Arguments for banning "sex robots"

No, so I can keep them from forcing their notions on me

 

Do you believe everything that has no tasteful appeal should be banned?

 

Don't you want to force women to tolerate transsexuals in their dressing rooms?

 

Well... I can't say I'm happy to have been right. Tho, I do appreciate the honesty...

By using the word 'we', you're asserting that you are an 'absolute democrat' then? As in whatever the majority wants is OK?

 

You're either completely incapable of understanding the concept of "compelling state interest", or you know precisely what it is, but don't want to talk about it because you know that I am right, as are the others who have brought it up.

So let's do a bit of role playing, shall we? Let's pretend that you are the Solicitor General of the United States of America, and your boss, the President, has ordered you to go to the US Supreme Court and justify the ban on sex robots in such a way that the Justices will not hold it to be Unconstitutional. So, when one or more of the Justices asks you specifically what the "compelling state interest" is that justifies the law, you tell them what, exactly?

And, go....

 

Are the women being coerced to look at them?

 

No I am speaking about the entieety of sexually mature women.

It is not naive it is realistic. Your contrary claiom is out of touch with reality.

 

I do not care if someone want to buy a sex toy, none of my business or anyone elses

 

It's weird, but It's none of my business what some goof wants to do with an pretend person.

 

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. [/QUOTE]
All wrong.

Many many people on this thread far smarter than you have destroyed your premise and you cannot simply ban something because you do not like it and neither can " society " which is only a concept.

You are dead WRONG. There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrarty there is in fact NO evidence whatsoever that these things would increase sexual aggression. Nuanc ed oor contextual or otherwise. There is non e and it is you posting the outright lie about this.

I made no correlation causation fallacy because I established no cause and effect. I clearly stated IF anything. Which by definition means association and not cause and effect. The fact is there is no evidence to the contrary.

You can say it as much as you like but you are wrong. The average well adjusted man is in fact turning away from traditional relationships. These things will onlly hasten it and it is not just incels and low caliber men.

Yes women control mens money and not just in divorce. In relationships they make most of the spending decisions.

You really miss the point about slowing the economy. Single men spend far less. hat is fact which is why the government incentivizes marriage and penalizes bachelorhood.

You are really all over the map and out of touch.

 

A sex robot is just expensive masturbation.

So what, you going to ban dildos, too?

Give me break, your logic is nuts.

If someone wants to have sex with a robot, let them, it matters not to me, it's none of my business.

I think it's bizarre, but this is a free country and in a free country, you can have sex with a robot.

 

A sociopath is someone who can exact cruelty on others without any feelings of sympathy or empathy towards others.

Sex with a robot is not sociopathy, in my view, because it doesn't involve harming others, but it is rather weird, but being weird is not illegal. Actually, it's just an expensive form of masturbation, really, and most dudes masturbate. What is the difference if you use a device, or your hands? Women use dildos, and they are not stigmatized for using them.

I don't get where you say 'entitled', because these individuals must purchase these robots, so there is an equal exchange, and nothing is 'entitled' in the transaction.

I mean, it's just commerce filling a need, just as manufacturers of dildos provide a needful product for women. Are women depraved for using them?

I mean, there is no issue here, no problem. Live and let live.

 

I knew there would be something that you and I could agree on. There's commonality among everyone if you look hard enough and long enough. I just wish more people would try and find that commonality rather than always pointing out the differences.

 

Reading through your whole post there I can just feel the disgust you have at the men that you believe would use a sex bot. "social outcasts" "misfits" just to name a couple of ways that you described these men. Tell me, do you feel the same about women that use sex machines? Dildo's? Sybian's? Etc etc? Are they "social outcasts" and "misfits" also? Or does this type of thinking only apply to men?

Additionally did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe at least some of these people are people who've had horrible experiences being with someone? You know those that have been abused. Assaulted both mentally and physically? Maybe even multiple times across multiple partners? Or perhaps they just have a mental problem? I ask this because your post shows nothing but disgust towards these people.

 

Who cares if someone wants to use a sex robot?
That’s their business just like if a grown man wants to chop off his nits and get a been kind, that’s his/her business

 

I really don't have a strong opinion on this one. It's not healthy, of course, to center your life around sexual pleasure. Sex robots are merely another step up from whatever it is that people did before sex robots existed (I don't want to know the details).

I will draw the line at recognizing the sure-to-come "marriages" between man/woman and robot. Sorry, no dice there. I'm married to a robot and can now file married jointly and roughly half my tax burden. Yeah, no.

Otherwise, I'm going to adopt a herd of robot children and write them off as dependents.

 

They don't have to justify it for you for it to be Constitutional - the burden is on you to prove it's unconstitutional and not within the rights of the states in question.

What it looks like is that you're stretching and milking the definitions of "privacy" under the 14th Amendment for all you think it is work - eventually that's going to backfire big time, and that part of the 14th Amendment will eventually be rendered null and void by the courts, leaving nothing to "discuss" with you or anyone else.

And hopefully sooner than later, as far as issues like this are concerned.

 

Correct. Leftists don't have any regard for law or the Constitution (the Supreme Law). They think that they can depend on a perpetual sea of idiots to continue to vote them into office (for example, thinking that there are 543 "genders").

Leftists currently have the advantage because of the sheer amount of stupidity in this country (thanks to leftists dumbing down education and prohibiting thinking for ones' self). But that advantage will erode quickly when liberals are faced with eating one another just to survive.

 

I have more disgust toward the men in question than I do the women. (Probably because I'm a man and tend to judge members of my own sex more harshly than those of the opposite sex).

And if you're talking about some stereotypical "man-hating feminazi" who deludedly things that dildos will "render men unnecessary", I have similar feelings reserved for them.

Who are "these people" you're referring to?

 

People who reproduce will reproduce. Between leftists killing their own by the millions each year with abortion and their affinity for non-child-bearing-relationships, the world will correct itself soon. It's a simple math equation.

 

No, "direct democracy" would be the worst form of government, next to tyranny, which is why no 1st world country was even intended to be one.

Ideally, anyone who would want a sex robot as a "replacement" for the opposite sex is the type of person who shouldn't be having any say in our laws to begin with.

 

Like old people?

 

That's not entirely true, since it doesn't take into account any of the socio-economics or other factors surrounding birth circumstances, and simply lumps all "births" into the same generic category, as well as presuming some type of "majority rule" which isn't necessarily the case now or historically.

Many individuals who don't work to support their children and are on child welfare have "more kids" than women and men who work to support their children - many Muslim or Arabic families have "more kids" than "white" families or "Christian" families" do.

Likewise people in the 21st century have fewer children than they did a few 100 years ago, or people in 3rd world countries (where infant mortality rates are higher) do. And so on.

Why would a "old person" want a sex robot? Are you talking about people who are old and widowed and don't want to get re-married or something? Or dirty old men who want a sex bot that looks like a younger woman? Because I don't get it.

 

Why not propose a law banning the wearing of ugly Christmas sweaters indoors between January and mid December while you’re at it?

 

The left KNOWS this is true. And it's why they support abortion - because HALF of abortions kill black babies. That's FACT. You cannot challenge this, since it is just the statistics.

The left wants to modify society to look and act like itself. Which is mostly white liberals who hate people of color.