News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Campaign Against Sex Robots

Started by Syt, September 15, 2015, 01:42:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martinus

Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.

The question is what would be the rationale for making this illegal.

Martinus

Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2015, 04:14:37 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 15, 2015, 02:14:35 PM
I didn't think anyone could come up with worse neologisms than "Gluon" and "Bromance", but:

Quotelovotics

robostitutes

:bleeding:

I was wrong.   :(

Is there another type of "Gluon", that isn't in particle physics?

Glue-on is like Strap-on only you glue it on?

Martinus

Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 05:01:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.

Well, like Scip said, but that gets into a whole thing that I'm sure we'd all rather ignore, which is whether harmless (gross) outlets for pedophilia would reduce rates of child predation.  If it would, as a policy matter, shouldn't we be for it, even if we find it quite disgusting?

I'd be okay with putting purchasers on some kind of monitoring list, of course.  But we should all be on a monitoring list.

That's a bit like arguing that people who play violent video games (not to mention, hunters) are all potential murderers.

Martinus

Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: Scipio on September 15, 2015, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
Arguably, a child-looking sex robot would qualify as "other visual representation... the dominant purpose of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years" and thus qualify as child pornography and be illegal on that basis.
Not in the USA, baby, where simulated child porn is okay.

:thumbsdown:

Yay for more moral panic!  :rolleyes:

Martinus

By the way, Beeb, does it mean that people who engage in infantilization fetish in Canada break the law?

Crazy_Ivan80

Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2015, 10:29:59 PM
Sexbots will bring more peace to society.  Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.

they be lusting over their neighbours wife and sexbot. It would double the problems! :p

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 16, 2015, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 15, 2015, 10:29:59 PM
Sexbots will bring more peace to society.  Christians should welcome lusting over robots instead of their neighbor's wife.

they be lusting over their neighbours wife and sexbot. It would double the problems! :p

They just need the sexbot's appearance to be reprogrammable. Simple, right?
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

DontSayBanana

Quote from: dps on September 15, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
It would virtually destroy prostitution as an industry.  And, I would imagine, that's an outcome they would like to see.

I doubt it.  I figure a sexbot is going to cost a lot more than a cheap hooker.

To the tune of $7000.  That's a lot of $20 blowjobs.

Also, no pictures I can find of the "Rocky" model, but the "Roxxxy" has the typical look of a sex doll with a bad wig.  If anything, it looks a little scarier than your average sex doll.  Not hott.
Experience bij!