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.
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 .
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.
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.
What in the actual fuck humanity? XD
I can't even imagine why this wouldn't be banned!!
But then again I feel the vomit rising in my throat at the thought of this even being something that exists!! This helps normalise Paedophilia in any and all forms and the DoJ in the US wishes to legalise it already so this is another stepping stone for those who want that end game. And if this is truly another tool to normalise Paedophilia (which I believe it is) then what happens when it becomes legal (because it's coming)!!! Do you think Paedophiles will just stick with their machines...........???? Not a chance. They will instantly and immediately move on to the real, flesh and blood children. And the argument that it stops them going for real children is laughably idiotic in my mind, surely there are numerous other methods. Some seemingly 'good' and others more harmful and potentially unethical. But this method is just enabling, pure and simple. And denying of that fact is playing straight in to the hands of those who want our children classified as sexual objects.
I won't swear at this lunacy, but HELL - LET KIDS BE KIDS NOT SEXUALISED OBJECTS. Their innocence should be valued, protected and revered for as long as humanly possible. Just because us as adults are already messed up beyond belief, doesn't give us the right to destroy our own (and their) future!!!!!!!
Apologies this is the one topic that boils my blood and enrages me like nothing else.
The other thing that sprung to mind when I saw this post was the so-called comedy skit by SNL not so long ago which featured everyone's favourite muscle head Dwayne "Hail Satan" Johnson. Here's the video if you've not seen it. It's equally as insane and disgusting.
The elite and their puppets at all levels want Paedophilia, Beastiality and many other perversions legalised as fast as possible, and they're winning. And as a race we're letting them get away with it in the name of tolerance and social justice. All because the masses will not stand up for this insanity.
Anyway that's just my tuppence worth at this stage.
Much love to all and prayers for those trapped and imprisoned within the bowels of the beast system.
"I can't even imagine why this wouldn't be banned!!"
Probably because there is no logic in banning it, and the science goes against banning it, and nobody has advanced a single non-fallacious argument for why it should be banned except "my feels". So, any reasonable, intellectually honest person who isn't a statist would not want this banned. Pretty simple, really.
" LET KIDS BE KIDS NOT SEXUALISED OBJECTS. "
Robots = Kids. I feel like you aren't getting this part, because not-banning these robots accomplishes exactly your stated goal.
Some very bad people are doing very bad things in this world. Many people and media and governments and religions and corporations are involved in trafficking and we will go after them. Clinton is involved. Many are involved in very bad things with children. We always hear about missing children. Where did they go? The robot thing is a problem too.
"The robot thing is a problem too."
Why? Besides the fact that you find it distasteful I mean. Nobody is directly harmed.
I am attracted to it. I would even buy one. It would be tough not to buy one. Will I ever buy one? I do not know. I think having a real woman would be better. However, men do not want to be alone. That is why men buy dolls.
How is any of that a problem? Learn to have some willpower and discipline if you DON'T want one or embrace that you do and buy one.
None of what you said is an argument against having them.
There are reasons for not having them. I do not have to make those arguments for those things to be true. I did not say I was arguing or not. I know it kind of looks like I am arguing. I was kind of hinting at an argument and you either know a real woman is better or you do not know that. I do not have to make an argument than can prove why a real woman is better than a robot. People can do what they want. I did not say you cannot get one. Do what you want but a real woman is better.
English might not be your first language. So I'm trying to assume the best here.
You don't get to state "There are reasons I am right, but I'm not going to tell you those reasons. But I'm right." in a discussion and look like anything but the loser. That's just not how debates and discussions work.
If you have good reasons for what you think state them. If you don't then you should re-examine why you feel so strongly about something you're obviously uninformed on.
That's all I'll say to that.
As for the rest, nothing personal in this for me. I'm not dumb enough to waste money on a robot that lays there. I want mine to have laser guns.
As for real women being better... eh, maybe you've met better women than I have in life. Most are basically children anyway.
"I do not have to make those arguments for those things to be true."
Yeah, actually you do. That's how debate works. Until you do, you are simply laughably wrong.
" you either know a real woman is better or you do not know that. "
You can't know this, unless you have been to the future.
That's because there is no argument against having them, except feels.
I think should be banned.....!
It sets a precedent. If you can ban this then what can't be banned? Also what is the justification for banning it if there is no victim?
Based on your feels?
It's an interesting argument. Should you ban the simulation of something that is wrong?
In other words should society try to ban the thoughts themselves?
Good point! Obviously society finds the idea very distasteful but there are lots of perfectly legal things I find distasteful that shouldn't be banned.
this is a case of being inbetween a rock and a hard place. on one hand, for pedophiles this could be a way out for them to experience their fantasies without causing harm and on the hand this might multiply the number of pedophiles.
How would it create a pedophile? If someone isn't attracted to children then how exactly is that going to change just because of a robot, or virtual reality AI character?
If the main concern is protecting actual children then why should we care what goes on in people's minds as long as their actions aren't harmful?
If we applied this same standard to everyone, and set a precedent? Okay so would people into BDSM who have rape fantasies be more likely to become rapists because they role played it? Should rape fantasies be universally banned?
So, considering this:
" this might multiply the number of pedophiles."
...runs counter to all accepted science, how do you figure?
NO. because, child. That's it. I have no more to say! "treat" pedos? balls. Can't compare this to violence video games. This is CHILDREN we are talking about. Don't you think these will encourage non pedo to eventually turn into one?
So all logic and reasoning should be thrown out the window for this exception? Doesn't seem very scientific.
" This is CHILDREN we are talking about."
No, these are inanimate machines. You have no logic, only a feelings based fallacy "argument".
should be baned right-now!
Based on your feels?
OMG....I had no idea.
I really like your post ,,
I have upvote you,
Now it's your turn to ask for my upvote,
thank you
Sex IS noT a Compulsion It'S a DeSire!!!!! @dana-edwards.. upvoted
are they devil?
how can do that with innocent child?
It seems like an interesting argument.
I personally think they should be banned even though I can understand some people will disagree.
Can you give a reasonable and logical explanation or why it should be banned? And if you can, couldn't the same logic apply to every other sex robot as well? I mean if you can ban one kind of sex robot why not ban all of them for the same reasons?
I can see your point,I have no logical reason why a child sex robot should be banned but not an adult one.
This is just my point of view, but would you be happy if you found out any of your neighbours had one. Because I know I wouldn't and I think many parents with young children would agree with me.
This could lead to potential revenge attacks (not what I agree with). I'm sure anyone affected by child sex abuse would also agree
So I will ask you, is it our business to know what goes on in our neighbors bedrooms? Of course people will be upset to learn what people do in their bedrooms but we'd also be upset to learn what people actually think about but don't say, or to learn what people say in private but not in public.
So if your feelings are correct, then what is supposed to happen once there is no private areas left in society?
"I personally (feel, counter to the accepted science, and with no form of logic) they should be banned"
Fixed your post for you.
That does sound beetter👍
If its not hurting anyone let it be, simple as that.
nice
i can not understand why people are making robots which can do such things
i think robot in general should be banned
Are you a Luddite who runs an Abacus factory?
Also, ban computers which are basically robots without arms and legs.
Why should be banned?
Maybe this is good, they can vent to this robot.
Wow! Steemit world really have rare information (for me) out in a box. Never heard or seen any of that untill now. Thank you for sharing. 😊
Any human that does not see infants of any specie as something to protect is already a menace to society, I think life makes infants and children biologically "adorable" so that it is protected by its enviroment anything contrary to that is like a cancerous cell that will seriously injure "humanity" or our social enviroment, pedo's are like cancer, nature did not get this right but it doesnt mean we should allow it and consider it natural, humans adapt to any enviroment if we allow pedophilia soon were allowing rape, soon after were allowing murder and soon after that humanity as we know it ends, bad wiring only causes more bad wiring, anything that permits/promotes such horrifying actions or thoughts or abhorrent behaviour should be discouraged not encouraged. Sex dolls are already bad as it is!
Also monkey sees monkey do, if we make this kind of pedo acceptable we are slowly but surely sometime in the future making it a human right or generally accepted which I find extremely dangerous for society as a whole. I also think this canada thing is dangerous AF but it fits in this agenda freedom of speech trumps freedom of self if your a man and want to be called a woman I'm sorry but your a man and because someone can't face reality should not force me to twist it on the basis of respect! I dont mean you can insult or discriminate but being forced to twist reality out of respect is a social hazard!
The availability of prostitutes decreased rape by 30% in Rhode Island.
Pedophiles have a problem that is horrible for society. But, they can't just "get over it." So -- do we give them a valve to release the pressure? Or do we stick to our Puritan roots and tell them they have to repress it?
I'm a function guy, so I would choose the option that reduces the damage they do to real kids.
If you can cite that statistic with a link that would be helpful but I do believe you because porn usage also correlates with lower incidents of rape.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/?utm_term=.639ad09f18a9
Prostitution, as much as we might dislike it, is not a crime. It is by definition an interaction between consenting adults.
Outlawing prostitution does not make it go away. It just deprives prostitutes from the protection of the law. If they are abused or mistreated or cheated, they can't go to the police. So the often cited reason for outlawing prostitution, "to protect the women", is nonsense.
Society outlaws prostitution because women are scared that if it is legal, their husbands may avail themselves of it. That is the real underlying reason. They clothe this personal interest in supposed concern for the poor prostitutes, but a little simple logic shows that this doesn't make any sense.
"Some say it's better to rape a robot (than a human"
I'm glad these "experts" and geniuses find such basic morality so negotiable. Who is on the other side of this claim, Jack The Ripper?
Great article. Indeed it should be banned
Why don't you guys post some real hot content?
this is really a great cause. i was just disturbed on the issue of sex education the way it is been taught to encourage immorality and here is another great cause. i think as a community (steemit), we can put a ban of many wrongs in our society.
please share your thought with this issue of sex education as it is been taught presently in nigeria ... this is an introduction to porn for the young minds
https://steemit.com/sex/@outhori5ed/sex-education-by-ogunleye-dele-victor
Unless these child sexbots are weaponized and programmed to kill these predators than f them.
Giving them sex toys, crossing our fingers and hoping they never harm a real child is not the solution.
Trying to appease these monsters is not the answer.
There is no such thing as a virtuous pedophile. It's sick and should never be accepted.
The only sex is real sex between two consenting adults. Virtual, doll/robot sex is nothing more than tools to further the depopulation agenda.
Thanks for posting this btw. It's a serious issue that should be discussed.
@dana-edwards you definitely pose some interesting topics. You get a follow
This is definitely a very interesting situation. The way we help and connect those struggling with pedophilia is really problematic. Like anyone, you don't get to choose to what you are attracted, but you those that have it are demonized to the point that they can't even get help.
Even admitting the attraction to children can get you locked up before you've even done anything. That's a huge problem especially with so many hardliners around. http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1658-5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html
In regards to robots and virtual reality, I'm of the mind that giving people what they want actually makes them better people, not deprivation. Not touting desire as weakness, but understanding and offering safe ways to explore ourselves.
It's not being able to get what you want and believing you'll never have it in any way that drives people to dark and criminal activity. If this is a way to mitigate that feeling of despair I believe it'll help a lot more people that it hurts, even if its in controlled, medical capacities.
meh on those pedophiles when they can just go to a sex house and find young girls and have sex.
promoting my sex life though
https://steemit.com/sex/@psmanipulator/i-m-not-good-at-sex-and-my-penis-is-small-says-my-partner