Arguments for banning "sex robots"

Maybe the OP needs to check out Dr. Ruth.

 

He keeps going back, you’d think the learning curve would be shorter.

 

Some people can't take their minds off of the obvious.

 

Have you considered banning books? They are responsible for people learning about such things.

 

They'd have to ban the Bible if that were the case.

 

Well, banning books would certainly solve the problem of people misrepresenting what the books say. So there's that.

 

That will never stop as long as there is a buck to make from it.

 

Supply and demand, my friend. One can never truly rid the world of capitalism.

 

It doesn't take capitalism to screw people.

 

No, but it seems amoral capitalists have refined it to an art form.

 

So have socialist

 

If you believe the war on drugs is a success, please show your data. From what I see, it was not only a colossal failure, it created powerful criminals and left society worse off.

While you are focusing on an individuals private matters, the problems you create when increasing government interference in our lives far outweighs any perceived benefit to society, leaving us worse off. The position is short sighted and ignores the fact that your personal preference on people screwing robots can only end up with a bigger government screwing you.

 

There's "supply and demand" for child porn, and what's your point?

No one gives a **** if people have a "supply" or a "demand" for child porn - they don't legally get to deal in it, and that's a good thing.

And no one who'd deal in it knew or care what was good for themselves or anyone else to begin with, so they and whatever degenerate "market" they comprise are about as relevant as annoying mosquitos, better off just squashed than coddled and pandered to like silly little infants who think anyone but them cares or has any reason to care at all about their worthless existence

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, man.

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you were actually trying. Yes, laws are presumed to be Constitutional unless and until a Court says otherwise. And yes, it takes someone, somewhere to file a lawsuit claiming that a Law is NOT Constitutional to get rolling to the point that a Court will issue such an Opinion. But that does not change the FACT that it has been a fundamental part of juris prudence for DECADES now, if not longer, that a law MUST be justified by passing the compelling governmental interest test before it can be found to be Constitutional. If it cannot do at LEAST that, no matter what else surrounding it may or may not be Constitutional, it will fail and WILL be found Unconstitutional, thereby striking the law down, making it null, void, and as if it never existed in the first place.

So, care to try again?

What is the compelling governmental interest that makes this law Constitutional in the first place? Hint: You think it's gross is not good enough.

Funny you bring that up, as I didn't so much as say a single word about it. While I happen to agree that such a law does have Right of Privacy concerns, I never said that. Not once throughout this entire conversation, at least until now. So why did you decide to throw it in my face? Perhaps you know you're wrong and are arguing just to hear yourself talk, at least virtually speaking?

To this, I have one question, and one comment.

First my question, which is really rather simple: Why do you care?

Second, and perhaps more importantly, my comment: It is none of your damn business if I want to buy a sex robot and hump it in my spare time. Just as it's none of your business if I am straight, bi, or gay, just as it's none of your business if my spouse and I are monogamous, or by mutual consent, not, and just like it's none of your business if I or someone else decides the very idea of sex with anyone is simply too icky to stomach, much less participate in. I would expect you and other "do-gooders" such as yourself to kindly mind your own damn business, and stay the hell out of mine. There are too many actually important things to worry about to spend any time on such trivial and insignificant matters.

But I've actually thought of another question. Is the reason you want to see these criminalized is that you want one yourself, and you are concerned that if someone somewhere doesn't ban them, you'll actually get one?? Dude, knock yourself out. Just as me doing so is none of your business, your doing so is none of mine.

 

I'd put a crisp new Benjamin on the side of the bet that says he has no idea what that even is, much less how much fun it can be in a roomful of likeminded people.

 

Old people have sex, too! Or have you not yet gotten that memo??

 

So, you're not a big fan of the First Amendment either, huh? Can't say that surprises me.

 

Actually, we don't.

Rather, the laws only allow for punishment, so we put people who actually PERFORM such acts into cages, but only AFTER they've done so, IF we can find and catch them. Laws that provide us the legal means to put people into cages might dissuade some from committing such acts, if they might have a tendency to do them anyway, but I would wager the overwhelming majority of people are not going to start killing sprees were we to repeal such laws. Not that we should do so, caging people up certainly prevents those who have shown by action that they're willing to do so does make society as a whole safer, but it doesn't help their first victims a bit.

Which is simultaneously sad, and the way things MUST be. Putting people in cages for something they might someday do is just unthinkable. Because just as they might, and many of them eventually do, some don't, and punishing them is worse than whatever upsides might come from punishing the others. Not that any of this is even remotely related to the point of this thread.

 

I am forced, therefore, to question your choice in "friends". I know people who make porn, I know people who watch porn, I know people who act in porn. I know people who make their own homemade porn, and people who make it to share with their close (and not so close) friends. I know people who participate, voluntarily, in orgies, group sex, swingers parties, clubs, and resorts, and people who have all kinds of off the wall sexual proclivities.

What I do *NOT* know is a single person, whether they belong to any of the above groups or not, who "openly or subtly talks about sexualizing children". Not a single one, not now, not ever once in my entire life.

Perhaps your problem is your choice of people that you associate with, not what other people are doing as or with other consenting adults that you find sexually repulsive. And perhaps long before you start writing laws that tell grown-ass adults what they can and can't do with their genitals in private, consensual circumstances, you should take a good, hard look at your own choices, eh? Perhaps by doing that, you'll understand what it is you are really trying to ban.

 

No, don't want to coddle to the type of individuals who tend to show such a fascination with one. Many people including people on this site express deviant and degenerate views in regards to sex robots, such as them being a "replacement" for actual relations with a person.

Banning them from being produced or distributed isn't invading a person's privacy anymore than laws banning the production and sale of hard drugs are.

None of these people are friends, these are examples of what I've encountered on social media, even in places which have nothing to do with sexual discussion, so the fact that such things are so easy to come across is rather disconcerting.

If you keep stretching the 1st Amendment to just cover anything that you "like" and except the law to exist just for the sole purpose of catering to your every whim and fancy, when it has no self-interest in doing so, eventually the 1st Amendment and others such as the 14th are going to be rendered null and void as far as these types of issues are concerned.

And there are already plenty of laws which regulate the propagation of obscene content and none of them have been found unconstitutional.

 

Your idea of "fun" is backwards and regressive, and you seem to believe there is no purpose in life other than playing with your or others' genitals just like some feral animal. Most normal people are not obsessed solely with finding new ways to stimulate their genitals 24/7.

The human condition is about higher forms of "pleasure" such as arts, sciences, music, literature, culture and whatnot - which is why human civilization has evolved into what it is and we aren't living like cavemen, so if you are so backward that you can't find any purpose in life other than fiddling with genitals then your mindset is much more akin to that of a beast, and culture, civilization, and human achievement would all regress back to that of the stone age if everyone had such a fatuous, libertine, and banal worldview as you seem to.

 

This is so wrong as to be silly. I would suggest getting out of the house.

Keep your eyes open. You just might see one of these.






Want some regression? Why, sure thing bub. Again, for the zillionth time.

Sexual Repression and its causes. Reasons and effects (victorian-era.org)

 

It's factual.

Human civilization and culture is marked by creativity - such as sciences, arts, music, technology and so on - in comparison productive humans are not so strongly motivated by pure "genital" arousal.

None of those are pornographic. They're merely "suggestive".

Not a reliable source at all - simply be existing in society humans are sexually restrained on a daily basis and is of course health and vital to civilization and human interests - at least people who have jobs, careers, ambition, and intelligence beyond pure genital stimulation.

(In comparison, uneducated and unambitious people who have no sense of higher purpose in life but instant gratification and genital stimulation tend to make up the lower and more undesirable classes - such as the individuals who have multiple children with multiple baby daddies or mommies and live perpetually off of child welfare, or those so-called "incels" who have no ambition beyond porn consumption or masturbation, and think that the state should entitle them to sex regardless of consent).[/quote]

 

[/QUOTE]


Has it occurred to you to actually read any psychological publications on the topic or is just making wild assumptions the only plate on the table?