Arguments for banning "sex robots"

It's more than a possibility.

It is a certianty that sooner or later child or even infant sex robots will be available. The question is do we allow it or not. Clearly if some pedo is using such a device they are not harming kids. So the arguments against it will be convoluted.

There will also be custom robots available. Which means some might be made to look like a persons mom or sister. Or dead wife.

Celebrities will be copied. Biut of course they will protect themselves with copy right on their images just as they already protect themselves with insurance. There will of course be a black market for celebrity robots. Of course some cannot necessarily be copy righted as they are dead ( bettie page , marylin monroe ) and inded the average girl wont bother until its too late.

 

His statement that there is no evidence is absolutely correct and in fact there is some evidene that the use of such things would decrease sexual aggression.

No woman NEEDS a vibrator either but most women have them and use them at one time or another. They are normal and well adjusted and it is no different for the men who want these things

 

Or a creepy stalker might obtain a picture of a woman without her knowledge and create a creepy sex robot that resembles her.

 

Fixed for you.

And some to the contrary.

I'm not aware of a woman who had a pseudo-marriage to a vibrator, nor do I believe that most women are advocating that a vibrator be an actual "equivalent replacement" for companionship.

 

Nope, our morals don't merely require that one actually be "directly harming children" - there is quite a bit of law in the US and Europe in regards to the production and distribution of content which appeals to the prurient interests and lacks any significant value otherwise (e.x. scientific, historical, etc), such as how it might promote or encourage such things.

You seem to know quite a lot about this.

 

Generally speaking, in the United States, anyway, it is ultimately the judgements of courts that defines those limits. But the problem with the idea of regulating, much less banning "sex robots" must pass a legal hurdle known as "compelling state interest". Which means that you cannot pass a law just based on your ability to garner 50%+1 votes of a legislative body to do so, unless they can justify their reasons for doing so. In this case, while I am neither an Appellate nor Supreme Court Justice, it's crystal clear to me that there is no compelling state interest here. Grown adults using sex robots by their own free will causes no societal problems that need to be solved.

You may find it repulsive personally, and you are free to think that anyone who chooses to do so is a "loser", and you may even be right. But that doesn't make it something that will pass the compelling state interest test.

As for Iceland and their backwards pornography laws... I don't live in Iceland. I don't want to live in Iceland. I think whatever laws they might have are violating the fundamental human rights of their citizens, but I have enough issues of my own to deal with in my own country to give it more than a passing thought. Not only should we not attempt to emulate them, Courts have found for multiple decades that we can't even if we wanted to.

Sorry.

 

Yeah, and people back in 999 AD predicted that the apocalypse would occur in 1000 AD as well.

cool. Problem is that the scenarios which you are depicting are not the mental or other equivalents of sex to begin with, and lack a variety of integral factors, such as:

1. The process of seduction which leads to sex

2. The entire history which the person shares with their partner, including shared memories and personal experience

3. The intimate knowledge of the other partner and their particular preferences and arousals, as well as the development and refinement of their sexual intercourses over time as knowledge of the other deepens.

So no, all you've described is an isolated sexual act "in a vacuum" completely abstracted from the deeper overall contexts in which the sex and intimacy with another occurs - therefore, it naturally wouldn't be a replacement or equivalent.

Unless you could create an Android with every human quality, such as thought, emotion, and ability to make it's own decisions - and effectively be an actual "human made of metal", then you wouldn't be able to create a theoretically equitable scenario. All you've described so far is just an expensive, metallic masturbation aid.

 

How about the argument that it's none of your damn business what a Free Person does so long as it does not unreasonably infringe on the rights of another Free Person?

 

You mean it isn't a compelling state interest to such backwards and inferior behavior and interests on the part of its citizens?

No, I believe that people with sound judgment, such as in aesthetics would be able to argue that it is in many ways inherantly repulsive and not up to the subjective judgment of individuals, since anyone who didn't find it so would simply have bad or inferior taste and sensibilities.

Fixed.

You can say that all you damn-well want to and when the courts find differently, it won't matter.

There already is quite a bit of legislation on the books that most definitely could, and already is used in regards to such discretion - in some areas apparently even stricter in Europe or the Commonwealth.

And of course ultimately, the Courts could be simply ignored and it could be done purely by fiat if it had to come to that - hopefully it won't, but if it or anything else became such a degree of problem, it very well might, and any contemporary decisions by "our courts" would just be looked back on and laughed at by our descendants just as well do the "backwards" laws of the Medieval era and before.

 

I've been waiting to be "raped by a women" for some time now.....OK, certain women...

 

How about we legally redefine them so that they no longer are "free persons" instead?

The law allows for anyone to find a reason to be interested in such matters, for any reason they damn well want to and as much as they can affect a change in legality or social attitudes - don't like it, then don't do something that naturally causes people to speculate and show such concern for to begin with.

 

What's this "We" crap? Who is it that you think is going to change the preamble of the US Constitution?

That's completely incoherent. The law proscribes future behavior in areas where the Constitution authorizes them to do so. Where does the Constitution authorize you getting in the middle of what another does with a mechanical device in the privacy of their own home? Do you also want to regulate dildoes?

 

Exactly. Someone with enough money could have an entire sorority copied and ready to go in his basement.

Imagine a single guy living next to a man with a really gorgeous wife. He takes pics of her through the window and copies her or even her and her hot teenaged daughter. The married guy finds out and starts a fight, it escelates, someone gets killed.

There will be some interesting legal arguments presented in such a scenario which is likely to happen.

 

You fixed nothing.

He was correct and there is no evidence to the contrary.

It is irrelevant as these things are ultimately just sex toys and no one has the right to ban them in order to make men seek other relationships which more and more men are abandoning anyways.

 

Wrong,.

These robots would not encourage or promote any harmful behavior.

 

You oppose free persons?

No the law does not allow that

The right of privacy supercedes any interest such as aesthetics.

 

Sex often does take place in a vacuum without any of the prerequisites you mention. Random hook ups with total strangers without any seduction or shared experiences, memories knowledge of the others preferences etc.

I grant you there is nothing wrong with any of the factors you mention but sex is not limited to those arrangements either.

 

What is political about sex robots?

 

Well At least sex robots don’t have to worry about getting pregnant

 

Or STDs

 

Now why in hell would you even think of something like that?

 

Maybe a small percentage of Western, First World women .. but of the 3.6 billion women on earth, it would be a fraction so tiny that it may as well not exist.

IOW, you're entirely incorrect.

 

Ok yes I did not mean women on all of planet earth.

But yes in the USA ( which is what the thread is about ) you would be hardpressed to find one who has never used one. It is not even a funny trope any more in movies and fiction as it is considered the norm for a woman to have one. They even have parties for women where sex aids especially toys are sold like tupperware. No such equivelant existys for men.

 

Becasuse it is going to happen and you might ass well think of such things.

People have been talking about the impact of these robots for some time now and it is no great leap to imagine such variations.

About ten years ago I read an articel predicting that in a few decades these robots would be used in brothels, porn movies and even financed by banks since they are a little pricy. In less than one year all of those predictions came true.

Its not hard to see where this is gonna go. Doctor phil and others like him will make a mint off of discussing these things.

 

Trust me when I say it is NOT the norm. Your media is not representative of social norms.