Arguments for banning "sex robots"

I never said the media was representative of the norm. I said the opposite. It used to be a gag based on embarrassement of a woman who got caught with one.

Now it is no longer a funny gag because it is so passe and yes it is the norm.

 

Psh. Banning sex robots. Counterproductive waste of time that would add to their appeal. Government has enough to do rather than preemptively strike against a small theoretical harm. Let freedom be the default.

 

It doesnt sound like you know (or want to know) how to freedom. The question is not 'why not ban it', the question is 'what necessitates banning it'?

I bet there's something you like that a majority of us think 'has no tasteful appeal.' Nothing of value would be lost by banning it then, right?

...starting to think you're just another out-of-touch authoritarian who thinks the truncheon of govt violence exists for you to use to force other people to be more like you. Am I wrong?

 

Why the hell would the government have any say what someone chooses to do with their private lives that doesn’t even involve another human being? I think it is a bit weird, but it’s not my business, and certainly not the government’s business, so why would they be involved? Let people do whatever the hell they want as long as it is not harming anybody.

 

Oh! No! You reminded me of the old joke about the inflatable sex doll being delivered by the postal service when the package burst and the doll fell out. The postal worker spots this doll in the back of the truck and thinks “ oh! Well! Why not? “. Inflates the doll has his way then repackages it. 6 months later the company is doing a follow up satisfaction survey and knocks on the owners door

“You bought one of our dolls recently -did you find it realistic?”

“Realistic!” The customer replied “I’ll say! Darn thing gave me a dose of the clap! “.

 

Most companies don't create things without some type of analysis of its appeal to their target audience so your comment "since they have no tasteful appeal to begin with" is your personal opinion (and mine) but, clearly, somebody is buying these things.

I'm not sure if you've read about it but many countries have placed bans on child-like sex dolls. The opponents of those laws argue that they are "valuable" because it prevents people from sexually violating real children. Proponents say it can lead to that when one tires of the inanimate object.

I realize your topic is not about that but wanted to put it out there because these things have a way of evolving to be more realistic and interactive.

Personally, the idea repulses me but I am torn on the issue of the value something like this creates for those that are into it. For instance, would this alternative

* substantially lower unwanted pregnancies (and the never-ending debate about abortion rights),
* substantially lower sexual assault, sexual harassment and/or human trafficking,
* substantially lower the spread of sexually transmitted diseases,

thereby significantly decreasing the medical costs associated with all of the above.

Then, of course, you have the religious aspect. I was raised Catholic and, even as a kid, I knew it was BS that Noah was like 900 years old and, allegedly, we are ALL God's children but we need an interpreter (priest) to talk to him? Plus, the level of hatred, back-stabbing, extramarital affairs, blah, blah, blah...all nonsense. People cherry pick the crap they want to memorize and then start judging others. It's all just ridiculous.

Nevertheless, I bring that up because, specially, in Catholicism it is a sin to masturbate. This question was the beginning of the end of my faith simply because it doesn't make sense to disavow the use of condoms when HIV/AIDS was on the rise several decades ago. The implication is that people shouldn't be having sex for any purpose other than procreation and that's not only practically impossible, it's a million degrees of denial about how real life works. I always found it strange that priests (and nuns) are supposedly celibate but engaged couples are required to go through counseling with a priest before they allowed to marry in a Catholic church. What does a priest have to offer anyone about marriage and the issues that married couples will endure as they join their lives together? Even as a kid, that sounded stupid to me. I also have a serious issue with the way the Vatican addresses the issue of childhood sexual abuse allegations against some of their priests. There was a huge movement to "cure" men of their homosexual urges by encouraging them to study for priesthood. It makes no sense whatsoever to tell someone to "get over it" and I'll let you be unaccompanied around young boys while you work on that. That's outrageously wrong on so many levels. I say we let them have as many of these as they want.

So, of course, all the closeted kinky freaks will probably venture down this road while publicly pretending they are one step away from sainthood. It's a good thing for the manufacturers though. They know their target audience is most likely the one looking down their noses at everybody else and condemning us all to hell. Yeah, these kinds of things go like hotcakes to the hypocritical masses. I'd even be willing to buy a few thousand for the pervs that can't keep their hands and body parts off kids.

 

If anything I wound support them, maybe the incels of this nation will find something better to do than to troll others online or to shoot-up schools and spas.

 

"Sorry honey, I cheated on you with a sex robot"

 

[QUOTE="kazenOr

Or a couple fighting about him refusing to get rid of his robot and he says he will but she has to get rid of her dildo.

 

Aren't dolls part of nature? What are you going to do next, prohibit men from using their hands and imaginations

 

The constitution is not an authorizing document, which says what the government is prevented from doing. It's a limiting document which says what the government is allowed to do.

If the Constitution doesn't specifically say the government is authorized to do something, then they aren't and it becomes a state issue.

Further. Just because you don't see value in something doesn't mean it's worthy of outlaw. That type of thinking is exactly why the Constitution was written the way it was.

 

I thought I was pretty clear on this point, but yes. That is exactly what I am saying. No compelling state interest exists that would give government authority to regulate or ban these devices, except for limiting their use to consenting adults in private environments. Ergo, no government, at least in the United States of America, has the authority to do so, even if they can get such laws passed by legislative bodies. Inevitably, should such laws be passed by any layer of government, Courts would find them Unconstitutional for that reason. Regardless of how any individual my feel about such devices, the authority to ban them simply does not exist.

Governments in the US do not have unlimited powers.

Emphasis added.

And I believe that people who cannot spell properly, such as yourself, should not be allowed to post their opinions on the Internet.

Now that you have swallowed that, the reality is that I do not believe that, and even if I did, y beliefs do not adhere to the same compelling state interest test that I was talking about. Even if I thought that, and even if I could somehow get a Legislative body to endorse that idea, and pass it into law, it would justifiably be ruled as Unconstitutional for the very same reason as your apparent wish to control the sex lives of perfect strangers, and prohibit people you do not even know from using devices that you find repulsive. Fortunately, your feelings on this particular topic are unimportant from a legalistic perspective.

Which is a good thing.

Do not alter my words. You may argue, disagree, debate, or dispute them to your hearts content. But do not ever alter them again.

About that you are correct. And while my instinct is to say that we will only know when a Court someday acts on such a law, I have serious doubts it will ever come to that, as I don't see such a law passing out of any Legislative body, at least not here. The very concept is so silly, and at the same time so backwards, that I just don't see it happening. While it might make for a moderately interesting thing to discuss or debate, the public no longer cares strongly enough about controlling individuals sex lives to create much if any Legislative interest in doing so. As time goes by, the more liberated and open such opinions become, and the religious nutjobs and absolute control freaks who think their own personal "morals" ought be enforced on society as a whole are literally dying off, the sillier and sillier such a proposal will look to the public and their elected representatives. People who meet such descriptions will continue to exist, in all likelihood perpetually, but their numbers will be so small there will be no political points to be gained in hearing them out or humoring them.

So, I doubt that a Court will rule on the matter because I doubt your proposal will ever become law anywhere making such a ruling necessary.

You need to keep in mind that the USA of the 21st Century is one where pornography is readily, legally, and freely available to anyone with an internet connection, where high-end strip joints exist in pretty much all major and a lot of minor cities, and public figures are generally not afraid to be "caught" going to one. Sex clubs and swinger resorts operate legally and in the open, and the publics appetite for ending such things is effectively nil.

When you have to resort to recycling the arguments of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon to make your case you've lost before you've even begun. Those radical opinions may have had an audience in the 60s and 70s, but modern society has gone so far away from those repressive attitudes that it will not be going back. Which is good for all of us.

Not in this country- But I'm beginning to think you're not from here, and you have no idea what the attitudes of this country actually are when it comes to legislating private personal sexual behavior.

So what? This is neither Europe, nor the Commonwealth. The Constitutional protections we are afforded are not generally available to the people who live there, meaning you may have more luck pitching your ridiculous and old fashioned ideas elsewhere. You'll not find a very receptive audience here.

 

With respect, that's very naive.

You're not speaking about the entirety of 'sexually mature' women. Your belief is predicated on a tiny sample size, which itself exists within a fairly opaque bubble.

 

No idea what any of that means, sorry.

 

Are you being such technology is not just far in the future but it might be strictly relegated to science fiction.

 

Aggression against men is not a problem because men are expendable.

Haven't you ever seen those articles with the title to the effect of Irish suicide rate and Men women most affected or skyrocketing homelessness in men or women most affected.

In this society men are here to be servants. The most of course you check out of that deal that's a problem because if all of your servants check out then you'll have to do things for yourself.

 

If banning drug possession isn't a "violation of privacy", then no I don't think that banning sex robots or vibrators is - if what's being banned is the production or distribution.

Right, and the product could be banned and the companies can go out of business - maybe they should've picked a more viable business venture.

All lies and denialism, of course. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary whether present or historical, though it's very nuanced and contextual.

People who are, say porn addicts, just conveniently deny this, just as chain smokers or alcoholics deny that smoking or drinking heavily have health risks, and simply re-enforce their denial via echo chambers and circular reasoning.

Correlation / causation fallacy.

[quote
The only real opposition to these things is for two reasons.

One feminists
[/quote]
Stopped reading there.

Nope, no guy who looks like Brad Pitt or has the bank account of Warren Buffet will ever need a sex robot, and the only male demographic who would ever have a serious interest in one is the lowest common denominator of the male sex, who virtually no woman would ever have been interested in to begin with.

And if a woman is marginally self-actualized, she might get married, but she wouldn't be unhealthily "dependent" or "attached" to a bad relationship, that's rather anti-thetical to any "feminist" notion of autonomy or self-actualization.

Not to mention that there are plenty of people who have sex but do not desire to have children anyway, so most men who could actually attract a woman would just do everything they can to minimize the chances of having children (e.x. birth control) - they wouldn't be in the market for a sex bot unless they were so undesirable that no woman would have had any consensual interest in them to begin with.

That makes absolutely no sense - since being completely financially or otherwise dependent on a man is not a "feminist" ideal, it's rather the opposite. Your somewhat idiotic notion of "traditional roles" is also flawed from the get-go, since in reality socio-economics and other circumstances have been the overriding factor - for example a high-status woman such as Marie Curie in the 19th century was more "individualized and self-actualized" than the average or lower socio-economic woman today is.

And whatever that 'threat' might be, it certainly isn't coming from "sex robots" - the only thing that sex robots are a "threat" to is a man's right hand.

I'm going to say it again - the type of men who'd use sex robots never "turned away from marriage and fatherhood" - they were just social misfits who never had a chance with an actual woman to begin with.

You're not going to see guys who look like Brad Pitt stop dating women and start using sex robots, trust me - the type of guys who might do that will pretty much exclusively look like the "World of Warcraft guy" on South Park.

Another idiotic notion which honestly sounds like it's coming from a virgin or someone who's never had a consensual sexual experience or relationship.

I've seen idiots make this argument before, and it's completely dishonest - for example, a very large portion of the money that "women allegedly spend" is on joint household expenses, such as groceries, clothing for their spouse, and children's expenses. Statistically, especially if they're stay-at-home moms and the husband is the primary worker, woman are more likely to be the one who "purchases the goods", but the vast majority of the purchase are not spent solely on luxury items for themselves.

Your exaggerated claim also isn't about "real men" to begin with, just losers or the lowest common denominator of the male sex who have no morals, standards, or personal boundaries. Normal men and women are able to set healthy personal boundaries so that things don't devolve into one or the other "using" the other person, and the other person being so selfish and cowardly that they just "let them do it" - but I don't think this is something you or other loser males can relate to, and as result just deny.

I've already basically debunked this, and it's just based on dishonest cherry pickings of "statistics" or "false equivalencies".

Women do not "control" men's money, unless you're talking about certain divorce or alimony arrangements decided by the court (which, of course do not discriminate solely on "sex" - for example, Britney Spears' ex-husband Kevin Federline receives bukus in alimony and child support from her - it's just more statistically common for the man to be the primary earner).

Likewise, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend money or allow money to be spent in a certain way beyond what the law decides. Maybe you're a 90lb weakling married to a 250 female MMA fighter who will beat you up and force you to hand her money against your will, but again you and similar varieties of loser are far from any "norm" - you just so caught up in your own loserdom that you literally can't relate to anything that's marginally normal.

You also have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "the economy slowing" - because it doesn't matter whether "the man" or "the woman" is the one spending the money - the exact same amount of money is getting spent (unless you're buying it in a hole in the ground).

So no, it has no effect on the economy, the best you could argue would be an effect on the potential "birth rate", but that's wrought with complication and differing claims as well - including claims of people having too many children (in which case, a slight decrease in birth rate would be beneficial).

So basically everything you wish you were doing, but could never find a woman to do it which (which is why I presume you want a sex robot).

Not to mention, you're full of crap - women as far back as ancient China - such as Empress Wu had their own harems of male concubines - the false and reductive "history" you're espousing doesn't stand up to any factual or historical snuff - socio-economics and other cultural elements have been the biggest factor in women (and men's) ability to self-actualize or seek "sexual gratification".

No one cares whether you think it's "harming no one" - you've been wrong on pretty much all of this ridiculous garbage you're spouting so far.

Also, this still has nothing to do with a "sex robot".

It's not going to catch on huge, you gullible sap. No man who has ever had consensual sex with a woman is going to spend bukus of money on an expensive masturbation aid.

The only kind of guys who this market is going to appeal to is guys like this:



It is not going to sell to guys like this



And the beta male simps in question who somehow manage to spend $5000-10,000 on a sex robot are not "forgoing women", since that implies the ever had any actual options with women to start with, and of course they didn't, or they wouldn't have settled for a sex robot.

It's not going to go viral except for the 1% of men who are in their 40s or 50s and never had consentual sex.

Why do you keep using "feminist" or "religious zealot" as synonyms for "reality" or "well-adjusted normal people"? It's getting really old.

No, what's going to happen is about 1% of men will buy said expensive masturbation aid - the rest of the 1% of men who are still virgins in their 40s or 50s will decide it's cheaper just to keep masturbating like people have done for 1000s of years and has never become a "threat" to actual sex or relationships.

And you'll die alone, still jerking off, never able to afford the $5,000-10,000+ it costs one, you'll just settle for your right hand or a cheap pocket ***** instead. And, no, one woman will have ever felt "threatened" about your masturbatory preferences, because no one was ever interested in you to begin with - you wanted a sex bot because you had to as a surrogate for feminine attention, not because you ever had any luxury of "choice" in the matter. Okay?

And when society does ban them, you won't do anything other than whine, bitch, and moan a little and go back to your right hand and $5 pocket ***** - and that will be that.

 

As long as the legal means and ends exist by which to do so, we can force whatever we damn well want on people, for no reason other than because we want to, and there's not only nothing wrong with that, but not much that you likely can or will do about it.

 

Oh bs too

 

Thank you, King **** of Turd Island

 

Lol.

I know a girl that wants to meet you.

 

Lol. And there's nothing he can do about it.

 

Wow. The most wordy projection of self-consciousness I've ever seen. Cheer up.

 

THIS is why you must ALWAYS vote

 

So you can force what you want on all those nasty others. I get it.