think soldiers are the only people who play Counterstrike?
I just find it odd that people believe something like this without any proof and then want to set policies based on a belief.
An actual study found this result:
So when we go the scientific route we find no link between long term playing of violent video games and changes in empathic responses. In other words, playing violent video games will not turn people into psychopaths no matter how many years they play.
References
I just don't know what to believe in the world these days except my own feelings. Even though there are peer reviews conducted, these can also be biased. For example, drug studies and reviews are being sponsored by drug companies thus giving a drug a glowing review etc... the world is just too corrupted to take things at face value. We just never know the full story until after the fact.
That might be true in the case of some studies, but it doesn't change that your feelings have absolutely NO basis in science and are logically a worse way to base your legislation than studies that MIGHT be corrupt but should be confirmed or denied by peer review and repeated studies.
"I just don't know what to believe in the world these days except my own feelings. "
See, that's your problem. Feelings are literally the opposite of logic, and logic is categorically a superior means of decision making.
Every decision you make with your feelings that is any more complex than "What Ice Cream do I want" is by definition fallacious.
So you believe a peer reviewed well designed study (randomized controlled trial etc) is somehow more bias than your own feelings? I guess I can respect your feelings on this but feelings don't always lead to the truth in my opinion.
"In my view robotic therapy in this case is no different."
So, I guess that means you are against banning the child sex-bots, because all evidence proves this claim of yours to be 100% false and based on your feels:
"Violent video games and horror movie with blood and gore desensitising the person who would otherwise be revolted."
I upvoted you for the simple reason that you touched this hot potato. Also for stimulating a debate from an unpopular standpoint. That is commendable.
In thinking this matter over, I've a few things to say.
First and foremost - there is nothing obscene about the human body - whether adult or child. This is a statement made independently of any context of sexualization.
As such, on a level of 'being', there is nothing obscene about a robot or a virtual character in the form of a child.
Secondly (and I think that most readers would agree), I consider it far preferable to explore actions upon virtual proxies (robot or virtual character) that would be deplorable if explored with the actual subject concerned (in this case a child).
This is a matter of regarding the matter in relative rather than absolute terms. There is still something 'concerning' about the wish to explore such avenues.
However I do feel that representation of the 'full' spectrum of the issue should be encouraged if virtual proxies should be so. One thing that I somehow doubt is adequately conveyed by such proxies are important behavioral cues like confusion, reluctance, resistance, refusal, crying, 'not having a good time', etc.
If a person 'does' wish to explore such then let the experience be quite comprehensive. It is my expectation that this will greatly reduce the 'temptation' to explore this further. And consequences can be taken further. After the simulated act, simulate the 'child' growing up with snapshots. Accusing eyes. Unable to fit in. An unhappy continuance. Any of a variety of sad endings (not necessarily suicide).
Thirdly - I feel that there ought to be a far greater emphasis upon understanding 'what' triggers pedophilic inclinations. Even if such is somehow 'natural' (and perhaps I am being narrow-minded in saying that I don't see how - on the basis that a child is 'not' mature enough to engage in such activities) such understanding might provide a more solid basis for nipping potential issues in the bud. And I do realize that I've understated the complexity of this issue here.
Fourthly - I personally feel that pedophilia is a symptom of an unhealthy, non-open and repressive relationship between us humans, our own bodies and our own sexuality - which is very naturally spurned on by the hormones within our biologies.
It is my perhaps mistaken view that sexual deviations that target the vulnerable - the young, the elderly, animals, the disabled, (heck) even the dead - might have been seeded by some human's bodies and minds trying to rationalize a way out of the cage imposed by Society - with often very unfortunate results. I personally also think that this applies to 'some' rapists.
Well... I've said my peace for the moment. Thank you again for sparking a debate.
Sex bots banned or not , what kids learn is not only from this but others around them , their nature their environment their loved ones, how kids were 20 years ago and kids now , you will see how the environment has changed to the point where kids are much ahead of us when we were kids . They are exposed to sex and these kinda factors earlier
There would be no point in banning it. Once the tech is available, it will be exploited....possibly is already. Can you imagine what may be happening to clones in the dark places of the earth?
If a pedophile acts out a fantasy against a robot or a virtual character, I don't think there is a reasonable standpoint for intervention. If a pedophile or anyone else, interferes with a child, there should be more serious consequences if guilt can be proven.
If there are some, given the ability to submerse themselves within and indulge every diabolical fantasy to all extremes, that end up even more damaged than they were before, well that is what humanity and the world we live in sometimes produces. We would do well to have this damage in the open where every attempt can be made to mitigate it rather than driving it underground where it will fester.
Cloning is way different. Clones are people so if that happens there is a victim. Robots are AI, and an AI character could be a video game character or virtual reality creation. So to ban any kind of sex robot is to regulate people's sexual fantasies and urges.
The question is whether or not it's worth it? When no one is harmed by whatever is going on in someone else's mind then what is the reasoning behind society taking interest?
I understand. What if the clone was engineered to have no mind or a selectively impaired mind? If a flesh and blood vessel was grown without any higher functions at all, is that a victim? I mean I would certainly say so but I don't have the language to describe why. Is the interference of the potential for consciousness before it has formed abuse? Is a robot clone a victim?
What goes on in people's minds is their own business. What they do is their own business unless it harms someone else. The idea that left to their own devices, without rules, there would be a mass stampede into the netherworld where monsters would grow until something much worse started spilling out, I think is unlikely.
The difference with a clone is it has a brain, which means it can feel pain. If it can suffer then it's no different from a non-human animal which can suffer. So I would say the clone could be a victim if it can experience suffering.
A robot cannot suffer unless programmed to. A sex robot is just a toy, and why should society care what individuals do with their toys?
Well, a lot of people think sex bots (all of them) should be banned because it somehow dehumanizes people or something. I honestly don't fully understand the argument which is why I'm asking questions because the argument put forward does not seem logically consistent or based on any scientific studies.
It has been claimed that sex bots promote objectification. I'm very confused by this particular argument because objectification happens in the brain and they could very well say erotica stories promote objectification and seek to ban books.
The question to answer first is whether or not objectification as play is harmful. If it's done all the time, and in a serious context, of course it is harmful. If it's done in a virtual setting, or as play, then how is it any more harmful than any other game that people choose to play? It's only harmful if there is a victim and in this case I don't see how objectificiation always has a victim.
Objectification is how people think about another person. To try to regulate that away is to say society should regulate how individuals think about each other. Is this society going too far? Should society be restricted to only regulate how people act and not how people think?
References
"Well, a lot of people think sex bots (all of them) should be banned because it somehow dehumanizes people or something. I honestly don't fully understand the argument which is why I'm asking questions because the argument put forward does not seem logically consistent or based on any scientific studies."
I can help with this part.
Modern day feminists have a bit of a subconscious fear of losing the sexual marketplace stranglehold. Right now women tend to hold all the cards. In birth control options, sexual access, etc. "Sex Bots" even just the "normal" version of that is a threat to their sexual monopoly. Guys might stop playing the game altogether because it's less hassle to just buy a VR program or robot. And since feminists aren't the most attractive of the bunch as it is...
Now, they don't admit this to themselves, so they go on crazy tirades about objectification as though it's going to be much worse and more widespread than:
All advertising
Video Game characters
Mannequins
Models
Risque jokes, stories, and whatever else
The vast porn repository of the internet
Etc.
It doesn't make sense logically. Let's be real, creepy though it might seem a freaking robot is going to be a luxury good. This isn't going to cause an epidemic of objectification. Even IF we thought having one caused that (no scientific study backing this at all) it's going to be prohibitively expensive.
But that's part of the problem. Expensive means the best providers, the guys that are some of the best targets, won't need them any more. And an aging feminist has basically no options as it is.
Just my take. This is all sexual chess. Women see the potential to lose a powerful point of leverage and are resistant.
I actually see it becoming extremely cheap with VR and suits. I don't think "bots" means physical robots but AI bots.
Eh, it'll take time for the tech to get there. I think realistic (enough) robots will get there faster than truly immersive sense based VR.
But I'd agree that end game is more likely to be where people go in the long run. Plugging themselves into a fantasy in full will be very appealing compared to the real world alternative. Especially if we master "inflicting pleasure" through some sort of headset directly.
Amen.
The Japanese men are already doing this:
"Guys might stop playing the game altogether because it's less hassle to just buy a VR program or robot."
I wonder how much longer western women will deny this phenomenon.