Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Call For a Ban On Child Sex Robots' (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the saying-something dept.

An anonymous reader shares a BBC report: There should be a ban on the import of sex robots designed to look like children, the author of a new report into the phenomenon has said. Prof Noel Sharkey said that society as a whole needed to consider the impact of all types of sex robots. His Foundation for Responsible Robotics has conducted a consultation on the issue. Only a handful of companies were currently making sex robots, said Prof Sharkey. But, he added, the upcoming robot revolution could change that. The report, Our sexual future with robots, was written to focus attention on an issue barely discussed at the moment, he said. The report acknowledged that finding out how many people actually owned such robots was difficult because the companies that made them did not release the numbers. But, said Prof Sharkey, it was time society woke up to a possible future where humans and robots had sex. "We do need policymakers to look at it and the general public to decide what is acceptable and permissible," he said. "We need to think as a society what we want to do about it. I don't know the answers -- I am just asking the questions."

597 comments

  1. There is much, much worse! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, I know this is a serious issue because, well, it has to be: Children and Sex are in the same headline... But I want to bring your attention to another, more despicable, more disgusting, more heartbreaking, and damn right more obscene perversion that is just out of control in our society: Robotic Sex Horses. When will these stallions be unchained and set free? God almighty, I need to go take a shower

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don't we just instead destroy Noel Sharkey instead? It's cheaper to just destroy one pointless human than bother with its attention seeking behaviors.

    2. Re: There is much, much worse! by lawideawake · · Score: 0

      lol

    3. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about President Sex Robots? Surely one president is worth like a dozen babies, right?

    4. Re: There is much, much worse! by Gay+Boner+Sex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And in the good ole USA it is always "Think of the Children!"

      I am telling ya. Whoever bought Slashdot has some really WEIRD agenda. It isn't true pedophilia if it's an inanimate object, it's rather similar to jacking off to "underage" hentai. It's always going to be weird for the majority of the population.

      But this is JUST the kind of article that Mrs. Mash would post.

    5. Re:There is much, much worse! by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Given the my little pony fanbase, i am surprised there's no huge line of robotic sex ponies yet.

    6. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he can demonstrate that child sex robots exist, then it's a simple task to go after their makers.Until then, he should save his invective for the makers of lolicon-themed onaholes, which is the closest thing there would be.

      Getting real sick of the hand-waving and drama surrounding diegetic prototypes.

    7. Re:There is much, much worse! by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only people could get past their middle school snickering when ever sex is brought up.
      Western society is currently expanding its view on sexuality and acceptance of different forms of sexuality as legally and socially acceptable. We are now realizing that sexual preference is not a choice but part of the person.
      Now we have the problem with pedophiles. They have a sexual attraction to kids. There isn't much we can do about that, we can't change them. But unlike many other sexual preferences this leads to dangerous behavior. Because the children who are the object of their affection are not in a position of power to consent, and haven't learned or even considered learning stradigied to avoid unwanted attention. That is why any action can get them in jail and labeled as a sex offender for life.
      However there are a lot of these people who are not in jail, and due to their moral compass they choose to repress their sexual tendencies as they know the harm is in it.
      But that is where the problem is sexuality is a core instinct. We can will off an instinct however it is a lot of work, and a lapse could cause a problem.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re: There is much, much worse! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Troll

      And in the good ole USA it is always "Think of the Children!"

      Prof Noel Sharkey is British...........just like Jimmy Savile. Seems Brits do more than just" think of the children".........

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    9. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      England is just the failed version of America.

    10. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some anonymous asshat suggested they create a robotic sex doll like my glamorous body you can be sure they will get YMCA notice for takedown.
      -cremier
      --
      Support me! https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

    11. Re: There is much, much worse! by The123king · · Score: 2

      Jimmy Saville was barely human. Didn't care if they were young or old, body temperature or room temperature.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    12. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rubber doll is not a person. It doesn't have feelings, or pain, or sex organs. It's a piles of plastic. This is like banning soda bottles because someone probably put their dick in one.

    13. Re: There is much, much worse! by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      it starts with the parents people but thats common knowledge.

    14. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. This is stupid. Protect children, not art.

    15. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why ban a robot that looks like a child?

      I'd certainly rather have a person having sex with a robot than a child.

      I think the GATEWAY mentality of drugs and sex has been shown to be false. It isn't like a child sex robot is going to convert a person with no interest in children into a pedophile.

      It isn't like shooting up one marijuana is going to make you drink heroin.

    16. Re:There is much, much worse! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There isn't much we can do about that, we can't change them.

      Actually, there are some successful treatments. Not for all of them, and not like those "gay conversion camps". It's basically a form of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, where they learn to recognize the patterns of thought that lead them to sexualizing children and alter them.

      Similar treatments are available for people with a sex/porn addiction, and related addictions like exercise. Those things are addictive because, like drugs, they make you feel good for a while and you start to crave that feeling. The only real difference with paedophiles is that it's much harder for them to get treatment, because few people are willing to go to their doctor and admit that they are attracted to children.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:There is much, much worse! by c · · Score: 3, Funny

      But I want to bring your attention to another, more despicable, more disgusting, more heartbreaking, and damn right more obscene perversion that is just out of control in our society: Robotic Sex Horses.

      If you think that's perverted, you're going to be in for a shock when you see what the Japanese are going to do with sexbots. I anticipate that it starts with "Robotic Sex Unicorns", adds tentacles, and.. uh. Well.

      Okay, I need to go take a shower.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    18. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We wouldn't ban sex with bottles - only sex with underage bottles.

    19. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only people could get past their middle school snickering when ever sex is brought up.

      I'd rather have the snickering than the more usual moral panicking. Both "children" (must! protect!) and "sex" appeal to gut feelings. Which is why the combination is such a potent way to push ill-thought-out bad legislation through. Compare "won't somebody think of the cheeeeldruuuun": No sex, but no thinking either.

      The only real difference with paedophiles is that it's much harder for them to get treatment, because few people are willing to go to their doctor and admit that they are attracted to children.

      In some countries you simply cannot get help, even if you wanted to and went out and tried to get that help, without an existing conviction for paedophilia.

    20. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure that somewhere in Japan someone already came up with that concept...

    21. Re: There is much, much worse! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It isn't like shooting up one marijuana is going to make you drink heroin.

      Besides, when you shoot up marijuana the leaves tend to clog up the syringe.

    22. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you gots the good stuff!

    23. Re: There is much, much worse! by Megol · · Score: 0

      Not really - people that like taking drugs but can't control themselves tend to step up the severity of drugs. Some drugs are almost impossible not get physically dependent on and even drugs that doesn't create physical dependencies can create strong psychological dependencies.

      TL;DR gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.

    24. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some anonymous asshat suggested they create a robotic sex doll like my glamorous body you can be sure they will get YMCA notice for takedown.
      -cremier

      Trying to picture how that would go down. Do you go with the Indian, Sailor or maybe the Construction Worker ? The policeman might be good too.

      Slight Freudian slip there I would think :)

    25. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly this is the beginnings of a marketing campaign funded by the human trafficking industry to demonize sex robots to protect their profits.

    26. Re: There is much, much worse! by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      so a budweiser is ok but a pepsi isnt?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    27. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I've always wondered how much drug cartel money was involved in efforts to stop legalization/ decriminalization.

    28. Re: There is much, much worse! by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.

      Actually, it's been shown that social isolation is the trigger for drug addictions. That drug usage developed as a survival mechanism so that brains (not only human one) who would otherwise commit suicide remain active for as long as the condition of isolation remains, until the conditions causing their need are solved, at which point the addiction begins to recede.

      The interesting part is that this applies even to heroin. Many people who get into intensive care while suffering from severe pain receive what amounts to "heroin with another name", sometimes for many months, as an analgesic. And the majority of those, when they leave the hospital and stop using the drug, suffer almost no physical withdrawal symptoms, and no psychological ones. The reason for that is that they have a full life to go back to: family, work, friends, sports, hobbies, church etc. As such, the addiction survival mechanism isn't active and no addiction happened.

      Now, what happens with "gateway" drugs is that the person who doesn't have a full life to keep them addiction free remains in survival mode and needs more and more to keep active, and the brain dead solution of removing the drugs doesn't fix the causes of the issue, it only makes the person more and more and more miserable, until the person dies or suicides.

      Here's the true solution to drug addiction then: care for these people. Care enough that their brains shut the addiction survival mechanism down. Once that's done addiction rates will begin doing down, until all that remains are the few people whose brains have a defective addiction survival mechanism that remains active despite the lack of the environmental triggers. Then treat those few people medically.

      Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    29. Re: There is much, much worse! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      But why ban a robot that looks like a child?

      I'd certainly rather have a person having sex with a robot than a child.

      I think the GATEWAY mentality of drugs and sex has been shown to be false. It isn't like a child sex robot is going to convert a person with no interest in children into a pedophile.

      It isn't like shooting up one marijuana is going to make you drink heroin.

      Most men have a right hand; yet, given the choice, most would rather be with a real woman. Most women have a small device that eats batteries, yet most women would rather be with a real man.

      I don't know what impact a robot child would have on a paedophile, but there is a strong chance it won't lessen his desires. It may have no impact, or it may have a positive feedback on the desires. What it will do is "normalize" that behavior, and may encourage some people to act out on fantasies.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    30. Re: There is much, much worse! by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Think of the Children

      Or, at the very least, things that are somewhat child-like.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    31. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And everyone else.

      Have you considered changing this line to "And C. D. Reimer"?

    32. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are, you just are not in the fold to obtain one

    33. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but restricting all child porn material doesn't make desires go away either. Preists try that and constantly fail. I think, based on no data, that most pedophiles don't actually want to hurt kids, they just have the desire. Again, not sure it is true, but I think it is. If given a choice between raping a child or using a robot, I think most would use the robot, because most are probably not sociopaths as well. No, not the same, but I don't see how this is more likely going to lead to rape, any more than an adult robot will lead to rape of an adult.

    34. Re: There is much, much worse! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      A rubber doll is not a person. It doesn't have feelings, or pain, or sex organs. It's a piles of plastic. This is like banning soda bottles because someone probably put their dick in one.

      I have a brother in law who recently got caught in a sting by FBI agents posing as a mother and her 12 year old daughter online.

      My brother in law is 50 and only recently started acting out on this sickness he claims to have had his entire life. What made him start seeking out underage sex after repressing it for 5 decades? I don't know. I haven't spoken to him in person since the arrest, and with any luck, will never speak to him again.

      Something must have sparked his interest though.

      I imagine there are other people like him. Holding back their immoral desires to prey on children. What impact would a child-robot have on them. For those like my brother in law, who are married, they won't possess their own, they wouldn't risk being caught. But hearing about them, and knowing they exist might excite them and push them over the edge.

      For others who are single, they might buy a robot to satisfy their urge but would it be enough? Would a plastic soda bottle satisfy you and not make you want a real woman? Chances are no. You get an emotionless robot or plastic soda bottle, without the warmth or softness of flesh- and it would just make you want more.

      I strongly suspect these robots would push over the edge those people suppressing their urges into actually acting. Even if they never own a robot themselves.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    35. Re: There is much, much worse! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Budweiser is never OK. It serves no purpose.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    36. Re: There is much, much worse! by edtice1559 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm sure that there is quite a bit of truth to this, but I don't think that you paint a complete picture. Those who receive heroin-like drugs in the hospital do have a much lower addiction rate but part of this may be due to the drugs binding with inflamed tissue rather than the brain. If we were to start giving the drugs to hospital patients without injuries that warranted it, we would likely see physical addiction in that group. And withdraw from heroin is quite brutal physically including leaking fluids from all orifices. Your point stands that these drugs can be used safely and I agree that addiction has a huge social component. But you are underestimating the physical effects of drugs like heroin.

    37. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same as porn bring freely available? Less actual sex. With that less sexual assaults. That's what the graphs look like anyway at least by population density vs pornography being available in a society.

      Oddly there seems to be the opposite trend in societies where porn is banned. Which is weird because those places tend to have hard punishments....

      Not 100% sure but .... this could be a good thing?

    38. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... Think of the centaurs... You monster.

      https://youtu.be/2VMdAqNxLNc

    39. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heroin, Fentanyl, and any other opioid act on the body in the exact same way and require the exact same treatment regimens.

      http://americanaddictioncenters.org/fentanyl-treatment/similarities/#comparison

      Do you really think there's an opioid epidemic in this country only because of illegal abusers? No, it's because of the rampant and extended over prescription of opioids for any reason at all.

    40. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly suspect these robots would push over the edge those people suppressing their urges into actually acting. Even if they never own a robot themselves.

      I wouldn't make that kind of conclusion because it can go both ways. People are different, and some can have extreme urge. I don't know the number but I am sure that there will be some who would want more and more, and as a result could commit a crime. However, I disagree on blocking the sex robot because it is just silly. I doubt the number of those who would commit a crime after using sex robot is high enough to be concerned of.

      You get an emotionless robot or plastic soda bottle, without the warmth or softness of flesh- and it would just make you want more.

      Well, if you spend enough money, I am sure you can order a warm, soft, and flesh sex robot. It is all depended on how much are you willing to spend. :D

    41. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question to you is, have you had a close friend or relative that had a major drug addiction problem?(A drug addiction problem that essentially ruined their life.)

      I have.

      Because, though you make an interesting point, there are many, many, many people who use/abuse drugs because THEY LIKE THE FEELING.
      Not because they don't have a "full life".

      Brain chemistry has a lot to do with it.
      Some people are just wired to get easily hooked on any number of substances(alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, etc)

    42. Re:There is much, much worse! by strikethree · · Score: 0

      Now we have the problem with pedophiles. They have a sexual attraction to kids. There isn't much we can do about that, we can't change them.

      It is not a problem. Just kill them all. Hopefully in some terribly painful way. Darwin will solve it just like the problem with gay people was solved by killing them in terrible ways. And the best part of all of this? We get to let our inner self indulgent murderous selves out! A win-win for everyone! ... well, except for pedophiles, but who cares about them?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    43. Re: There is much, much worse! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And in the good ole USA it is always "Think of the Children!!

      It should be "Think about the data". These child-sexbots are legal in Japan, and many psychologists there believe that they help pedos to avoid interactions with real children. But, so far there is no published data.

      In a free society, anything should be legal by default, and the burden should be on the advocates of a ban to provide evidence of harm.

      The moral panic in TFA is justified with some severe cognitive dissonance. It says adult sexboxs will cause "social isolation" as people use them as substitutes for interaction with other people ... yet child sexbots will do the exact opposite, and cause more interaction with children. That makes no sense.

    44. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.

      Ahhh, therein lies the rub... its MUCH more lucrative to treat symptoms.
      Symptoms, may return. If you cure the person, they stop being a source of revenue ?

    45. Re: There is much, much worse! by Humbubba · · Score: 1
      Gay Boner Sex said

      Whoever bought Slashdot has some really WEIRD agenda.

      It's true. Controversial stories are specifically chosen to elicit comments, that are in turn stored, analyzed, and used to categorize the user base in terms of psychological type, underlying disorders, as well as sociological and criminal profiles. Further, psychologists, sociologists, police, priests, and professionals in business, education and comedy pose as average commentators, monitors, and administrators who, through skillful interaction, gradually change the readers' belief structures, and conceptions of reality, ultimately manipulating the very fabric of society. In sum, /. is trying to indoctrinate us into their thought collective.

      How weird is that?

    46. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't true pedophilia if it's an inanimate object, it's rather similar to jacking off to "underage" hentai.

      That's a gray area and not one I'm going to discuss, but I will say that banning "Underage" robots (dolls, really) or hentai is as idiotic a move as was making mere possession of child pornography illegal.

      If the availability of these "robots" prevents even one pedophile from seeking an actual child, they're a not positive for society; the same applies to hentai. As for photos and videos, yes, please go after the people who make and distribute them -- go after them with a vengeance -- and hold for questioning anyone caught in possession, so you can find the people who make and distribute them, so you can go after them with said vengeance.

      But, society needs to consider the effect of having similar punishment for acts which actively harm children and acts which merely depict actual harm someone else has perpetrated upon children; if the guy you nab wit ha couple of photos knows he's gonna get shanked in prison whether or not he tells you where he got them, you're not getting that information from him. If those photos were what was keeping him from harming children himself, his possession of them was already a net positive; if we can turn his being caught with them (and released for cooperating) into an intelligence gathering tool to track down the people who actually harm children (and photograph themselves in the act), we can make it an even bigger net positive.

      Of course, anyone caught in possession of it in the first place should, themselves, be investigated as the potential source. But mere possession should not carry the same get-shanked-in-prison punishment as production or distribution. That it does is a large part of the reason it's difficult to track down the producers and distributors in the first place.

      Mind you, these people are all sick but, like we do not lock people up for having a cold, we should not lock them up for this illness. We could at least actually protect the children by not actively seeking to destroy the ones who seek help (pedophilia is an exception to patient confidentiality; therapists are not only allowed, but urged, to contact police if one of their patients seeks help to keep themselves from harming a child) and by allowing potential offenders other outlets for their urges. And, if they're caught with material depicting such despicable acts, we hold them until they give up the source (we make not doing so a felony), then we let them go. They'll find another source, they'll get caught again, they'll give up that source, lather, rinse, repeat. All the while they're not harming children because they have another outlet, and we're tracking down and locking up the people who actually are harming children. That would protect children.

      To be clear, yes, lock them up (and throw away the key) for actually harming a child, or producing or distributing photos or videos of actual child harm. Use those who choose other outlets which don't directly harm children (again, the child was harmed by the abuser and whoever filmed or photographed the act) as resources to track down the vile trash who actively harm children and finally put a dent in the problem.

      Enough stories of school teachers caught with child porn facing prison time; they got that porn from someone, compel them to reveal their source and lock them up if they don't (or if they lie and the source does not pan out), for impeding an investigation. They'll get the same death-by-shank punishment in prison once the other inmates find out what investigation they impeded. Police would be absolutely justified in further investigating whether he had any inappropriate involvement with students, and throwing the book at him for that; but not for mere possession. In any case the school would be right to fire them; those people need not be around children.

      And that is how we protect children.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    47. Re: There is much, much worse! by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      I hope your drug addiction isn't because you're not the center of attention. Self improvement, and no one is going to be held hostage by your social needs. If you decide you need more than the average person it's not up to the average person to cater to you.

      I've seen it enough, not going to happen. It's like a child that says give me what I want or you don't love me.

      No one wants to be responsible for their choices in society. No one, some of us have decided to anyway, but honestly we don't like it either, and there's no way that we're going to cover for you so that you can be irresponsible and do whatever you want.

    48. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most men have a right hand; yet, given the choice, most would rather be with a real woman. Most women have a small device that eats batteries, yet most women would rather be with a real man.

      What you said is just a quick fix. Some people can live with the fix much longer than others. Also, if it is just a 'normal behavior' which society accepts, there is NO NEED to suppress the behavior.

      I don't know what impact a robot child would have on a paedophile, but there is a strong chance it won't lessen his desires. It may have no impact, or it may have a positive feedback on the desires. What it will do is "normalize" that behavior, and may encourage some people to act out on fantasies.

      Your conclusion is too pessimistic and completely ignores morality of humans. You don't believe that majority of people have moral. Then you exaggerate the picture of minority who are immoral in order to make your point more credible. I understand and agree that we should never allow these immoral people to act their way, but at the same we should not penalize those who are the majority and seek a way to keep themselves controlled by using robots. I disagree with you on how to stop the bad guys because we should look for other ways to catch them (you will never be able to control them anyway if they can't control themselves).

    49. Re: There is much, much worse! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      How much do you want to bet Mr Sharkey has a child 'doll' of his own?

    50. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "due to drugs binding with inflamed tissue rather than the brain..."

      That's not how pharmaceutical opioids work. No matter where the physical injury is, opioids work in conjunction with receptors in the brain, blocking pain responses and flooding dopamine into the system.

    51. Re: There is much, much worse! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how do the reptilians fit into all of this?

    52. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some would it be enough? Yes. For most? Maybe?

      Are you saying this would mean more pedophile behavior somehow? Or less?

      I mean. Think about it. Have you ever masturbated? Do you become obsessed with sex to the point of possibly becoming a rapist? Did your particular fetish so overstimulate you that you just had to?

      What happened sucks and made worse by the fact bad things will still happen no matter what we do.

      But think about it. Will it increase or at least diminish the actual crime and harm here?

      Especially considering it seems like it happen a lot judging from to catch a predator.

      Which come to think of it might be the best argument for or against banning it if we can determine the average cause of the behavior.

      Would it make it better or worse?

      Anecdotal evidence aside I think it might make it at least slightly better.

      Also no. It is sick but zero crimes is not an option either unfortunately.

    53. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it could open up a new form of private rental service, similar to renting a lawn mower.

      But your idea inspires more terror and "think of the children" responses, and thus must be the more logical outcome.

    54. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not kidding when I say I get the feeling that you speak from experience and have quite a vested interest in the outcome.

      Dude, you are fucking creepy.

    55. Re: There is much, much worse! by anegg · · Score: 1

      How is the law going to differentiate between a sex robot that looks like a "young but over the age of consent" individual and a sex robot that portrays an individual just on the other side of that line, if it comes down to that. With a live human, one can look at a birth certificate to make the determination, but with a robot, based on appearance, how will this be done? There certainly are humans individuals who are below the age of consent who appear to be above it, and vice versa. The intricacies of a policy like this could be a legal feast.

    56. Re: There is much, much worse! by Humbubba · · Score: 1
      epyT-R said

      Yes, but how do the reptilians fit into all of this?

      The reptilians are the /. overlords. David Icke, Rick and Morty said so, so it's gotta be... hey, wait a minute. I recognize those shape shifting machinations of yours. E tu, epyT-R!

    57. Re: There is much, much worse! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      "I don't always have sex with soda bottles, but when I do, I have sex with 18 year old soda bottles."

    58. Re: There is much, much worse! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The same way that it does with pictorial content.

      If it looks underage it's illegal. So don't photograph your 25yo girlfriend in a schoolgirl uniform because that could get dodgy.

      It also makes sales of these dolls a challenge even without any new laws: a photograph of a non-adult humanoid sex doll already transgresses child pornography laws in the UK, so any buyers have either already broken the law or they're buying sight unseen. Or in person, I guess.

    59. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humans are weird creatures.

      Like, I'm critical of the law that criminalizes the possession of child pornography. Not because "hey, people should be able to masturbate to photos of exploited children" but because it doesn't work. I can understand the mentality of it, but, seriously, it doesn't work.

      A good example is this. America tried prohibiting alcohol in the 1930s; and what happened? Bootlegging, speakeasys, organized crime, etc. It just didn't work. And people know it doesn't work. Same with that fucking farce known as the war on drugs.

      Yet most - but not all - of these people think that prohibiting the possession of child pornography works. Like they can somehow cherrypick how prohibition works and it'll just magically apply to that situation. Because that's really what it is. Prohibiting 1s and 0s from someone's possession.

      And even then, what evidence is there to say that someone having this stuff is going to cause them to molest children anyway?

    60. Re: There is much, much worse! by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, we are really good at getting people through the physical withdrawal when we want to be. It can even be accomplished painlessly while the patient is in deep sedation if necessary. It's only done that way for people who can afford private clinics mostly because our society has a real punitive bloodlust just below the surface.

      The psychological aspects are harder. That's the part that causes the now-clean addict to shoot up again anyway. Social connection and having the sort of life one looks forward to helps that part a great deal.

    61. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude's a highly noted British professor or robotics with five children of his own, so, probably not.

    62. Re: There is much, much worse! by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Syringe? Oh shit! I need to return this enema kit....

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    63. Re:There is much, much worse! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now we have the problem with pedophiles. They have a sexual attraction to kids.

      No we don't. Now we are publicising the problem with pedophiles. People have been putting their penises where they don't belong since the dawn of time. The only thing recent is the amount of attention given to it, and you can mainly thank the fact that in general society is less tolerant to treating women like shit.

    64. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Erm, as someone who spent many months on fentanyl (patches) combined with morphine (tablets) following an surgery for three prosthetic discs, let me tell you the withdrawal was one of the worse things I've ever been through. I stopped in three stages, halving the dose each time. There was no mental addiction but the physical symptoms were something else. I have a good life, family, job, with no need for a survival or coping mechanism.

      I've had periods of other pain killers with no withdrawal whatsoever, codeine, tramadol, opium (opium and caffeine tablets, made me hyper, not sure it did anything for the pain). But fentanyl, which *is* in the heroin league, is going to cause physical effects. I don't believe for a second anyone stops that cold turkey and doesn't go through their own Trainspotting-baby-on-the-ceiling moment.

      Captcha: tempting

    65. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But unlike many other sexual preferences this leads to dangerous behavior.

      Pedos don't have a monopoly on dangerous behavior. Straight, single guys are notorious from doing extremely dangerous and moronic stunts to attract attention from the other sex.

      Just a minor nit. Carry on.

    66. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need people like you making laws, not 80 year old bureaucrats.

    67. Re: There is much, much worse! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      true.....true

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    68. Re:There is much, much worse! by otomoton · · Score: 1

      Or is he not in the foal'd...

    69. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lies. You can use it to wash the taste of Coors Light out of your mouth if you mistakenly drink one.

    70. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we accept that "gay conversion camps" and the like are the result of ignorance and intolerance and that a person is born with certain sexual preferences then why is it alright to be against "gay conversion camps" and yet have no qualms about the same sorts of "cognitive behavioral therapy" being applied to those with a different sexual preference, say for children? Are you going to argue that the possible harm to children justifies the certain mental and psychological harm that will be inflicted upon those with this sexual preference by "behavioral modification" techniques? It seems to me that if you're against brainwashing to correct behaviors that society considers deviant then you must be against the use of such techniques in general. It's cowardly for gay people to march in Pride parades and proclaim tolerance and then stand by while others with different sexual preferences are also persecuted. The mere existence of a sexual preference is not in and of itself a criminal or medical problem to be treated by messing with people's heads.

    71. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that if you keep these 'bots legal but require them to be registered, it pretty much serves the purposes of a sex offender registry without requiring a conviction. So there's another "think of the children" argument to be made for keeping them legal.

    72. Re: There is much, much worse! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      psychologists there believe that they help pedos to avoid interactions with real children.

      This would mean less pedos in prison, which in the US, could mean a loss of revenue for private prisons due to lower inmate populations and loss of budget for various governmental entities who need number of convicted as a metric to justify budgets. Better ban the robots ahead of time to avoid the potential loss of $$$$. Also, by banning, a whole new crime will be created, thus allowing more sources of $$$$ for the powers that be, in the form of government dollars that will go towards enforcing these additional laws and contracted firms trying, convicting, sentencing, and carrying out those sentences.... jackpot

    73. Re: There is much, much worse! by RobertSteinbach · · Score: 1

      I would not make that assumption. Even psychologists seem to be divided on that.

    74. Re: There is much, much worse! by Gay+Boner+Sex · · Score: 1

      Hehehe

    75. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Budweiser is never OK. It serves no purpose.

      Jesus slashdot, seriously? You've never heard of the drug alcohol? It's quite popular. Some of us discovered drinking it gets you drunk. Sure, beer doesn't taste as good as soda or orange juice, but clearly that doesn't mean it serves no purpose at all.

    76. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually been shown that hardship of any kind is correlated with drug abuse, rather than just social isolation. In a lot of instances it's social isolation that can assist in correction of the behavior, this is because drugs are innately a social undertaking. Heroin comes from halfway across the world which means there is a long distribution chain with a lot of people involved. At the client end of it there is usually a social group that supports the continued use of any of the drugs which they pedal and consume.

      What's even more interesting, is because of the nature of hardship, it exists even in the lives of those which society deems as the most successful. This means that drug abuse doesn't escape socialites or the wealthy, nor the incredibly intelligent or the brilliantly industrious. It is in fact reportedly less common, but it is by no means inexistant in such circles. Furthermore the posturing about care doesn't necessarily align with the needs of an addict. Because humans are naturally variable there are multitudinous needs that need to be met for reformation. With that said it, by it's very nature, becomes a journey for the individual to self-correct, rather than society forcing its hand into the matter. This isn't to say that care doesn't help, a loved one offering a guiding hand towards a (better?) clean life will cause any damage, either, but it won't simply fix the problem.

    77. Re: There is much, much worse! by Cipheron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also a large amount of research suggests that porn availability etc is negatively correlated with sexual assault, and this includes child sexual assault. I'd imagine that if porn is negatively correlated with rape than sex robots will be as well. It is no less than sexual supply and demand. Of couse not all porn viewers are would-be rapists, but *some are* and by denying porn to everyone, yo'du get more unhappy people and a *few* who turn to rape. (In the same way that if the supply of a product drops, prices rise and *some* people turn to stealing to get it, yet, this doesn't imply that all users of the product are would-be thieves).

      Banning unpleasant depictions runs the real proven risk of backfiring and having people live out those fantasies in real life instead. It's the general outcome of prohibition laws, or outlawing prostitution for example. It gives a nice polite facade to the issue that the problem is "gone" but it in fact drves it underground. "Think of the children" arguments are really about protecting the sensibilities of the speaker, and they general reject actual evidence as to whether children will in fact be harmed more by the policy than otherwise.

    78. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Budweiser is never OK. It serves no purpose.

      Jesus slashdot, seriously? You've never heard of the drug alcohol? It's quite popular. Some of us discovered drinking it gets you drunk. Sure, beer doesn't taste as good as soda or orange juice, but clearly that doesn't mean it serves no purpose at all.

      I think the OP knows very well what alcohol is. He just thinks any beer is better than that Budweiser piss-water.
      I love alcohol, but I'll happily accept water over Bud.

    79. Re:There is much, much worse! by hvidstue · · Score: 1

      Why would one learn to alter a child?

    80. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robotic Sex Horses

      I'll be in my bunk.

    81. Re:There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's cowardly for gay people to march in Pride parades and proclaim tolerance and then stand by while others with different sexual preferences are also persecuted.

      The false equivalence between being gay and molesting children is absolutely disgusting. Go troll somewhere else, no reasonable person thinks they're the same thing.

    82. Re:There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The future will be glorious!

      Or, as a friend of mine put it: "I'm always amused when those Star Trek TNG episodes showed people using the holodeck and it was always like.. talking to dead philosophers, visiting King Arthur, solving a Sherlock Holmes mystery. Here's what the holodeck would REALLY be used for: porn, porn, impossible sex, porn. You'd have to wash it out after every use."

    83. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      TL;DR gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.

      Few people start injecting heroin from day one, but it's equally false to say that pot "leads to" heroin, which is what the "gateway drug" argument always boiled down to.

    84. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The thing is, we are really good at getting people through the physical withdrawal when we want to be. It can even be accomplished painlessly while the patient is in deep sedation if necessary. It's only done that way for people who can afford private clinics mostly because our society has a real punitive bloodlust just below the surface.

      I think it's more our society has the attitude "you got yourself into this mess, don't take things from me to get out of it." Rightly or wrongly, we see the choice to be an addict as a personal failing. And although the following attitude has greatly decreased over the last decades or half-century, we also still believe that others should suffer the consequences of an intentional action rather than having to bail them out.

    85. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.

      Ahhh, therein lies the rub... its MUCH more lucrative to treat symptoms.
      Symptoms, may return. If you cure the person, they stop being a source of revenue ?

      Treating the symptoms has usually been much, MUCH easier to do than curing the problem. We know how to treat symptoms, but "curing addiction" is much trickier, more individual, and is sometimes impossible.

    86. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      How is the law going to differentiate between a sex robot that looks like a "young but over the age of consent" individual and a sex robot that portrays an individual just on the other side of that line

      The same way that it does with pictorial content.

      In other words, the law will deal with it poorly and inconsistently. :-)

    87. Re: There is much, much worse! by sjames · · Score: 1

      In other words, we have a punitive culture. We like to see others suffer.

    88. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Ne Hi is out; but Dr. Pepper is OK. Not sure about tall boys. Sounds suspicious.

    89. Re:There is much, much worse! by labnet · · Score: 0

      It seriously sad you have been modded +5 Insightful.

      The newage mantra is, it's whatever I feel that's important..but feelings change all the time. I believe in basic moral absolutes, such as 'shock and horror' you should try constrain sex in a marriage between a man and a woman.

      Thoughts are like a garden. You need to remove the weeds and water the good stuff. This passive weak minded mantra of, Oh but I 'feel' attracted to children. Well hey, you should have weeded your mind a long time ago: now it's turned into bramble bush and taken over your mind. The best way to weed these thoughts is to go talk to someone you trust while they are still manageable. It's like putting a weed killer on the thought.

      Your post just propagates passive fatalism of people being captive to whatever random crap take holds in their mind. Grow a backbone and take responsibility for your thought life.

      --
      46137
    90. Re: There is much, much worse! by dtmancom · · Score: 1

      Yeah but as long as the long dimension of the hunk of plastic and latex is longer than 5'2, that's normal and fine. Anything shorter is just sick and will make people want to diddle kids.

    91. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The US isn't even remotely in the top ten list of countries that base their legislation on thinking of the children.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    92. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You could use that same reasoning to suggest we not have laws prohibiting murder.

      It isn't that I disagree, it is that you seem to think the intended effect is to actually prohibit something. It really isn't, it is to determine punative responses for violating the social contract. Laws don't really prevent anything, and I believe most people know this. They just set a list of punishments out for when someone commits said act(s).

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    93. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I laughed so hard that I am now a little horse...

      Yeah, I am still gonna submit this reply.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    94. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Sort of related: I am well within the 1% and have no underlying mental health issues that cause difficulty n my life - which is as close as they come to saying that one is sane.

      I was a functional opiate addict, for many years. To this day, I am still getting medical treatment by way of Soboxone. In the interest of harm reduction, I may be on it for the rest of my life. Financially, I am able to keep myself inebriated in perpetuity. That is both a blessing and a curse.

      Anyhow, if one has questions concerning addiction, from the view of the addict, I'd be happy to answer them. I used IV opiates for most of 30 years and was a high-functioning addict. Addiction knows no financial barriers and addiction doesn't actually require underlying mental health issues, or even strife.

      At the end, I was extracting fentanyl for IV use and going through two 100 microgram patches per day. That was, with Duralgesic, 16.8 mg*2/day - enough to kill a dozen non-opioid-tolerant people - every single day. Of course, it took years to build that tolerance up.

      But, if you've got questions, I may be able to answer them. It's a fascinating subject, even from the inside looking out.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    95. Re: There is much, much worse! by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      With Trump at the helm we're now failing the American version of America.

    96. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There are worse beers than Budweiser. It is trendy to be a beer snob, but we've all consumed worse beers than Budweiser.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    97. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a neighbor, whom I count as a real friend, who went to prison for sharing what was classified as child pornography. Specifically, he dated someone who was legally allowed to consent to sex, but images of her nude were illegal.

      He went to prison and was then obligated to do a bunch of therapy, lest they return him to prison. What amuses me is that he is still with the same partner and they have kids together. There is, as near as I can tell, zero chance of him having sex with someone who is not legally able to consent.

      Again, she was old enough to have sex but the pictures the two of them took together were illegal, as was his sharing of those pictures online - even though she also consented to that. She was either 16 or 17, if you're curious. Legal to sex, illegal to take pics...

      Anyhow, CBT was a big part of his therapy. Though, according to him, they aimed more at the grooming stage. You have to convince you, them, and find the opportunity. (Most aren't people snatching kids off the street.) So, they have three, at least, barriers to cross and warning signs for all of them. They concentrated there instead of starting at the point of changing their attractions/deviations.

      IIRC, it was headed by a lady who is now deceased but the had consistently lower than average rates of recidivism and there are people continuing her work. I want to say her name was Tracy Morgan- Stanley, but it wasn't my job to remember it, though I did do some research when I first learned that they were an offender.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    98. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am not sure this matters but my understanding is that sexual predation on children is pretty much split on even lines. Male children are, all else being equal, as likely to be victims as are female children. If anything, offenders with male children victims are likely to have more victims before being caught, because of the prejudice and pressures surrounding reporting Mae victimization.

      And no, no I am not some MRA person. This is just the data, as I read it, not all that long ago. As mentioned above, I have a friend who was convicted of a sexual offense and decided to spend some time learning about it.

      Trivially related, sex offenders have the second lowest rate of recidivism. The only lower rate is that of murder. They don't actually know why this is, but there are a few ideas. In the case of murder, you already killed the person who needed killing. In the case of a sex-based crime, perhaps there is something similar? They don't really know, but the recidivism rates are amazingly small - but are amplified by publicity. Also, those who offend against children tend to have quite a few victims before they are caught - so anything from offender age to thrill and power may be a cause for the lowered rate of recidivism.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    99. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      male victims...

      Stupid tablet.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    100. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in TFS, "There should be a ban on the import of sex robots designed to look like children" and "I don't know the answers -- I am just asking the questions."

    101. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could use that same reasoning to suggest we not have laws prohibiting murder.

      Yes and no, it really depends how you apply it. It's one thing to ban a physical item from existence or possession; it's an entirely different thing to ban a concept or action.

      To best illustrate this, imagine someone unknowingly planting "you having killed your next door neighbor" in your backpack.

      Can't imagine that, because "you having killed your next door neighbor" is an action and not something that can be slipped in among your belongings without your knowledge? It's certainly not something you could do without your knowledge. It's something you may do unintentionally, maybe even something you could be blackmailed or otherwise forced or tricked into doing, but you'd know if you did it.

      There you have it.

      You probably have child porn in your browser cache, whether you've browsed (regular) porn sites or not, put there alongside who knows what else as part of a malvertizing campaign. If you do, you almost certainly don't know it.

      Likewise, imagine the number of shipments of seemingly innocuous cargo that likely contained booze the driver of the truck carrying the cargo didn't know about during the prohibition era. That's possession, that would have been a lengthy prison sentence for the driver, and he didn't even know he was hauling it.

      It still happens with drugs today; yes, most people hauling bricks of weed in their trunk know it's there, but most truckers hauling bricks of weed (or whatever) hidden in TV boxes, alongside other TV boxes actually containing TVs, probably don't know it. They're still in possession and still on the hook if their truck gets searched, though.

      That's the primary difference between banning physical items and banning actions and concepts. The mere concept of child sexual abuse is (rightly) banned, as is the act itself (again, rightly so). Possession of physical evidence that it happened (not evidence that you did it, just that it happened ever, at some point) is something completely different; it's something you could (and likely do) have in your possession right now, at this moment, without even knowing it.

      Punishment for breaking the law in this country is supposed to be based on intent, and you can't intend to possess something you don't know you possess.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    102. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bronies before ponies.

    103. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.

      However, almost every law is a restriction in liberty and is prohibiting something. It can be murder, drugs, alcohol, sex with dinosaur eggs, or driving while intoxicated. The root is, they prohibit something - usually an action. In this case, they'd be prohibiting the action of acquiring said doll and/or using it for sexual purposes.

      Like prohibiting alcohol, child sex-dolls can be smuggled.

      Point being that laws don't prevent anything (though there is some deterring effect that has been quantified, it still doesn't prevent a motivated party), but seek to establish a set of societal norms to respond punitively to a violation of said law (or social contract - to be more encompassing).

      In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.

      Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.

      The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.

      To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance. My only complaint was your lack of logic concerning prohibition and legality. We prohibit lots of things, with the expectation that someone is going to do it. In fact, you can trivially see that we expect people to do things like murder someone. If we didn't expect them to commit murder, we'd have not established rules to punish them. If we didn't expect them to break the law, we'd not have penalties and courts. Rules are meant to be broken, after all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    104. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.

      For once, I never actually doubted that. I've always thought you a reasonable person, just one with a different viewpoint and eyes on a different set of facts than myself.

      In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.

      Indeed, and it's equally likely, assuming you have no predisposition toward attraction to children, that one found by police in an unopened box on your front porch (delivered while you're at work and reported by an anonymous tipster, of course) would have been sent by someone wishing to have your freedom forcibly removed as it is that you ordered the doll yourself. A perfect illustration of why banning physical things should not be done.

      Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.

      Yes it is -- on both counts. The mere possession of certain items or content, even sans Mens Rea, is a crime, and that is a problem. Being caught in the act of acquiring, looking at, actively handling, or openly holding these items demonstrates Mens Rea, while merely having them in a bag you are carrying, or tucked away somewhere on your person or property, or even on your hard drive, only demonstrates that you possess the item or content, not that you have actually knowledge of that possession. I don't recall the exact case, but there has been at least one instance where a man was charged with (and found guilty of) possession of child pornography wherein the forensic analyst who found the material on the man's hard drive testified in court that the one and only file found was a thumbnail in the browser cache that had not been accessed or modified since being written, and that there was no way the man could have known it was there or accessed it himself; in other words, he had committed no actual crime, but is now branded a sex offender. If I recall correctly, he faced probation, no jail time, but does have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. For a file the prosecution admitted there was no way he could have even known he had, or accessed if he did know it was there.

      That's why Mens Rea is entirely related to this post.

      The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.

      Indeed, and we're certainly on the same page here. The problem with physical items (and digital representations of such) is that they can be planted without your knowledge. You don't commit an act without knowing you've committed that act (you may not know the act itself was criminal in nature, but you did commit the act and you do know you committed it, that's all that is required for Mens Rea). That you can legally be in possession of an item you may not even know exists is precisely why items themselves should not be banned.

      Ban viewing, displaying, or distributing child pornography (and certainly ban its creation in the first place); but, for the love of all that is holy, do not ban possession. There is simply no way to know that you don't possess these items. As for the sex dolls, well...

      To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance.

      Again, same page. If it prevent

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    105. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > See the problem yet?

      Hold on...

      Sorry - let me address that. Yeah, still the same process of determining prohibition. You can be framed for any one of a number of different offenses. This is no different. It's seemingly not even that difficult to frame someone, and is even more possible with people having the courtesy to carry a tracking device with them.

      Not that it matters, Mens Rea has been dead for longer than I've been alive. I'm not as old as the plea agreement. Intent has gone out the window, long ago.

      Where am I going? Well, it's actually a legitimate idea to say that punishing people should not be allowed. It's a legitimate rebuttal to say, "It increases the crime associated with it." But, saying it doesn't stop anyone? You might just as well erase most of the other laws on the books. Laws prohibit stuff, more often than not. It's what they do.

      There's a bunch of legitimate reasons to suggest banning these dolls would be bordering on mentally retarded. However, that it's akin to prohibition is not one that I consider such. No, no I do not. ;-) It's an absolutely stupid idea. It's based on no science, it's preemptive in it's ban, and it may actually be a good thing for harm reduction.

      Either way, it'd be tit easy to frame someone and it being "on a computer" doesn't actually make it anything different. Also, it's kinda a moot point because they're not going to listen to us and, as I said, Mens Rea is dead. People have had an OUI stand up in court, when they were in a car on blocks while they listened to the radio. Mens Rea is long since gone.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    106. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see the problem, and it's not your fault (I've been known to make the same mistake). I replied to ... eh... Gay Boner Sex, then an AC replied to me (mentioning prohibition) and you replied to the AC. Then, when I replied to you, you must have missed that the AC and I were (and still are) not one in the same.

      The argument I made in my reply to you was different from the argument made by the AC you initially replied to but, clearly, your response to me was colored by the AC's comment.

      It's cool, like I said I've done it, too.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    107. Re: There is much, much worse! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is unfortunately the case in the UK as well. Sex is legal at 16, but pictures of people under 18 are not. There are also exceptions for when one person is over 18 and in a position of power over the other (e.g. their teacher).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    108. Re: There is much, much worse! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      natty light for example

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    109. Re: There is much, much worse! by Megol · · Score: 1

      I'll note that I'm getting downvoted because someones bias doesn't match that of reality - a reality one could learn about by doing some basic research. Hint: downvoting doesn't change the parts of reality you don't like.

    110. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      This would mean less pedos in prison, which in the US, could mean a loss of revenue for private prisons due to lower inmate populations and loss of budget for various governmental entities who need number of convicted as a metric to justify budgets.

      The cost of medical treatment for your average imprisoned pedo far outweighs the income. You have to remember, pedos are the number one target for prison violence.

      Fewer pedos in prison would be a good thing for the prisons. They're literally the one class of criminal that doesn't fit the "more is better" model you espouse.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    111. Re: There is much, much worse! by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Lies. Coors Light HAS no taste!

    112. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We are all guilty. LOL

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    113. Re: There is much, much worse! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Weed does nothing to help make it more clear, once you end up with multiple people replying. Weed is no help. None, at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    114. Re: There is much, much worse! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot, I had almost gotten the taste of Wiedemann's out of my memory. Spit...

      Czech Budweiser is good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    115. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahaha tell me about it, brother. It took me a while to realize you thought I was arguing that prohibition was ineffective...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    116. Re: There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well think about it: If they banned child sex robots, then what would Beau have sex with? So of course slashdot covers this topic.

    117. Re: There is much, much worse! by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      With Trump at the helm we're now failing the American version of America.

      It didn't start with Trump, of course.

      As someone who has read the Constitution and observed the government, it's obvious to me America has been failing for quite some time.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    118. Re:There is much, much worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what the parent said. In fact, they made an explicit point about not conflating sexual preferences with criminal acts.
      No reasonable person thinks that being sexually attracted to something is equivalent to (or even leads to) raping it.

    119. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      In other words, we have a punitive culture. We like to see others suffer.

      Sortof. We like to see suffering if we think the person deserved it. Enough that if the person commits a moral failing, but doesn't pay for it in some way, that in itself is a second outrage on someone's part.

    120. Re: There is much, much worse! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, though where suffering has happened, we tend to go well out of our way to find some reason the person deserved it. Often then stretching further to find justification for even more.

    121. Re: There is much, much worse! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That is also true in the US. A whole lot of anime is technically illegal and can get you child porn charges.
      The law is so fucked up that you could draw a stick figure with tits and label it 17 year old and you can go to jail for it.

    122. Re: There is much, much worse! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yes, the majority of pedophiles were sexually abused by their mothers.
      How did you know it started with the parents (almost exclusively the mother)?

    123. Re: There is much, much worse! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have feelings, or pain, or sex organs.

      And it absolutely will not stop until it fucks you!

    124. Re: There is much, much worse! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine was a waitress at a strip club and wrote a book about 50 stripper's lives from their point of view. A couple of them mentioned that they'd get shit from time to time for appearing to cater to the pedo type guy who was into a young looking and acting female. They thought they were only doing good in the world by taking the edge off these fucktards who may molest a real person if they never had the stripper as a safe outlet. Given most of the 50 of those strippers in the book were molested or abused in one way or another, it really changed my view. I'll give them the unfortunate benefit of experience on that. I am of the point of view that calling someone "daddy" during sex is just wrong. That is creepy as fuck.

    125. Re: There is much, much worse! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      "If the availability of these "robots" prevents even one pedophile from seeking an actual child, they're a not positive for society" I was going to reply nastily to this, but on further reading, I think you meant "net". Fucking typos. One letter separates you from sane and psychopathic.

    126. Re: There is much, much worse! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      That's really irrelevant. I've never been in the same room as heroin, but alcohol, pot, cocaine, ecstasy, etc were all within availability as for most teens these days. Right now, there's a fentynal problem in my province. I'm sure there's more people doing heroin for the first time than when I was a teenager trying drugs for the first time 20 years ago.

    127. Re: There is much, much worse! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I did mean net, and I need to do a better job proofreading before I post.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    128. Re: There is much, much worse! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yes, though where suffering has happened, we tend to go well out of our way to find some reason the person deserved it. Often then stretching further to find justification for even more.

      Sure. Everyone likes to be able to tell themselves that things are properly ordered.

    129. Re: There is much, much worse! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I might buy that if not for the second part about then looking to justify even more.

      It's not just a random fluke that the U.S. leads the world in putting people in cages, then feeding them bad food and giving them the crappiest medical care we can get away with.

  2. Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 0

    Then ARREST the perverts who are dumb enough to buy one and have it shipped to their house.

    1. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install automatically clamping, barbed cock braces in the strategic areas of the mechanized dolls and let them say with a Dirty Harry voice "Do you feel lucky, punk?" We are firmly in the RoboCop universe all the sudden.

    2. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

      If its Robocop universe, then I say just install the MAGNAVOLT security system into each and every doll... Activated AUTOMATICALLY on first use! :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being a pedophile is not illegal (in sane countries, anyway). Like being gay, it's just the way you are. Masturbating with the aid of a robot is not illegal. Masturbating with the aid of a robot that looks like a child should likewise not be illegal.

    4. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      Won't somebody please think of the robot children?!

    5. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by magusxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree with Dog-Cow's take on this... But Anonymous, are you also going to call the FBI and have them investigate everyone that saw the Twilight movie? You know, the one where the 400 year old fart was trolling a high school for an underage girlfriend? Yeah, Bella was only 17 years old. And no federal law enforcement agency gave a crap about that.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    6. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the age of consent in WA is 16, so she was fair game.

    7. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken by someone whose children were not molested by a paedophile.

    8. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you're more than 5 years older than the 16-17 year old. afaik, every state with a consent age under 18 has a similar condition of proximity-of-age.

    9. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being a pedophile is not illegal (in sane countries, anyway). Like being gay, it's just the way you are. Masturbating with the aid of a robot is not illegal. Masturbating with the aid of a robot that looks like a child should likewise not be illegal.

      I'd much rather a pedo fucked a robot that looked like a kid rather than an actual kid.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > not if you're more than 5 years older than the 16-17 year old. afaik, every state with a consent age under 18 has a similar condition of proximity-of-age.

      You don't know very far.

    11. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So about 99% of humans if you don't count the Middle East & Africa.

    12. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Completely agree. Why ban something that does no harm? Why ban something that does no harm to anyone else? What's the reasoning: It's bad because it reminds someone of something that is bad? It's bad because it would be bad if a key aspect was different? It's bad because the words, used another way would be about something bad? It's bad because all sex is bad? If I want to dress up as Mohammad and fuck a lump of plastic that looks like a 12-year old girl, why can't I? It's not like I'm doing anything that's actually bad, like fucking a 12-year old girl, or founding a religion.

    13. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously all these people against it think that it is much, much better if people with these urges rape real children, than that they use a sex-toy that has a specific form. Why they think children getting raped is preferable is beyond me though, but that is what is going to happen and what they are promoting.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      In fact, the first is not a problem, the second is a very serious problem.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am calling the FBI tomorrow morning and telling them about your post.

      Useless and counter-productive.

      I hope you enjoy the attention you will soon receive, you sick twisted piece of pedophile garbage.

      You are even more stupid than a first look indicated.

      Are you aware that your knee-jerk reaction will make *more* children targets for abuse, rather than less?

      You most likely are not aware. You are just too stupid and reactionary to be able to think things through properly.

      The world is better off without people like you.

      Please do not procreate.

    16. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This is a bit harder than it looks.

      Allowing pedophiles these robots could be enough for those urges and so they use this instead of attacking real children.

      But there could allso be a trigger to go from this to go over to real children ie "gateway drug" i dont think that every pedophil today let there urges play out and attack children but maybe a such personn could take the step after using robots like these.

      If we allow child like sex dolls i suspect that we will se cases from both groups the question is would this sex doll stopp more attacks than it creates if it does allow it.

    17. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJW, being a paedophile is illegal in most countries as that act of being one destroys the lives of children it affects, unless you are just mouthing off and pretending to be one. And this this got marked insightful! WTF!!! BTW learn to spell.

    18. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Jamu · · Score: 2

      Being an agalmatophile shouldn't be illegal either. And if we can turn pedophiles into agalmatophiles, isn't that a good thing?

      --
      Who ordered that?
    19. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, can't afford a full size.
      The Gray area is where the problems are anyways you dumb fuck.

      say, a 160cm small titted sex robot. hundred million+ adult women are small titted and under 160cm. ..so then 150cm? arrest and throw into the jail?

      140? there's adults that are 140cm and 40 kilos. plenty of them.

    20. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Ugh, seriously. What's up with expressing a balanced view and evaluating both sides of the story? Don't you know you're supposed to have a completely imbalanced opinion and be closed to logic? What is this world coming to!?

    21. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Being a paedophile does not harm anyone and is usually not illegal on its own...
      Actually practicing paedophilia is what's illegal and what harms child victims.

      It's perfectly possible for someone to have such desires, but refrain from acting upon them.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    22. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't make any sense. Why would someone who is already attracted to children start raping them if he masturbates with a robot? If he's not raping them before the robot is available to function as an outlet, why would he start after?

    23. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Just because you are ignorant of the definition of pedophile does not mean that it's illegal to be one. Is it illegal to be homosexual or bisexual? Is it illegal to be heterosexual?

    24. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because then they could be punished and bad things happening to people one doesn't like is always good. Even if other people are hurt in the process.

    25. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are your children robots?

    26. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Informative

      This supreme court would probably agreed with you. In 2002, they struck down a ban of virtual child porn (from the NYT:)

      "Affirming that free speech principles apply with full force in the computer age, the Supreme Court today struck down provisions of a federal law that made it a crime to create, distribute or possess ''virtual'' child pornography that used computer images or young adults rather than actual children.

      The law, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, ''prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the court's latest decision upholding First Amendment protections online."

    27. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Not so. Maybe you live in a state with a geriatric vampire clause, but it would be the exception, not the rule.

    28. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You don't need a pedophile to molest children.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this exactly the caveman-level thinking I suspect these people are doing...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In every Islamic country, yes, it is illegal to be gay. Want to see a picture of gays killed in Iran last year? Google it.

    31. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment."

    32. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Like being gay, it's just the way you are.

      Being a serial killer is just "being the way you are" too. Murder should be legal by your argument.

      There is a difference between someone who prefers to have sex with another consenting adult, regardless of their sex, and someone who likes to have sex with children. It's even more unfortunate that the law does not blur the lines of pedophilia and lumps a well developed girl of 17 years and 11 months with a 5 year old. It's perfectly natural to feel sexual attraction to a pretty and developed 17 year old - though acting on that desire might not be legal. It is not natural to crave a frightened and screaming 3 year old. The instinct is for protecting the young immature ones, not having sex with them.

      However since the 17 year old and the 2 year old are grouped in the same category of "children" and anyone caught with either is considered a "pedophile" and receives the same legal treatment, this distorts people's perceptions. Since most people are stupid, the distortions usually tend towards stupidity.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    33. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it have been sweet if that pedo screwed a robot instead?

    34. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you misrepresent his statement.

      Being attracted to kids is not illegal. Having sex with them is.

      Wanting to kill people and eat them isn't illegal. Killing people and eating them is illegal.

      Do keep up.

    35. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a serial killer is just "being the way you are" too.

      Very wrong. The label "serial killer" refers to what you have done in the past, not what you inherently are.

      Murder should be legal by your argument.

      Don't try to put words in other people's mouths. That argument is yours and yours along, and you introduced that argument for the sole purpose of attacking it.

    36. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Really? Isn't it acting on the homosexual urges that are severely punished rather than being homosexual? One need not have sex with persons of the same gender to be homosexual, one doesn't need to do sexual activities (will not call it sex - more like severe sexual abuse) with children to be a pedophile and one doesn't need to have sex with the opposite gender to be a heterosexual.

      OTOH Islamic fanatics (as do other types of fanatics) like to claim that homosexuality is a western phenomena (if they even accept it as existing at all). Strange that the same kind of fanatics severely punish what they claim not exist in the first place...

    37. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between someone who prefers to have sex with another consenting adult, regardless of their sex, and someone who likes to have sex with children.

      Hate to break this to you, but it's possible for someone to be attracted to children and not act on it in the same way it's possible for someone to be attracted to their gender and not act on it. (Straight but asexual, anyone?)

      You know, like how you manage to go through life without raping every woman that you meet.

    38. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Like being gay, it's just the way you are.

      Being a serial killer is just "being the way you are" too. Murder should be legal by your argument.

      Now that's the stupidest thing I've read today!

      No being a serial killer is by definition someone that have murdered multiple persons on different occasions. Having the desire of murdering several persons on different occasions is not only legal (but should be treated as the mental problem it is) but not enough to be called a serial killer.

      Being sexually attracted to children is enough to be called a pedophile (technically not but it is used as a catch-all phrase nowadays) even if the person in question doesn't act on this attraction. It is legal to be a pedophile as long as one doesn't act on it.

      I'd like to tattoo "IDIOT ALERT" on all idiot forum posters (like you) so they can be avoided in real life. But I'll not act on that which makes is legal.

    39. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Being a pedophile is not illegal (in sane countries, anyway). Like being gay, it's just the way you are. Masturbating with the aid of a robot is not illegal. Masturbating with the aid of a robot that looks like a child should likewise not be illegal.

      I'd much rather a pedo fucked a robot that looked like a kid rather than an actual kid.

      Unless doing so either:

      a) increased the urges and made them want the real thing more.

      or

      b) the existence of such robots "normalized" the desire to be a predator of children. And people who had the desire and fought it because they saw it as unnatural now acted upon the instincts and desires they had suppressed.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    40. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      You should stop getting psychological advice from your local megachurch pastor.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    41. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by computational+super · · Score: 1

      It does seem to me that we keep getting further and further away from actual harm, focusing on "potential harm".

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    42. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone whose children have been molested by a paedophile, I would have much preferred that the individual have a robot to use.

    43. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You should stop getting psychological advice from your local megachurch pastor.

      Strawman much?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    44. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather a pedo fucked a robot that looked like a kid rather than an actual kid.

      How about a actual kid that looked like a robot?

    45. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Stop demonizing pedophiles. Are normal, straight, adults predators because they seek out sexual encounters with the opposite sex? A pedophile in a culture where sex with children is forbidden will likely not act on his desires. Just the same way a homosexual wouldn't do so in a country that tosses such people off roofs.

    46. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Why they think children getting raped is preferable is beyond me though, but that is what is going to happen and what they are promoting."

      False dichotomy much?

      There are other, scarier possibilities to consider. Ever look at sex addiction? As one continually flips their "arousal" switch, the further one tends to go to get arousal 'rush'.

    47. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Being a pedophile is not illegal (in sane countries, anyway). Like being gay, it's just the way you are. Masturbating with the aid of a robot is not illegal. Masturbating with the aid of a robot that looks like a child should likewise not be illegal.

      I'd much rather a pedo fucked a robot that looked like a kid rather than an actual kid.

      Unless doing so either:

      a) increased the urges and made them want the real thing more.

      or

      b) the existence of such robots "normalized" the desire to be a predator of children. And people who had the desire and fought it because they saw it as unnatural now acted upon the instincts and desires they had suppressed.

      Well then, keep them hidden under mountains of social stigma with no where to turn for help until they do actually fuck with a kid and see how well that works for you.

      I don't think anyone is ever going normalise sex with children, that's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it, and definitely not because of sexbots. Pedo isn't a choice, no one chooses their sexual attractions and if you can give them a way to release that without bottling it up until they can't resist anymore then go for it. Even if only one less kid gets abused it'd be worth it. Maybe recognise it's a thing and encourage them to seek help before the fact rather than after getting caught.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    48. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "It's even more unfortunate that the law does not blur the lines of pedophilia and lumps a well developed girl of 17 years and 11 months with a 5 year old."

      Most sex crimes with minors do "blur the line". Punishment rules in California, for example for the same "act" are different for children age 10 and under vs. older. There are also different laws that take in to consideration of age of the offender. The language of the sex with minors laws are littered with "under the age of 10", "Under the age of 14, but older than 10".

    49. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      There is a massive difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

      One is the consensual relationship between two adults. The other is a non-consensual relationship between one person and a victim. Someone who has pedophilic fantasies may not be a bad person if it is something they cannot help. Someone who acts on those fantasies very much is doing a bad thing that deserves to be demonized.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    50. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      It does seem to me that we keep getting further and further away from actual harm, focusing on "potential harm".

      Agreed. And actually the 'potential harm' is targeting smaller and smaller group of people, but at the same time ignore the negative impact on much bigger group of people surrounding the similar issue.

    51. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Calling it a slippery slope is a bit much. That's implying one barely related thing will cause another to happen without much of a logical reason in between.

      If a device is a available to be sold that destigmatises the act. If you destigmatise the act, even a little, some people will be encouraged to act on it.

      Having them use a robot is not going to kill their urges any more than using a sex toy/doll decreases the urge to have sex with a real woman/man. You ask any basement dweller if he'd rather be with a real woman. I bet 99% of them would.

      Obviously, real world statistics would help, and we can't know the net impact with certainty; but I would suspect the % satiated with a robot would be almost 0 (just like it is for any current sex toy, or your right hand). The percent that the existence of such devices will increase their urge to act will be > 0%.

      I don't know how big the increase would be. Any increase is a bad thing.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    52. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Being a serial killer is just "being the way you are" too. Murder should be legal by your argument.

      Wrong. His claim is that stabbing a robot should be legal.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    53. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Sexual child molestation that involves mutilating children's genitals, by their parents, usually involving a third party, just for cultural conformity or religious doctrine is very common. It amazes me that parents would do this to their children. It's like some fucked-up version of the Milgram experiment.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    54. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      This supreme court would probably agreed with you. In 2002, they struck down a ban of virtual child porn (from the NYT:)

      "Affirming that free speech principles apply with full force in the computer age, the Supreme Court today struck down provisions of a federal law that made it a crime to create, distribute or possess ''virtual'' child pornography that used computer images or young adults rather than actual children.

      The law, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, ''prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the court's latest decision upholding First Amendment protections online."

      But in 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which incorporates many of the same provisions including prohibiting "computer-generated child pornography when (B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and "drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition."

      The justification for the first provision is that photorealistic renderings are indistinguishable from photos, and thus, without the subject child, prosecutors could never prove that something was a photo rather than a render, and pornographers would have an easy out. Okay, fine, but the second provision doesn't meet that justification, since a drawing or sculpture is not indistinguishable from a photo.

      Anyway, it hasn't hit the Supreme Court yet, but a conviction has been upheld by the 4th circuit for possession of manga.

    55. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Now that's the stupidest thing I've read today

      Oh, just keep scrolling... But really, his analogy is flawed anyway. We're talking about what should and shouldn't be legal to do with dolls, not people. So, what Dunbal is really proposing is that "murder" of realistic dolls (for instance, crash test dummies or hollywood stage props) should be outlawed. Which, as you point out, is pretty stupid. But this particular topic does tend to bring out the stupids.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    56. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I used to dance with a lady that was around 140cm tall, and her friend that was a good 20cm shorter.

      Both were late 20s, early 30s. The taller of the two was downright gorgeous too. But she fell for a guy that did WWII re-enactments so I moved on.

      Legal to have sex with them? Oh yes. So no, a robot that looks like them should not be inherently illegal.

    57. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We've got unfortunate people who are sexually attracted to children. For the most part, they control the urges, and nobody gets hurt. Some act out on them, and people get hurt bad. There really isn't much safe help available to help people with the attraction not act on it, which doesn't make much sense.

      We need to have the topic sufficiently in the open that pedophiles can get help without risking ruining their lives. This is going to destigmatize it anyway. We need to be able to talk about child pornography: is the CP produced without harming children going to increase or decrease the amount of molestation?

      Obviously a pedophile would, all things being equal, have sex with a child rather than a robot. However, the robot does have advantages: it's legal and moral. Certainly most of the basement dwellers masturbating to porn on the internet would prefer a real women, but that doesn't mean they're going to rape one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No. In my state, they're legal at 16 (but it's still highly illegal to get a video of legal sex with a 16-year-old). There are exceptions that apply to the age of 18, and there is no age of consent for therapist-client sex, but the age similarity laws apply to 15 and under.

      Given mutual desire and willingness, it would be perfectly legal for me to have sex with a sixteen-year-old girl. However, even disregarding what my wife would think of this, I don't find young women personally sexually attractive. I sometimes fantasize about introducing them to my son, so they're more potential daughters-in-law than potential sex partners. Such is age.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was, in fact, the case in Washington State previously but it got tossed out a while back. Now it's 16 without any other qualifiers.

    60. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by RobertSteinbach · · Score: 1

      This is Trump's 'Merica now! We must create more victimless crimes to punish good people that think differently! Damn*d the Supreme Court, full speed ahead!

    61. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. We already have laws for endangering and exploiting children. It's the same shit we hear about legal prostitution leading to high rates of trafficking. Even if true, it changes my position not a single iota. If there's consent given, or no consent needed, mind your fucking business and focus enforcement efforts on ACTUAL violations of the law. Prevention is fine, unless it also prevents what should be otherwise legal activity in the name of said prevention.

    62. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it will also hopefully fail at the SC level. The reality is that appearing "virtually indistinguishable" should ONLY be the problem for law enforcement. As distasteful as I find this material, the burden is, and should remain, on law enforcement to prove a crime was committed. That computers make this job harder should be irrelevant.

    63. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to hear about your children. That person deserves punishment for what he/she did and I hope they received it.

      That being said, being a pedophile does not mean that you're a child molester/rapist. It's the difference between thoughts and actions. There are plenty of pedophiles that never touch a child and as much as you may hate their perversion, they have done nothing to warrant punishment. Child-looking (because they're NOT an actual child) sex robots may be a good outlet to help them to never touch an actual child, which should be the goal for all pedophiles. The only reason that child porn images involving real children are illegal and should remain so is because you have to cause harm to a child to create it. Now drawings, animation and painting of children, as long as no real child is ever involved, is legal in most countries and should remain so because no one is being harmed. We should never get into the area of thought crime as we'd all have to be locked up. Just because you detest something doesn't give cause to punish people for it.

    64. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the AC's point!

    65. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Right? It could have been from the government directly.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    66. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why would someone who is already attracted to children start raping them if he masturbates with a robot?"

      The robot might not be as exciting or as desirable as a live human being. The existence of "pedo-robots" in NO WAY precludes a pedophile from deciding to prey on a human child, in the same way that ownership of a Fleshlight doesn't prevent a heterosexual man from wanting to have sex with an actual human female.

    67. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The age of consent in the US is 18. If you cross state lines from a 16-consent state to a 16-consent state to have sex with a 16-year old, it's "legal" for the states' laws, and illegal under federal law. Edward moved there (crossing state lines), so he could be tried for the offense.

    68. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost nowhere has those rules. Most states have a sub-18 consent age with no restrictions. The exception to that is that the age of consent is often 18, when the adult is a "person of power" (teacher, religious leader, etc.).

    69. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They use the prison definition of gay. Only the 'catcher' is gay, the 'pitcher' is just a normal Arab.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    70. Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither homosexuality nor pedophilia imply a relationship.

    71. Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Last year, some guys and I are working and making conversation. The talk came around to women doing porn because they're desperate. Guy: What is the age of consent in your province? Friend: Don't know. Guy: Good answer. When people know all these age of consent laws, it's fucking creepy.

  3. Let's do some research first by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.

    1. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are guns a stepping stone to shooting people?

    2. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, most people are shot with hollow needles.

    3. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are guns a stepping stone to shooting people?

      With all the gunshot detectors around we'll switch to crossbow or garrotte anyway.

    4. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if we make a gun that's realistic and great to shoot at targets but literally can't hurt people at all, first, if we want to keep the analogy?

    5. Re:Let's do some research first by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You think they rape children with those robots? Now that's sick.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As hard as it is to say... I agree.

      Like it or not... pedophilia & homosexuality are rather similar in that some bit in the brain got flipped from the norm. For gays/lesbians, the bit controlling which sex they are attracted to happened to get set to 'same' vs the default of 'opposite'. For the honest to goodness pedophiles, their control bit for acceptable age range never got toggled to put in an acceptable cut off point as they grew up.

      No. I am not saying one is right or wrong... just that they are. Aside from societal pressures, it's got to suck when one is in love with someone who they cannot create biological offspring with (ie 'cis' gay/lesbian)... ditto for when the object of ones affections is generally viewed as being under the age to give consent.

      This is not to say that we should normalize pedophilia in our laws to allow for such relationships (unless we've some radical reason to change age of consent laws), but instead recognize that those who have these drives likely didn't choose to be that way, and trying to punish them for acting on seemingly harmless desires (in the case of a child sex bot) risks these people seeking other forms of gratification which may not be as innocent.

    7. Re:Let's do some research first by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children

      Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?

    8. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the gunshot detectors around we'll switch to crossbow or garrotte anyway.

      Bows are hardly silent. The twang of them is unmistakable to anyone with experience and within earshot (though smaller than even a suppressed firearm)

      Garrotes are more akin to knives as they require immediate proximity and are both far more silent to their actual use (vs the sounds they cause from the body of the target (ie they both lack the 'whop' of a rifle shot impacting, but do tend to have other sounds).

    9. Re:Let's do some research first by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. I am not saying one is right or wrong... just that they are. Aside from societal pressures, it's got to suck when one is in love with someone who they cannot create biological offspring with (ie 'cis' gay/lesbian)...

      My wife and I seem to get along just fine even though we are biologically unable to conceive children, even if we wanted to. It turns out that there's more to a happy relationship than conceiving children. Homosexual couples have pretty much the same options as straight couples that want a baby (adoption, artificial insemination, etc). They may need to look outside of their relationship to find a willing uterus, egg or sperm, but many straight couples face the same problem.

    10. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are guns a stepping stone to shooting people?

      Guns are *used* to shoot people.
      Are you suggesting to use childlike sex dolls to abuse children ?

    11. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If bows are too noisy, then we'll switch to the atlatl! Or perhaps just blowguns, but I for one relish the idea of hurling javelins!

    12. Re:Let's do some research first by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed, but it's likely that the answer will be something like "it depends on the individual". That's certainly how it is with other types of porn. The majority of people can handle it just fine, but some small number... And because it's children, people who don't have the same ability as adults to protect themselves...

      Well, it's hard to see how western lawmakers will not go for an outright ban, which is unfortunate because there could be some real benefit to society here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Let's do some research first by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That would make sense. Sadly research never makes a difference. People make decisions based on instinctive responses, which tends to be havily influenced by "squick" factor.

      I will add though, there's more to it than the "stepping stone". We don't really want to see normalisation of paedophilia.

    14. Re:Let's do some research first by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      While you're at it, why not ask pedophile doll users about their feelings and urges before and after using a child doll, and follow up? Throw in pedophile doll users with adult dolls, non-pedophiles with adult dolls, pedophiles without dolls, and non-pedophiles without dolls.

    15. Re:Let's do some research first by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if other people nearby hear it, they're going to hear the victim screaming anyways, and their loved ones wailing. Gunshot detectors won't detect a bow, or wailing loved ones.

      If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.

    16. Re:Let's do some research first by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe allow them so long as they come with a tube of superglue mislabeled "lube".


      How about we get outraged about abuse of real kids instead of objects. Going after thoughtcrime can be a bit of a slippery slope once it gets into victimless territory.

    17. Re:Let's do some research first by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

      You could measure correlation at least. Let people have the sex dolls, and keep track of how many child abuse cases involved the perp owning such a doll.

    18. Re:Let's do some research first by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      It surely depends on the individual, but you could determine the overall effect.

    19. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's got to suck when one is in love with someone who they cannot create biological offspring with

      Not at all, for many of us! We like living with no worries about unintended pregnancy and no need to continually spend money and effort preventing it.

      PS: vasectomy is a great relief for very many opposite-sex couples not interested in "creating biological offspring".

    20. Re:Let's do some research first by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are going to hell if you have sex with your wife. According to the Catholics, the singular purpose of sex is procreation. Any other reason is a sin. You may as well turn gay.

      Fortunately, we don't don't believe in mythical magical beings.

    21. Re:Let's do some research first by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Your god. Your rules. *You* burn in hell.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    22. Re:Let's do some research first by gweihir · · Score: 1

      In all other cases of sexual orientation, there are no "stepping stones" and no "learning" or "acquiring" of the orientation and it can also not being "unlearned" or "healed". There is really no reason to believe this thing works different.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even if we wanted to.

      I suppose that means neither of you wants to, and then it is logical that your relationship suffers no detriment. It is not always that way.

    24. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree but im having a hard time seeing the poltician that would dare to say

      We must have child sex robots think of the children.

    25. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, let them attempt to abuse a child if they feel like it, for the data points? I think there is an obvious flaw in that plan.

    26. Re:Let's do some research first by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      That's going to depend on the individual...
      If you assume that paedophilia is a medical condition (after all, its a matter of sexual preference which the individual in question has no control over), then perhaps a doctor should diagnose wether the individual will benefit from the use of a robot or not.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    27. Re:Let's do some research first by jandersen · · Score: 1

      First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.

      How would you go about figuring that out? And also, I don't think it addresses the real problem of what to do about pedophilia and the immense harm it causes. The whole issue of sex in relation to children is a highly contentious issue, to the extent that there still are many unanswered questions - and even some un-asked ones too.

      Just to get it out of the way, let me clarify my own position: I think it is clear that adults involving children in sex is immensely harmful, and in my opinion pedophiles are dangerous individuals that any society must find a way to deal with. I'm not saying that we have to lock them up, but we do have a serious problem that needs to be solved. I also realise that these are opinions and that I can't claim to know any solutions.

      What we do know for a fact is that there are many children that have been severely harmed by sexual abuse, and that there are pedophile predators lurking around on the internet, organising a regular trade in the vilest depravities. Even if we disregard the harm done to their victims (and how can we?), there is a huge cost to society in the form of mental (and sometimes physical) disability, crime, substance abuse etc as a consequence of these crimes.

      Amongst the many unanswered questions are for example: Why (or by which mechanism) does sexual abuse of a child harm the child? It may appear to be obvious - it sort of lies in the term 'abuse', but that really is a circular argument: it is called abuse because it is harmful. It is well known, that children do, to some extent, enjoy sexual stimulation as such: some discover masturbation as early as the age of five - so where does the harm come in? Is it because an adult, who should protect the child, violates the fundamental trust a child has? Is it because of the adult's strong need for secrecy and the consequent oppression and use of threats? Something else? I haven't come across any professional discussion of this so far.

      Another problem we don't quite understand is: why do some people become pedophile? I don't buy the idea, that this is simply their nature - there is no 'biological' argument for this being the case. Compare with homosexuality: The function of sexual lust is to motivate people to procreate and produce children. Sex partners of the same gender can be seen as a side effect - a convenient way to follow your instinct, when there is no partner of the opposite sex available. It may also have benefits within a group by strengthening ties in for example a group of hunters. Evolution will tend to 'allow' some degree of homosexuality in the species.

      No such argument exists for pedophilia: Harming a child goes against our natural instincts - evolution has ensured that parents want to protect their children, and by extension the children of others in their group. A pedophile has to overcome the imperative of this strong, natural instinct, and it is very hard to seriously consider the argument, that having sex with a child is somehow likely to be more convenient than finding an adult partner. And even if you could, it still seems clear that it is un-adaptive in terms of evolution, so natural selection should tend to weed it out.

    28. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means take note of the data points. You can't ban everything that can't be proven to be safe, because doing so isn't safe. And pre-crime is science fiction.

    29. Re:Let's do some research first by gijoel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Given a choice I'm sure a pedophile would always try to have sex with a human child rather than a robot one. Because in the depths of their hearts they don't believe what they are doing is wrong. I don't think many actual pedophiles would use this type of technology. Nor do I think that this type of technology would encourage pedophilia any more than inflatable sheep encourage bestiality.

    30. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.

      I understand the Catholic church has done a great deal of... gonna call it "research"... into abuse of actual children. Maybe the Vatican should weigh in on this.

    31. Re:Let's do some research first by Tranzistors · · Score: 2

      Perhaps measure response to stimuli before and after use of such a doll?

      If the issue is “does sex toys increase desire or reduce shame to have sex with living humans?” then this could give meaningful answers. But in this case we are more interested in whether this will increase sexual abuse. How do you measure the link between the two?

    32. Re:Let's do some research first by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      I think he means take note of the data points.

      Since this is criminal activity that has a strong stigma, getting unbiased data points seems like a really difficult thing to do.

    33. Re:Let's do some research first by sheramil · · Score: 2

      In fact the child robot could keep track of the owner, at the same time reporting the owner's browsing habits for sale to Amazon, Google and the NSA. Heck, why not have a robot child watching EVERYONE? Sure, it's creepy, but that's the price you pay for eternal vigilance.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

      Those guys weren't very tall. ''to serve and obey and guard men from harm".

    34. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing is, they are not given a choice. Having sex with an actual child is illegal, in the hopes that the threat of jail will make more pick the alternatives over having sex with real children.

      But as soon as they start picking the alternatives, we are very quick to make them illegal also. It's like we don't actually want them to pick the alternatives after all.

    35. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in this case they could keep having sex in the hope that one day, a miracle happens :-)

    36. Re:Let's do some research first by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What about a silenced bow?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    37. Re: Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say you buy an old bank. You pretend to rob said bank every day. No one else is involved -- think night burglary. Is this a crime? In some instances, yes. The issue is intent. Are you practicing for the real thing or just having fun? Paintball is the same. Nothing wrong with it until it becomes a conspiracy. Determining intent is a bit of a grey area.

    38. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are loads of pre-crimes in the UK, e.g. collecting information that could be used to do something, even if there's no conspiracy in place. "Conspiracy to..." is arguably another pre-crime.

    39. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are guns a stepping stone to shooting people?

      No, they are just a tool for that.

    40. Re: Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubber robot sex gods

    41. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children

      Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?

      If child abuse as a whole decreases with the creation and support of certain sex toys, then I'd say you have some efficacy measured.

      Besides, trying to control this particular sex toy may ultimately be pointless. A fleshlight is a rather benign sex toy that is socially acceptable. Fast-forward 10 years and connect it to any number of sick, twisted VR fantasies, including children and animals. Are we going to try and control VR when that comes around? We sure as hell can't control anime.

    42. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      false analogy....are plastic guns a stepping stone to shooting people would be the correct one.

      Yours would only make sense if the question was if giving real children to pedophiles would be a stepping stone to rape.

    43. Re:Let's do some research first by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      a matter of sexual preference which the individual in question has no control over

      I'm not sure where this idea that sexual preference is inherent and unchangeable comes from. Well, some preferences seem to be, like being straight or gay. But some are not. People's tastes change over time or with familiarity.

      I don't know if attraction to children can change, but I think it's worth asking the question.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:Let's do some research first by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The robots we have now are like the 8 bit graphics of 1980s computers. I'd work on the assumption that within a decade or two the sex bots will be pretty realistic.

      The other option is to forego the robot and use VR with some "peripherals". Again, very likely to extremely realistic extremely quickly. I'm waiting for the first cases of ultra-realistic war games giving players PTSD.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's hard to see how western lawmakers will not go for an outright ban, which is unfortunate because there could be some real benefit to society here.

      I don't disagree with that. But sadly people hate the idea that people exist with an attraction that people can't choose and that the former can't abolish. It's esentially "I don't like, it makes me uncomfortable. Ban it."

      But it's not entirely surprising behaviour from a country that tries really fucking hard to pretend that drawings = children.

    46. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I've tried for years and years to get people to understand that water, and products containing water, are STEPPING STONES to alcoholism and drug abuse! No one ever listens! Maybe with smart people like you in charge, things will change. Now that I think about it, with people like you in charge, things will definitely change.

    47. Re:Let's do some research first by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?

      Take 2 groups of Paedophiles post release from prison give one group access to the robots and measure the re-offending rates in both groups.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    48. Re:Let's do some research first by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Given a choice I'm sure a pedophile would always try to have sex with a human child rather than a robot one. Because in the depths of their hearts they don't believe what they are doing is wrong.

      I get that this material is just too scary for you to do research on, but you would be completely wrong:

      Pedophiles often feel guilt and shame about their activities, say therapists. "People don't grow up and say, 'I want to be a pedophile,'" said the Rev. Stephen Rossetti, who runs a psychiatric hospital near Washington, D.C. "All the people I've ever talked to hate it."

      Next time, grow a pair and do the research instead of hiding from readily available facts that you can get from google. There is a real debate going on as to whether child dolls can reduce the chance that pedophiles "would seek out child pornography or sex with real children". And the truth is, we don't know. We don't yet know whether it's a release, or just entrainment. And since existing pedophilia treatments "do not change the pedophileâ(TM)s basic sexual orientation toward children" the odds seem good that they won't be any worse than the other options. Certainly many of the customers believe that their access to a child sex doll helps prevent them from assaulting children, but that proves exactly nothing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Let's do some research first by ranton · · Score: 1

      find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children

      Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?

      This is one of many examples when you have to look at the statistics and do a best effort to determine causality. At the most basic level, do child rape cases go up or down after the introduction of child sex robots? Of course it is more complicated than that, since you would need to attempt to adjust for increased / decreased levels of policing, increased / decreased incarceration levels, etc.

      Considering I doubt anyone could honestly make a strong evidence based case for the banning or allowing of these sex dolls, letting them go on the market for five years and seeing what happens seems to be the best approach. In the US over 10% of all people have been sexually abused at some point, so the problem is too great to say the status quo is fine and we shouldn't explore methods to reduce this number.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    50. Re:Let's do some research first by swb · · Score: 1

      Another problem we don't quite understand is: why do some people become pedophile?

      I'd be curious if there's any relationship between a society's "openness" to sexuality and its rates of child sexual abuse.

      My gut instinct is that the more oppressive a society is towards sexuality between adults, the more likely that they are to have high rates of child sexual abuse. Children are easily manipulated, especially by adult authority figures, leading to an exploitable outlet for sexual urges not melt elsewhere.

      Societies more open to sexuality would seem more likely to have less child sexual abuse as there would be more available outlets for sexual urges. The availability of legal prostitution would be an interesting variable as well, as it would seem to provide a further potential outlet for people with social dysfunctions that would limit their ability to obtain sex through normal social contact.

      There's probably a bunch more distinctions to be made, such as between actual pedophilia focused on pre-pubescent children, and sex with post-pubescent teenagers. Many of the latter seem abusive more on circumstance (ie, forced prostitution of teens, coercive relationships) and a lot of value judgement involved when sexual relationships appear to be consensual. I can think of a local case of a high school teacher (in their 20s) and a high school student where the student loudly proclaimed her willingness and initiation of the relationship and wouldn't cooperate with his prosecution.

      Then there's the role of gender -- how many male teens have had sex with older women and it never gets reported until someone "discovers" the relationship? And then there's the homosexuality angle and how it plays into the judgement of the situation. And I seldom seem to read of lesbian adult/teen sexual abuse, although basic statistics would seem to suggest it happens but just isn't reported or discovered.

      Amongst the many unanswered questions are for example: Why (or by which mechanism) does sexual abuse of a child harm the child?

      My guess is that sex produces intense emotional stimulation which, the younger the person, the less they have the emotional maturity to process the feelings. I think it throws adults for loops in most cases, for children its probably really a source of intense confusion and conflict.

    51. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my thought exactly. If pedos want to stay at home effectively masturbating instead of prowling around playgrounds all the better IMO.

    52. Re:Let's do some research first by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      You are going to hell if you have sex with your wife. According to the Catholics, the singular purpose of sex is procreation. Any other reason is a sin. You may as well turn gay.

      Catholics also believe in miracles. So if the goal is procreation, he should have sex with his wife constantly, just in case a miracle should occur.

    53. Re:Let's do some research first by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Absolutely this! My GF is too old to have kids, and I'm too old to raise kids. We still have a great relationship.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    54. Re:Let's do some research first by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where this idea that sexual preference is inherent and unchangeable comes from. But I'm about to give my theory. Some preferences seem to be, like being straight or gay.

      Fixed that for you.

      Dont like that it opens pandoras box? Well, it was explained that your "not a choice" gender swapping was such a box if we were to accept your "not a choice" claims.

      You are now trying to now convince us is that your abnormal sexual tendencies are superior to those other people. Can we call you a bigot now?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    55. Re:Let's do some research first by Megol · · Score: 1

      No it isn't - conspiracy to do something is the same as collaborating with others in order to prepare doing just that.

    56. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan won't ban them. Watch child sex abuse rates in Japan.

    57. Re:Let's do some research first by Megol · · Score: 1

      Perversions can be an acquired taste. I don't know of any research that proves pedophilia being an inherent orientation rather than a learned perversion, OTOH I never searched for it. What is clear is that once a person is a pedophile they tend to stay one (as in being incapable of forming meaningful sexual relationship with adults).

    58. Re:Let's do some research first by Maritz · · Score: 1

      We don't need to find out, this is slashdot. Everybody already knows.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    59. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe we can say that's true or false. Any study or discussion is so politically charged, and so laden with pre-existing bias and assumptions, that I don't think we can say much about sexual orientation that is definitely true or false.

      Is it fluid or fixed? Genetics or environment? If you think you know with complete confidence, either way, you are wrong.

    60. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although it is despicable, i'd rather a pedophile have a safe way to act on their disgusting desire. a robot that looks like a child is not a child, let the pedo's have a safe output in a sex robot. what's next, robot's rights? if i make one that looks like the president, should it have the support of the secret service? would it be illegal for me to threaten it? people are completely fucked in the overly p.c. world. it's the age of outrage, and people aren't happy unless they have a cause to rally against.

      again robots that look like childer != children. would someone get child molestation charges if they were caught having sex with one of the ROBOTS? should they? there are way worse things to be offended against, people these days suck.

    61. Re:Let's do some research first by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Was raised catholic, never heard anything remotely like this. I suspect you're full of shit, much like catholicism itself. (Spell check wants me to make that a capital C. lol, fuck off.)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    62. Re:Let's do some research first by Maritz · · Score: 1

      find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children

      Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?

      I'll take "what is an observational study" for 100 please Alex

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    63. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious if there's any relationship between a society's "openness" to sexuality and its rates of child sexual abuse.

      Japan made possession of child pornography illegal in June 2014; up until then possessing kiddie porn in Japan was 100% legal.

      In 2016 child abuse and child pornography cases both reached record highs. I'm not saying that the two are definitely linked, but it's very interesting that child abuse went through the roof right after child pornography was banned.

    64. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be a selection bias. The only pedophiles that you hear about are ones that act on it; if there was a pedophile that belied abusing children is wrong, and stuck to their beliefs... well, they would be indistinguishable from normal people.

      I like sex with women; yet I don't rape anyone. Most men don't. Controlling base urges is not impossible. It's normal.

    65. Re:Let's do some research first by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Absolutely this! My GF is too old to have kids, and I'm too old to raise kids. We still have a great relationship.

      How do you function as a couple without someone bursting into your room saying their tummy hurts every time you try to be intimate? Or without being woken 20 times a night and getting cranky and annoyed with each other.

      It must be very hard on your relationship.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    66. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that simple since those in jail could simply be there for sharing photos, videos and in some parts of the world drawings of underage persons.
      Depending on interpretation of the law a sexdoll depicting an underage person would fall under current legislation and use of it will be equal to or a direct substitute for photos, videos and/or drawings.

      You would need to select actual rapists of children and see if their behavior changes, but is it really necessary to test that on pedophiles?
      Why not begin with seeing if regular rapists have a lesses re-offending rate if provided with a sexdoll?
      Presumably pedophiles would be similar.

    67. Re:Let's do some research first by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No way, we need to ban all the weird shit I personally don't like.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    68. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children, or if they are a good substitute so that less children are abused. Depending on the answer, either allow or ban them.

      TROLOLOL. Now fuck off back to 4chan where you belong. Fucking pedo. How can this even be a question? It's a disgusting abuse of technology that does not need to exist and should not exist.

    69. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most importantly: whatever the outcome, the study really should be conducted.

    70. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given a choice I'm sure a pedophile would always try to have sex with a human child rather than a robot one. Because in the depths of their hearts they don't believe what they are doing is wrong.

      Actually there are plenty of "non-practicing" pedophiles out there, way more than "practicing" ones.
      I wouldn't be surprised if the number of rapists among pedophiles are comparable to the number of rapists among people with a normal sexual orientation.
      Go and find some AMA with people like that. The response you'll get is typically along the lines of "not wanting to live out their fantasies because they know it would hurt the child".

    71. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...no.

      While there are some indeed Catholics that do, indeed, believe that...it is in no way, shape, or form, validated by scripture, nor is it a view that is officially held by the Catholic Church. In fact, that particular belief is approximately as widespread among Protestants as Catholics.

      While Catholics are indeed against artificial means of birth control, there are natural ones, such as the cycle method, that are entirely condoned.

    72. Re:Let's do some research first by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Controlled exposure is generally part of behaviour modification treatments. You would probably structure the study in a way that is similar to how many addiction studies are done.

      For example, a colleague of mine was studying gambling addicts with MRI. So he put people in treatment for gambling addiction in a scanner and got them to play video slots. The controlled exposure was done as part of their treatment.

      For pedophiles you could give one group robots and the other none, then show them pictures of children and measure their arousal level. Or ask them. Or both.

    73. Re:Let's do some research first by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's some crazy shit you just posted there. Try to only address things I actually wrote, not what you assume you meaning might actually be. Also, PROTIP, if your interpretation makes me sound crazy or bigoted, it's probably wrong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means take note of the data points. You can't ban everything that can't be proven to be safe, because doing so isn't safe. And pre-crime is science fiction.

      The problem is how many people who are pedo and not commit any crime would want to admit that they are pedo because the confession could easily impact their lives? So the study will not be accurate but rather give a false negative because of the lack of real positive feedback.

    75. Re:Let's do some research first by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      ..or maybe just that you're crazy and bigoted

    76. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the person who outright stated they are not sure where this idea that sexual preference is inherent and unchangeable comes from, then made an exception for being gay.

    77. Re:Let's do some research first by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a Roman Catholic thing but that's how I was taught when going to the Catholic high school. But that's why they have the no condom rule. The only reason you are supposed to be having sex is to procreate so why would you be using a condom.

      That was a fucked up school. More kids carrying knives than the public school I switched to after a couple of years.

    78. Re:Let's do some research first by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you assume that paedophilia is a medical condition (after all, its a matter of sexual preference which the individual in question has no control over), then perhaps a doctor should diagnose wether the individual will benefit from the use of a robot or not.

      Which is exactly right, and exactly what could happen if we would stop treating pedophiles who want to seek treatment like evil monsters.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    79. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he was looking for a miracle, he should fuck hookers in the hope his wife gets pregnant. And she might, if she 'covets' her neighbor's husband.

    80. Re:Let's do some research first by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      This method would help to determine if the “therapy” changes the perception of children (which is certainly useful), but I don't think that it would establish if the person is more or less likely to directly or indirectly harm children. In this particular case, if arousal is brought to nil, it would make sense that the person is less of a threat, but if the levels stay the same or are increased, it tells very little about harmful behaviour.

    81. Re:Let's do some research first by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I heard that no condom rule and thought it made sense at first until I heard them talk about the "rhythm method" to having sex and not have kids. So, it's okay to have sex and not have kids so long that the means to do so does not involve a pill or condom? That's fucked up.

      The Catholic church has lightened up on the "no condoms" rule in recognizing them as a means to have sex and not transmit STDs between a married couple. Not sure if this is a set rule or just being discussed.

      The Church recognizes the need for a couple to have sex and not worry about children, hence the "rhythm method". Seems stupid to allow for one means of "artificial" birth control like timing intercourse when a woman is infertile but not allow others. I recall hearing that tubal ligation is popular in Latin America because it means only having to go to confession once for their "sin", as opposed to every time one takes a birth control pill.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    82. Re:Let's do some research first by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure where this idea that sexual preference is inherent and unchangeable comes from. Well, some preferences seem to be, like being straight or gay.

      From what I can tell, all these notions of sexual orientation and gender identity essentialism seem to stem from a defensive posture taken by the queer community, one that (as a genderqueer and pansexual person myself) has always seemed to have really unfortunate implications to me. It seems like the "it's not a choice!" mantra stems from a reaction to people saying that queer people are making bad (immoral, etc) life choices. But if something isn't a choice, so goes the folk notion of moral responsibility at least, then you can't be blamed for it, so to escape those attacks people take up the position that there's no choice involved.

      I've always thought that had the unfortunate implication of ceding the attacker's claims that there's something wrong with the behavior/feelings/etc in the first place, and just claiming "I can't help it!" But if (as in most cases of e.g. trans or gay people, not with pedophilia here) there's nothing wrong in the first place, then there's no "helping it" to be done at all. Do you like any weird foods that other people think are gross? Why do you like them? Is that a matter of free choice, nature, or nurture? (It's probably a complex mix of all of them but) it doesn't matter, so long as we're not talking about killing people to eat their brains or something, because even if everybody else thinks your preferences are disgusting, you don't have to justify them to anyone but yourself.

      Could I possibly avoid being attracted to who I'm attracted to? Maybe, I don't know, it's probably a complicated and difficult question to answer, and outside of idle academic curiosity I don't want and don't need to bother trying to answer it because it doesn't matter, I don't have to avoid being attracted to who I'm attracted to, because there's nothing wrong with it.

      Maybe with pedophiles it is more important to answer that question. Or maybe it's just enough to make sure they know how to control their actions in spite of their feelings, like everyone should be able to anyway. (Most men's sexual attraction to women doesn't compel them to rape them, even most men who aren't able to find consenting partners usually manage to just go without, however much it might pain them to do so.) Which highlights the other side of the unfortunate implications the "I don't have a choice!" plea has. If someone has some psychological compulsion to do something terrible, like the aforementioned brain-eating cannibalism, that doesn't get them off the hook for it. The just purpose of punishment is not to inflict suffering on people for their bad choices, it's to protect other people from their bad behavior, if possible by reforming the perpetrators not to attempt those behaviors again, and to making them alone bear the cost of those behaviors, and if the perpetrators suffering is a necessary side-effect of achieving those goals, then so be it. If something is truly not a choice, then inflicting suffering won't be effective at reform, but that doesn't mean you just let the perps go because they couldn't help it. You still need to make sure restitution is paid to their victims and future victims are protected. However you can manage to do that. It doesn't matter that inflicting suffering won't accomplish that because they don't have a choice; a just society still has to do something about it. If that means locking them up for the protection of others then it doesn't matter one way or another that they didn't have a choice, because it's not about beating them over the head for their bad choices, it's just about protecting other people.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    83. Re:Let's do some research first by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.

      That crossbow is a little harder to conceal in your pants as you walk down the street, though.

    84. Re:Let's do some research first by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yup, also went to Roman Catholic high school, was also taught that God created sex specifically and only for having children, and that any other use of sex was a perversion of God's intent. That's really what they believe.

    85. Re:Let's do some research first by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      A lot of child sex offenders are not true pedophiles. A lot of them are predators and use sex as a way to prove dominance and children as preys. Some also would have preferred adults but for some reason, they couldn't get what they wanted and used children as a second choice.

      The first group probably wouldn't get much satisfaction from robots. And the second group would prefer regular sexbots.

    86. Re: Let's do some research first by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No bow, if any value, is silent. Stop playing video games or believing movies. Sheesh...

      If it were silent, it'd mean less wasted energy - perhaps. Still, not gonna happen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    87. Re: Let's do some research first by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That can never be objective, nor can a true control be had. It's a good example of why I hold soft sciences in contempt.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    88. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trivial. Provide the sex robots to convicted child molestors. Compare the recidivism rates to those who didn't have access to the robot.

      Once established to not increase harm, then it would be trivial to get past the ethics committee for a wider-spread study.

    89. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't really want to see normalisation of paedophilia.

      It's been "normal" longer than it's been "not normal". A woman was "legal" at menarche. 14-16. Though it's 10-14 now, with diet and such leading to an earlier start. When they are biologically ready to bear children, and have the primary and secondary characteristics for it, why not? Now, we are more worried about the social stigma, and such that we have imposed.

    90. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent minors, not ones who are sexually mature.

      I know it's got confused in the current political climate, where everyone thinks minors don't have sexual feelings until they turn 18.

    91. Re: Let's do some research first by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Then suppressed, OK, same difference.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    92. Re:Let's do some research first by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      it's got to suck when one is in love with someone who they cannot create biological offspring with

      It's got to suck when you're so braindead your One True Definition Of Love TM is cranking out the crotchdroppings.

      FTFY.

    93. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Trump as president, maybe now's a good time to start believin'... and prayin'. You're in for a rough ride, laddie...

    94. Re:Let's do some research first by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I went to catholic HS.

      They had a couple come in and lecture about the rhythm method. Unfortunately they lived about a block from me.

      I asked: 'How many children do you have?' Knowing the answer (17). Yikes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    95. Re:Let's do some research first by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Statistically, 'Lesbians' are much less fixed in their orientation vs. gay men. Just a phase for many.

      Men on the other hand, either suck dicks or they don't. Some claim that actual bi men are really really rare, mostly gay men giving their moms hope.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    96. Re:Let's do some research first by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There are fuckwits claiming to have PTSD from harshly worded tweets. Nobody takes them seriously, but they exist.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    97. Re:Let's do some research first by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The age of consent in Vatican city was recently raised, to fourteen.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    98. Re:Let's do some research first by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't seen the type of pants they wear in high crime neighborhoods! Some of these guys could be walking around with a Gatling Crossbow.

      Anyways they make folding ones.

    99. Re:Let's do some research first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not unexpected. In all case studies so far availability and decriminalization of child pornography were found to be inversely correlated with child sexual abuse. (Kutchinsky, 1973; Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999; Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss, 2011)

  4. takes one to know one? by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Funny

    There should be a ban on the import of sex robots designed to look like children, the author of a new report into the phenomenon has said. Prof Noel Sharkey

    I think Prof Noel Sharkey is perhaps a little too preoccupied with the dangers of "child sex robots".

    1. Re:takes one to know one? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember: If you think of the children all the time, you're likely a pedo.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:takes one to know one? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      From the summary:

      "We need to think as a society what we want to do about it. I don't know the answers -- I am just asking the questions."

      He is saying temporary ban while we figure it out... Like Trump's Mus^H^H^H travel ban. You supported the travel ban in the past, didn't describe Trump as being "preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims".

      Why the double standard?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaaaaand... Someone manages to make this about Trump.

    4. Re:takes one to know one? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While this is funny, chances are that most violently anti-pedos are indeed closet-pedos. It works this way for every other sexual orientation. Sure, a pedo must never do it with an actual child, but what is the harm in doing it with a piece of silicon? Preventing that is just punishing people because of something they have no control over.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:takes one to know one? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Same logic as with anything sexually related: It's icky and we don't want to think about it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:takes one to know one? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Yes, looks like it. But they do want to push laws that likely make the problem worse. Does not get much more immoral than this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:takes one to know one? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Like Obama's Mus^H^H^H travel ban

      Fixed that for you. It was Obama's list.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think Prof Noel Sharkey is perhaps a little too preoccupied with the dangers of "child sex robots"."
      Perhaps you are right, and perhaps this is just a laughing matter. Except there is this one little aspect: Msmash/Manishs is an utter Moron, but Sharkey is the Real Deal. A Genuine Ethicist, and not a Moralist. Working things out from First Principles, and not from Stuff Other Old People Said.

      The fact of the matter is, there are no "Child Sex Robots". Yet. Yes, there are some latex Dolls from Japan dressed up like Sailor Moon. They are quite expensive, and the Tapioca Pudding needed to fill them for any resemblance to a Sailor Moon tends to go bad, and does so rapidly. Pulling Poon with a bag of spoiled Tapioca is not as enjoyable as it might first seem.
      Have I mentioned Tapioca Maggots? There are these little Tapioca Flies that leave behind some really wriggling Tapioca Maggots. Again, in retrospect, not as much fun afterwards as is initially enjoyed.

      From Dr. Sharkey's Wikipedia Page:
      "Sharkey resides in Sheffield with his wife Amanda and has five daughters."

      I have the utmost respect for Dr. Sharkey, except for that very silly Surname. But anybody who has spun off five daughters and no sons is in no place to suggest that the sullying of any one of those daughters is preferable to Sailor Moon Tapioca Poontang.

      With Grits.

    9. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the double standard?

      Asks the feminist, missing the irony of all the double standards of his own ideology.

    10. Re:takes one to know one? by swillden · · Score: 2

      While this is funny, chances are that most violently anti-pedos are indeed closet-pedos.

      Some, anyway. "Most" is a pretty strong claim. In this case, I'm sure many violent anti-pedos are anti because they were abused as children and want to make sure it never happens again (and some of them may have pedophilic tendencies as a result of their abuse, but they're not "closet pedos" if they never act on those tendencies).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you. It was Obama's list.

      Oh, Mashiki, except...Trump's method was entirely different, implemented in a flawed and disruptive manner, and suspect because of Trump's own stated intentions.

      It's really telling that instead of actually being able to defend Trump, his apologists leaped right to claiming that Obama did it first, without ever addressing the particulars, and frenetically arguing that apparently Trump's own words can't be used to judge him.

      REALLY TELLING. As in, you reveal a lot more about yourself.

    12. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...that most violently anti-pedos are indeed closet pedos. It works this way for every other sexual orientation.

      I know that goes along well with armchair psychology, but do you have any actual data for this? Seems to me there would be a lot less cognitive dissonance in a person if their private and public views were in sync. You're over-thinking this.

    13. Re:takes one to know one? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      At least one prominent slashdot trans-gender member will defend his own sexuality choices while, as he just did higher up in the thread, try to vilify other peoples sexuality choices.

      Yes, its complete fucking hypocrisy. Turns out its only a choice when it isnt someone else.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:takes one to know one? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You are replying to a trans-gender person. Does it surprise you that he is arguing without all the facts or worse hiding them on purpose?

      People need to pick a theory. These two-faced hypocrites are worthless,

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:takes one to know one? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Won't somebody please think of the silicon? Molested silicon isn't likely to grow up to be a nice pane of glass or a fast microprocessor!

    16. Re:takes one to know one? by Maritz · · Score: 2

      While this is funny, chances are that most violently anti-pedos are indeed closet-pedos. It works this way for every other sexual orientation.

      Kinda like how Pat Robertson is a raging homosexual? Kinda makes sense doesn't it.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    17. Re:takes one to know one? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You supported the travel ban in the past,

      In the sense that I defended the president's right to make such bans for any reason, including religion.

      didn't describe Trump as being "preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims".

      You'd be amazed about all the things that I don't describe on Slashdot. But since you ask, I do hope Trump is preoccupied with the dangers of Muslims. So am I. So, for that matter, were my ex-Muslim boyfriends. So is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's rational to be preoccupied with the dangers of an ideology that advocates one's death. If you think that suggests that we are closet Muslims, you are rather confused.

    18. Re:takes one to know one? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Sure, a pedo must never do it with an actual child, but what is the harm in doing it with a piece of silicon?

      Are you kidding? That would hurt like hell. Doing it with silicone on the other hand is muy bueno.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    19. Re: takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are worthless as long as you choose to be a two-faced lying hypocrite, but you can make other choices.

      If you try real hard.

    20. Re:takes one to know one? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Preventing that is just punishing people because of something they have no control over.

      So? They are pedophiles. Punish them already. Hell, kill them. Society needs to shed blood and shedding the blood of pedophiles makes everyone a winner; especially the children. Hurray!

      Not that anyone actually cares about the children. Let the children starve. Let them be raised by psychotic parents. Let them suffer endless non-sexual physical abuse. Let them suffer some of the most deranged/mindwarping mental abuse possible. But hey! At least we draw the line at sexual abuse... but it is not because we love the children, it is because we hate the pedophile. All of this is not about "protecting the children" it is about spilling blood.

      It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born. At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all? But meh. Society is full of stupid sheep and power mongers.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    21. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is saying temporary ban while we figure it out...

      I would assume that the robots in question already falls under current legislation regarding depicting minors in sexual ways.
      In countries that bans drawings of minors in sexual situations it should be pretty clear.
      In countries where drawings are legal but photos aren't, further clarification could be needed.

    22. Re:takes one to know one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this is funny, chances are that most violently anti-pedos are indeed closet-pedos. It works this way for every other sexual orientation. Sure, a pedo must never do it with an actual child, but what is the harm in doing it with a piece of silicon? Preventing that is just punishing people because of something they have no control over.

      Yeah, and anyone opposed to murder must be a closet-murderer as well!

    23. Re:takes one to know one? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Pedofilia does not require those that have it to act on it to have it. Not at all. You are thinking about "sexual sadists", that do not target children because they find them attractive, but because they cannot defend themselves. That is a different thing.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:takes one to know one? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If I get a choice next incarnation, then it will be "most certainly not with this bunch of fuckups again".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:takes one to know one? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born.

      It's because they feel extra strongly that parents have an exceptional duty to raise a child properly, and no one, no one else is obligated to lift a finger. Indeed, doing so may even be considered interfering. But it's not about spilling blood for spilling blood's own sake -- it's about punishing failings. And it's a belief that people are morally -better- when they're self reliant, rather than being reliant on others. They are decidedly NOT "it takes a village" people.

      At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all?

      They would agree, but would then counter that the parents made the choice when they had sex. At that point, you're committed to raising a child properly. So they will consider abortion to be murder, a crime that should be prevented above all others. Now, most people disagree that that's where the choice is made, but your frequent anti-abortion conservative is going to think that way.

    26. Re:takes one to know one? by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

      >what is the harm in doing it with a piece of silicon?

      Umm, chafing?

      --
      I am not a number - I am a free man!
    27. Re:takes one to know one? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh, Mashiki, except...Trump's method was entirely different, implemented in a flawed and disruptive manner, and suspect because of Trump's own stated intentions.

      You mean using exactly the same policy that Obama was? Using the exact type of wording that he was? Oh it's very telling how many people are against Trump doing this when they were willing to allow Obama to do exactly the same thing.

      Maybe while you're at it, you can explain why Obama directly excluded some groups of minorities from getting visa's/claiming asylum/etc, while prioritizing muslims for instance. Unless of course you'd like to claim that groups that account for under 5% in a muslim majority country aren't actually a minority.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    28. Re:takes one to know one? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That was the "robot brain" part, but apparently nobody gets it. For the body, it would indeed be silicone or some rubber.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Seriously? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take someone who is attracted to children and willing to channel that into fucking a childlike doll (robotic or otherwise) and ban their only harmless outlet. Oh yeah, that's thinking of the children all right.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Seriously? by Tranzistors · · Score: 0

      You are right, this is common sense. However, the same common sense teaches us that the Sun is rotating around Earth.

      My common sense is telling me that using sex dolls can blur the line between a person and an object. Most people consider other humans as real persons just like them, but through the "right education", they can see other people as objects. This is not because they are sick. Chattel slavery came about when certain races were even considered different species and thus could be treated as animals. If you were a white person living in the Southern USA before the civil war, your social reality would inform you that blacks were not real people. Now, what does this have to do with sex dolls?

      Lets take a person who is attracted to prepubescent children. General social norms would inform him that having sex with children is not acceptable (unless they have isolated themselves in a social bubble of those who think otherwise). They would normally believe that a child has certain autonomy and unalienable rights. Now this person buys a sex robot with high degree of realism (AI, realistic materials and whatnot). The design goal of the machine is specifically to resemble as closely as possible the real thing. This machine has no autonomy or rights. The person now learns that they can do anything with the “doll” and that is perfectly fine. The problem is that the sex with the doll alters the persons intuition of what is ok to do with children.

      You might argue that since that person now has a sex doll, why would they rape a child? To that I must ask, why would anybody cheat on their spouse? People fall in love, want to experiment and what not.

      If you think that people can understand difference between real humans and machines, I would say that if asked this way, then most would answer correctly, but study about physics students understanding of physics does not make me hopeful. Yes, intellectually they understand that everyday physics is governed by Newtons laws, but practically they have Aristotelian understanding at best. What are the chances that a regular person can compartmentalize difference between robots and people, when the robots are explicitly made as people-like and possible?

      Sure, this is just my common sense reasoning, which at best as valid as Aristotelian physics. I just want to warn you that common sense ofttimes is faulty, that is why science was invented.

    2. Re:Seriously? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You are right, this is common sense. However, the same common sense teaches us that the Sun is rotating around Earth.

      Sol does rotate around Terra. All non-accelerating reference frames are equally valid.

    3. Re:Seriously? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      So - what do you feel about depictions of crime in media then? Gateway to crime? Violent computer games? Novels? Music?
      It's a pretty major can of worms once you start going after thoughtcrime.


      Personally I'd be more worried about the people confecting outrage on issues like this and what agenda they are trying to push with it than some imaginary person who may someday purchase these products that DO NOT EXIST. It's looking like someone is trying to pull a fast one on us.

    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My common sense tells me that anyone who cannot erect a concrete wall between fantasy and reality is insane, suffering retardation, or otherwise mentally incompetent. This is a skill that is developed by five year old children once they start to get a grip on reality.

      The line does not get blurred, otherwise people would be taking up pizza delivery jobs for pussy.

    5. Re:Seriously? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      How long did you need to torture the facts to come up with _that_?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Seriously? by Jamu · · Score: 1

      The accelerating ones are valid too! Although in some of those the Sun isn't rotating around the Earth. Which is nice if you like sunsets that don't.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well after reading your post all the way through to the end I think you're a complete dildo, so maybe you're correct.

    8. Re:Seriously? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Yet another example of sadomoralism: "This activity is so morally repugnant that laws should absolutely ban it no matter how much worse the collateral damage is than the original activity." and "Your sinful behavior is hurting yourself, so we're going to hurt you even more to stop you from doing it."
      It's an extremely destructive line of ultra conservative and usually religious thought (apparently, that it's evil overrides the 'judge not' and 'love thy neighbor' bits). The biggest example is of course the drug war. "You're destroying your life with drugs? We're going to lock you in a cage for a few years and saddle you with a felony conviction!" and "It doesn't matter how much prohibition increases the harm drugs cause society, drug use is so evil it has to be banned, and stopped no matter how much of the bill of rights we have to piss on, irregardless of the fact it can never work and doesn't actually reduce drug use!"
      So along those same lines now we get "Having sex with a childlike doll/robot is so horribly evil that we absolutely can't allow it, now matter how many more children are actually abused because of it!" Degrees of immoral don't matter, you'll just have to find another way to reduce child abuse, no matter how much you've been unable to already, because allowing some pervert to manage his urges by doing something gross and morally offensive but involving no actual harm to anyone else, is offensive to me. There's some evidence the net balance of child pornography might fall to the 'satisfies urges to prevent hurting a real child' side, but the material is so morally offensive that even saying it's worth considering whether the ban on mere possession is a net harm or a net good now that there's no longer such a thing as a commercial market will get you labeled as a pedophile or apologist/sympathizer, and even if conclusively proven to be true, decriminalization would never in a million years be allowed. Expect the same with child sex dolls/robots (the UK already will arrest you for importing a child sex doll, not to mention Australia with its 'no small breasted women in porn even if they're 30' garbage).

    9. Re:Seriously? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      So - what do you feel about depictions of crime in media then? Gateway to crime? Violent computer games? Novels? Music?

      I have noticed that USA media is rather fond of depicting gun usage as either really cool or at least just normal. And I see that Americans consider rights to bear arms as part of their identity, so I am not that surprised by the regular shootings you have there. I certainly see that media, be it movies/games/books/music has a strong impact on society.

      What I am still surprised about is that people are not willing to discuss the implications of the media on their societies.

    10. Re:Seriously? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      My common sense tells me that anyone who cannot erect a concrete wall between fantasy and reality is insane, suffering retardation, or otherwise mentally incompetent

      I hope you agree with my main point, which is that common sense is unreliable.

      I should add that fore quite a while philosophers have struggled with getting reliable knowledge about external world and so far there has been little success. That is to say, basically we all are living in a fantasy world. It has some links to the objective reality, but the vast majority of things you intuitively believe are more or less false.

    11. Re:Seriously? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      What facts? There are no facts, only intuitive reasoning. That is the whole point. The OP also has no facts, better yet, no reasoning and even the statements made were just sarcastic.

    12. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Davidson would disagree...

    13. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you until you used the "word" irregardless.

      I just can't take such people seriously.

    14. Re:Seriously? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for raising this point, it was only brought up about a hundred other times in the thread.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:Seriously? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So would you suggesting banning all of that because it's "alters the persons intuition of what is ok"?
      Do you see what I'm trying to point out about making thoughts a crime yet?

    16. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Germany we have virtually the same media, because pretty much every American movie, series, video game, novel and so forth gets translated into German and is 'sold' to Germans. Now Germany is one of the countries of the world with rather draconian gun laws. The vast majority of people believes that 'guns kill people' and that nothing possibly good could come from guns. Even as a licenced hunter who is legally allowed to own as much non-automatic rifles as I want, people are kind of suspicious of why I would need more than one gun. It's a very different mindset, despite all those American media influence. Hell, even in the somewhat popular TV series that are produced in Germany for Germany you'll find handguns and frequent gunfights.
      But of course on the other hand many Germans still think that playing "Killergames", the dysphemism of choice for first person shooters that contain violence, will teach you how to use a gun and therefore turn you into a murderer or terrorist.

    17. Re:Seriously? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the computations get real hairy with rotating reference frames.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Seriously? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of things you intuitively believe are more or less false.

      Nope. The majority of things I intuitively believe are more or less true. There are some spectacular failures, but people are more interested in where it fails than where it succeeds.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Seriously? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      So would you suggesting banning all of that because it's "alters the persons intuition of what is ok"?

      Nope. I am suggesting you as a society actually reflect on your own values. For example, when I get to see gun debate in the US it seems that there is a foregone conclusion that rights to bear arms is good and ideas that guns are somehow bad are dangerous. If enough people will start to believe that, then those guns might start to be banned. Why are you afraid that reason might compel your nation to ban/restrict/frown upon guns?

    20. Re:Seriously? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you even get South Park?

      One little shit dressing up like Hitler, sieg heiling, trying to exterminate the jews etc and you Germans don't think it's funny...lame.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. What could possibly go wrong? by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Switzerland, they consider loli manga to be childporn.

    And I must ask, what exactly do they expect happens when they ban every single outlet a pwdophile might have that doesn't involve actual children?

    Never mind that most child abusers aren't even pedos but that's different kettle of fish.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's like Walmart who stopped selling toy guns but keep seeling real ones.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Current state of the US, I could see this happen AND people calling it sensible.

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, abusing children is illegal in Switzerland, obviously. I'm not sure your analogy fits there.

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      If you think child porn cartoons and sex robots should be banned you are not different from those who think they have a right to cut your head off for insulting their holy book or not believing in the (right) god. Think about it.

    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by fafalone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Recently I came upon a case that's even more absurd than that. In New York, a man was arrested for 'manufacture of child pornography', when he was already on supervision for the same charge. Must be some child abusing monster right? No, it turns out all this clown did (both the new and original charge) is cut children's faces out of catalogs and glue them on pictures of an adult pornstars body. Sick yeah, but illegal, nevermind the same charge as someone recording sex with a toddler? You've got to be kidding me.

    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, abusing children is illegal in Switzerland, obviously. I'm not sure your analogy fits there.

      For now it is, but they're importing rapugees that support raping of children. Not as many as Germany is flooding the streets with, but they're still many of them that love to rape children as their middle eastern culture and religion demands of them.

    7. Re: What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German has stopped even trying to prosecute rape of the offender isn't white. More countries will probably follow.

    8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      and bizarrely, in Switzerland prostitution is legal...

    9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like Walmart who stopped selling toy guns but keep seeling real ones.

      Wal-Mart didn't stop selling toy guns. They stopped selling ones that look "realistic" and only in states that require them to do so, if I recall correctly.

      Your complaint is invalid.

      Unless, of course, you don't believe in either States's Rights or the 2nd Amendment. Do tell.

    10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Why is that bizarre? They even went as far and forbade 16 year olds to engage in prostitution a few years back ;).

      But seriously, what has prostitution got to do with it?

    11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also illegal in all Commonwealth states (Australia, Canada, UK etc), but thankfully not in the USA, Germay, Italy and obviously Japan. Really makes you wonder who has more common sense here, banning art is NEVER a good idea - first it's books burning, next it's people. It's highly ironic how historically evil countries have a more humanist and egalitarian outlook, and generally seem to stand more for basic rights, than those who defeated them during WW2.

    12. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ever notice all the outcry over any popular thing teenagers come up with to do that doesn't involve sex or drugs?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I heard that they stopped selling handguns, except in Alaska, but maybe I'm confusing them with Dick's Sporting Goods. I haven't been to either in while, partly because of shit rules like this, partly just because they tend to sell shit products.

      Why the exception to a no handgun rule in Alaska? I'm not sure but I have a guess....

      BEARS!!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    14. Re: What could possibly go wrong? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the crazy unsupported-by-anything refugee hysteria machine continues on.

    15. Re: What could possibly go wrong? by lucm · · Score: 1

      German has stopped even trying to prosecute rape of the offender isn't white. More countries will probably follow.

      The UK does it too.

      "Paedophile gang's abuse lasted 16 YEARS as authorities feared being labelled racist if they tackled it"
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

      and again:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  7. Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen enough anime to know where this is going. Ban all sex with all things that does not have free will!

    1. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Visarga · · Score: 2

      What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?

    2. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?

      That's a sticky question.

    3. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have small hands and they caught you wanking, you are branded a pedo!

    4. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we start cutting off the entire head of the penis instead of just the skin around it. Afterall, it's too painful to nick your junk with a zipper so we'll be doing all young boys a favor by reducing that risk. Totally worth it. And think of all the new beauty creams we could make with the increase of available skin*. It's a win-win.

      *Yes, some of you are smearing baby penis bits on your face in an attempt to look younger.

    5. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by lpq · · Score: 1

      I have seen enough anime to know where this is going. Ban all sex with all things that does not have free will!

      Combine that with the idea that all 'free will' is an illusion or like the lead character, Lightning, in FFXIII asking, How would she know if she had free will? ...And all her actions weren't directed by someone else [in a video game]?

    6. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Trump masturbate with his tiny child like hands? Should we throw him prison just to be safe?

    7. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?

      If the hand is underage...

    8. Re:Ban ALL sex with robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that presents an interesting point. If someone has small child sized hands, if that person masturbates are they now a pedo?

  8. A non issue by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is yet another non issue a politician want to use to make his name on. Of course people should be able to buy child looking dolls to stick their cocks into (and whatever women would do with them), they are pieces of metal, rubber, silicone, they are not children, nor are they human nor are they alive. If a guy puts a picture of a kid on a plastic vagina and fucks the plastic does he belong in prison? In a circus maybe, but certainly not in prison. This society has no perspective. Personally I believe that government officials should be castrated and imprisoned, but I suppose some people disagree but I can really make a good case for it (it is my sincere belief that government is inherently and intrinsically evil). So at least that s would limit the evil. A guy fucking a doll?????? That is just lonely but not evil.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:A non issue by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      it is my sincere belief that government is inherently and intrinsically evil

      Then you're thinking wrong about it. The government has no will, no consciousness, no soul (if you believe in that sort of thing) and no agency. The government is just a big pile of soylent green: it's made of people.

      It is the people who act.

      Thing is, your beloved corporations are also soylent green.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. Obligatory Futurama reference by Nutria · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't Date Robots!

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Obligatory Futurama reference by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      All of civilization was just an effort to impress the opposite sex. ... And, sometimes, the same sex.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Obligatory Futurama reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Those lightspeed brand briefs are pretty sexy.

    3. Re:Obligatory Futurama reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Objects in the mirror are less attractive than they appear.

    4. Re:Obligatory Futurama reference by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Mom, Love, and Screen Door are registered trademarks of MomCorp.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  10. have you read the actual story...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is all a flame bait,from start to end...
    including a dumb femonazi comment that most sex robots are men driven..., so most women owning vibrators is ok.. but men cant have the same satisfaction aid?
    enough with the bullshit, it is not alive, its man made and robots are made to assist humans in whichever form they come..
    and nope it is not supposed to be a public discussion...

    1. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, don't you know: Vibrators are sexual liberation for women by removing the oppressive male part. Sex toys for men however serve to reinforce the dominance of the patriarchy by training men how to treat women like objects. Because in the end every evil that has ever plagued this world can be traced back to a man causing it. It your fault if you're born with a penis and also identify with your biological sex.

    2. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So the oppressive part about a guy is everything but his dick? Who'd have thought, especially considering that this is the part they need most for rape culture to even be possible...

      Yeah, feminism males a LOT of sense.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the dick is not attached to the a living human who also identifies as male, it's probably fine. And I'm sure that there are those who argue that anatomically correct phalluses are a ploy by the patriarchy as well, so it's better to use more abstract shapes that are more suited to fit female anatomy. But I don't want to build more strawmen here. Extremists can be pretty crazy, but in the end they're extremists and do not represent the entire group.

    4. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because women are too weak and delicate to use their hands to masturbate and instead had to wait for the development of new technological aids in order to masturbate. The only thing which holds women back are themselves. I don't understand why most of them don't realize this.

    5. Re:have you read the actual story...? by phayes · · Score: 1

      No need for a penis to be involved for someone to be condemned for rape. Fingers, toes and tongues are sufficient as the defining characteristic is penetration.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    6. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What could possibly be more suited to fit the female anatomy than what is supposed to fit in there???

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:have you read the actual story...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same anon and just to clarify I'm still kind of playing devils advocate here. For example something that's shaped specifically to hit the 'sensitive' spots? Look up the shapes and forms of g-spot vibrators. Your regular penis does not seem to have evolved to fulfil that particular purpose.

  11. What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    I'm 100% against child abuse and child porn, such things should have harsh punishments because the children cannot defend themselves.

    This has NOTHING to do with children... these are robots...

    What next, banning abuse of robot dogs because someone might then abuse a real dog?

    If a guy wants to fuck a robot that looks like a child, I feel sad for him, but he doesn't need prison... maybe some counseling and a willing adult lady friend... but what the actual hell, are we now going to have thought police?

    Speaking of which, can someone tell me why prostitution is illegal? Selling is legal, fucking is legal... so why isn't selling fucking legal?

    1. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's a pedo, rather than just a hebephile, then a "willing adult lady friend" isn't going to do anything. He won't even be able to get it up, let alone achieve any kind of genuine satisfaction. The robot is a much better option.

    2. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion

    3. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I spent a number of years observing and dealing with pedophiles in a Federal prison setting, and I assure you I know a lot more about the behavior of pedophiles than you or most of the other people who use Slashdot.

      Bottom line : the only way a pedophile won't be a threat to children is if that pedophile is dead. As long as the pedophile is alive, people who are charged with the safety of children who might be victimized must be eternally vigilant. A person who has any history of pedophile behavior must never be trusted with a child, PERIOD.

      Best way to get to screw your dataset. Federal prison inmates aren't the best data set choice. The majority outside has far better self control. That's why they are outside and not inside the prison. You can work with the pedophiles outside. But that usually involves that they come to you before taking action. That needs a working conscience and ethics on their part. I doubt the prison inmates have the latter. I also doubt they tried to get help early.

    4. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Huh? Which religion is against fucking children?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's some kind of reverse survival bias? Kind of like thinking that every vegetarian, vegan, religious person, atheist, liberal, conservative and so on is an obnoxious person who wants to dictate how you have to live your live, because the only times you're consciously aware of their alignment is when they catch your attention. All while the rest of the iceberg may just lives their lives without standing out.
      In the end not every paedophile is also an actual child abuser. A large subset of them may have a strong enough conciousness that prevents them from ever touching a real child in a harmful way. And without being able to read their minds or check their electronic devices you may never know what is going on in there.

    6. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we going with "children" per the age at which it is allowed in the context where the spouse must then take care of them for the rest of their life, and do no "fucking" (generally denoting promiscuous/casual sex) with anyone else, ever?

      Or "children" per the age at which anyone at all can fuck them and drop them immediately after having their fun with them?

      Or "children" per what actual biology says is an appropriate age?

      The first and the last are approximately the same, the second is higher as a secular compromised definition, which you'll trollishly pick because you would never give up the unstated objective of responsibility-free fucking.

      Well, not until evolution inevitably eliminates you, that is.

    7. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that is a horrible question!

      Cause I don't think any explicitly are. Lots of jazz about loving neighbors, eyes for eyes, and somehow murder is bad but killing is a-okay, which confuses the shit outta me, but nothing against banging kids.

      Well, that explains that whole Catholic Priest thing at least. Seems God never told em not to do that!

    8. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but nothing against banging kids.

      Wrong. Ezekiel 16:7-8, Luke 17:2.

      War is not murder. Protecting more people than it is unfortunately necessary to kill to prevent their aggression is common-sense Utilitarianism, if you somehow live in secular society without even understanding the basics of rationales for secular ethics.

      And in no case is a priest fondling a boy anything other than completely biblically condemned. You're need another bizarre convolution of inferences to rationalizing your personal nihilism, sorry.

    9. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the pedophiles known to you are the ones in prison for child abuse, and therefore a danger to children. You don't see any sort of bias there? Idiot.

    10. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let's see how pedophile is defined by a respectable dictionary for the English language.

      one affected with pedophilia

      Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

      Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      Now the latter is certainly a criminal act according to the laws of most civilized nations. What about the former? If the fantasies involve material that involved child abuse, illegal as well. But what if it doesn't? Punish people for their thoughts alone?

    11. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you need to stop taking jokes literally, it makes you look like an ass. But hey, great analysis of shit I just made up for a laugh! You gave me a good one!

    12. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'll be giving me a lot more than that.

    13. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by RuffMasterD · · Score: 2

      Interesting, but you completely missed the whole point where this is about people fucking ROBOTS.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    14. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedophiles BY DEFINITION have poor self-control.

      Meanwhile, using a sane definition, pedophiles have self-control that's statistically identical to homosexuals and hetrosexuals.

    15. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottom line : the only way a pedophile won't be a threat to children is if that pedophile is dead.

      Meanwhile, in actual reality, molestation has a statistically lower rate of recidivism than any crime other than first-degree murder.

      You think a person publically shamed by society for the rest of their life and having experienced living uniquely in continual threat to their life by other inmates is going to get out and conclude "yeah, I think I'll do that again"?

      Show me your numbers.

    16. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I replace Pedophile with "Black people", "Homosexuals", "Transpeople", "Women", or "Homeless people", it makes you sound like all kinds of bigot.

    17. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love comments from clueless well-meaning fools like you.

      Obviously you have no knowledge of the behavior of actual real-life pedophiles. A pedophile won't be receptive to counseling, nor will a pedophile be remotely interested in a "willing adult lady friend". Pedophiles are wired differently and they are incapable of changing, even if they wanted to change, which I assure you most pedophiles do not. I spent a number of years observing and dealing with pedophiles in a Federal prison setting, and I assure you I know a lot more about the behavior of pedophiles than you or most of the other people who use Slashdot.

      Bottom line : the only way a pedophile won't be a threat to children is if that pedophile is dead. As long as the pedophile is alive, people who are charged with the safety of children who might be victimized must be eternally vigilant. A person who has any history of pedophile behavior must never be trusted with a child, PERIOD.

      Replace pedophile with the current target of your hate and you just justified killing every person on this planet. Great job, dumbass.

    18. Re: What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 100% against child abuse and child porn, such things should have harsh punishments because the children cannot defend themselves.

      So a crime merits a lesser punishment if someone should have defended themselves, but didn't? You know our just implied that if you don't resist enough, the punishment should be less.

      This has NOTHING to do with children... these are robots...

      The implications are that it does, through utilization.

      What next, banning abuse of robot dogs because someone might then abuse a real dog?

      Would you really think it is a good idea to have torture robots? There are many people who are troubled by the various monsters fighting games.

      If a guy wants to fuck a robot that looks like a child, I feel sad for him, but he doesn't need prison... maybe some counseling and a willing adult lady friend... but what the actual hell, are we now going to have thought police?

      We already do, and you are already a participant. Look at your past words attacking and censoring other people who think differently than you do.

      Look at your own words in this post.

      Speaking of which, can someone tell me why prostitution is illegal? Selling is legal, fucking is legal... so why isn't selling fucking legal?

      The biggest reasons include disease, exploitation, and children. You can look up the history of it. It is quite well documented.

      Next?

    19. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If a pedo never touches a real child, they can have all the thoughts they want, I really don't care...

    20. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A pedophile is by definition someone who has urges to do harmful acts. That is not true of any of the other categories you listed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a willing adult lady friend...

      Might as well hunt a unicorn. But hey, there's still the world's oldest profession.

    22. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If a pedo never touches a real child, they can have all the thoughts they want, I really don't care...

      Not according to the anon above. If they have the evil thoughts, they WILL harm children because, uhh.. something something about pedophiles in jail, not that any of that actually had value to the outside world.

    23. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I once thought a 15 year old girl was smoking hot in a bathing suit, does that make me a pedo?

      Note: I was 16 at the time, does that matter? ;)

    24. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not according to the definition. And your own relative age matters a great deal.
      One of the key aspects is the age difference which defines these paraphilias is the age difference which requires you to be an adult who is attracted towards someone significantly younger. This would not apply to you.
      Even if you had been an adult at that time the hypothetical type of attraction would be classified as hebephilia (pubescent) or more in parcticular ephebophilia - the attraction of an adult towards adolescents in their mid to late teens. Arguably a large chunk of the male population would fall under this category, given the popularity of 'teen' pornography; even though teen may only describe an age range from 18 to 19.

    25. Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While research on non-offending pedophiles is certainly scarce, so far it suggests that your prejudices are unfounded, and even detrimental. See https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930....

  12. masturbation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sex with a robot is just masturbation, nothing else.

  13. Your honor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My shagbot is in fact based on an anime character who is ACTUALLY a 600-year-old vampire! It's not a representation of an underaged girl at all!

    1. Re:Your honor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came looking for a post like this, left satisfied. Seriously though, how are they going to assess the robot's apparent age? 'I know it when I see it'?

    2. Re:Your honor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia agrees that small breasts means underage

    3. Re:Your honor... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Australia agrees that small breasts means underage

      How do they determine underage males?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  14. Uhh... how about the opposite? by ckatko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If pedophiles are people who CAN'T control their natural impulses to have sex with children. Maybe we should 1) accept that they exist. and 2) advocate for safe outlets that allow them to deal with their "urges" without actually banging our children.

    Are child sex robots disturbing? Probably. But what's more important? Not having to "think" about something disgusting, or actually stopping pedos from banging children?

    1. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      A pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children, just as a homosexual is attached to people of their same gender. In sane countries, neither is illegal.

    2. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

    3. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Rounding homosexuals up and executing them after a quick trial is the ONLY solution that is guaranteed to work. All other solutions, aside from life imprisonment of the homosexual, WILL eventually place normal people at risk. This is the case because a homosexual not only can't control the urge to have sex with partners of the same gender, but typically doesn't even want to control the desire. A true homosexual doesn't believe having sex with the same gender is wrong, and also believes that it is society which is wrong rather than the homosexual. Given the realities, death is the only sure cure for the problem of homosexual."

      Isn't it amazing how ridiculous you sound with only a minor word change? Isn't it even more ridiculous this is how the world actually perceived and felt about homosexuals until the late 80's? And isn't it just fucking stupid that some of the world still feels this way? As you can see, we've progressed a lot as a society by separating prejudice and fear from mere ignorance. Stop being ignorant.

    4. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Tranzistors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If pedophiles are people who CAN'T control their natural impulses to have sex with children

      That is not what paedophilia is. By that understanding, heterosexual man is a man that can't control their impulse to have sex with women.

    5. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rounding pedophiles up and executing them after a quick trial is the ONLY solution that is guaranteed to work.

      A FINAL solution, one could say? If the female pedophiles are given a free pass due to society's double standards, then that wouldn't work. And if a recessive gene is a factor, how are you going to kill all the carriers? Furthermore, how exactly are you going to prove whether or not someone is a pedophile? Some unproven test devised by a zealot that you're POSITIVE you would pass, am I right?

    6. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Original subject aside, you seem to think that people who disagree with you deserve to be harassed at border checkpoints and should not be able to fly in the US.

      It is this type of mentality that scares me a lot more than what people would do with hypothetical sexbots. Unlike those bots, people who think like you actually exist. And it is why a lot of us Europeans look at the US and are appalled at what they see, and are afraid of what stunt the US might pull next.

      Land of the free, my ass.

    7. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, given that anybody this violently against them is most likely secretly one of them, I propose we start with you and see how that goes.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If pedophiles are people who CAN'T control their natural impulses to have sex with children

      That is not what paedophilia is. By that understanding, heterosexual man is a man that can't control their impulse to have sex with women.

      If you don't think my urge to sleep with most of the women around me doesn't change my behavior, you're being naive. It's not an uncontrollable urge that causes me to rape; it's an uncontrollable urge that causes me to continuously say and do embarrassing shit at the mere hope of impressing the females who might be around.

    9. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a man that can't control their impulse to have sex with women.

      No, that would just be RAPE.

      captcha: Nonsense

    10. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By that understanding, heterosexual man is a man that can't control their impulse to have sex with women."

      Uhhh.. And that would be exactly the correct understanding. Heterosexual men don't have control over the impulse in the same way that heterosexual women don't have control over theirs, and all others.. We are biological beings, after all. I don't get to "control my impulse" to be thirsty or hungry either.

    11. Re:Uhh... how about the opposite? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Original subject aside, you seem to think that people who disagree with you deserve to be harassed at border checkpoints and should not be able to fly in the US.

      It's because he was confused at the difference between pedophile and child molester.
      He was perturbed that someone would outwardly advocate that child molestation be legal, and thought that only someone who would gain in such a system would advocate it. Thus he's accusing the person of being an unrepentant, active child molester and thus be undeserving of the freedom of our society.

      Of course, the OP said no such thing in the first place.

  15. Duuuude by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

    That guy thinks an awful lot about sex robots.

  16. In democratura lands by Max_W · · Score: 1

    this vector is used to attack and smear opposition. It is easy to drop an illegal image or two at a victim's computer, or to fabricate and ISP's log, and the public outrage and ostracism are guaranteed.

    In my opinion in this sensitive area of the law there are should be some soberness as well as a system of checks and balances.

    1. Re:In democratura lands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have soberness and checks and balances when you can have a 15-minutes hate and carte blanche power? 'Think of the children!' doesn't have a bad reputation for nothing.

    2. Re:In democratura lands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to drop an illegal image or two at a victim's computer, or to fabricate and ISP's log, and the public outrage and ostracism are guaranteed.

      I actually had a scary thought about that following the whole WannaCry debacle.

      "Imagine if someone developed a strain of ransomware which, instead of encrypting files, it makes a note of your IP and downloads child pornography via Tor until you pay x BTC for it to stop. Buy a new computer? It has your IP, repeat the process... Geez, that'd be fucking terrifying."

  17. PhD students in liberal arts colleges .... by JeffColeman · · Score: 1

    are more excited about this than pedophiles. The paper writes itself and is guaranteed to foil any attempt at peer review. I mean who the hell is going to risk a strong opinion in academia on the topic one way or the other whom also already has a job to defend?

    --
    "Does wisdom perhaps appear on the earth as a raven which is inspired by the smell of carrion?" -Nietzsche "Twilight of
  18. Subject vs Object by lawideawake · · Score: 2

    Ban? No. Regulation... Maybe. At first glance, who gives a flying fcuk about robots, right? Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that. Furthermore as transhumanist agenda progresses and we become more machine than flesh, a line will have to drawn on when an entity is human vs machine... But on another level is it about the subject or the object? Is cruelty only towards other humans or 'living' things? Are there behaviors that should not be tolerated at all? Is it different if it is a lab created clone in the form of a child? As property would it be OK? Personally, I think it's an interesting debate to have not for what it is but for what it could become.

    1. Re:Subject vs Object by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.

      You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.

      Are there behaviors that should not be tolerated at all? Is it different if it is a lab created clone in the form of a child? As property would it be OK?

      Is it better to have lived, suffered and died, or never lived at all? If you can answer this question on behalf of someone who doesn't exist yet, then you will have answered all those questions you posed.

    2. Re:Subject vs Object by sheramil · · Score: 1

      You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children.

      Would it be real consent if the robot was just programmed to give it?

    3. Re:Subject vs Object by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Slippery slopes when these robots become ai+genetic material and humans start considering given them rights as 2/3rds human being or something like that.

      You can build a robot that could give consent, unlike real children. You can also make it so it doesn't feel pain or enjoy sex.

      You can also make it so that it always enjoys sex.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    4. Re:Subject vs Object by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Would it be real consent if the robot was just programmed to give it?

      If the robots are intelligent enough to be given human rights, then they wouldn't be simply programmed to consent. It would have a complex thought process where many options are weighed based on how well it accomplishes the robot's goals (whatever those may be).

      If robots weren't complex enough to do that, then consent isn't needed. You don't need to ask a vibrator whether it wants to be used sexually, for example.

  19. Seriously! by LeMeilleurNeha · · Score: 1

    this is future shit right here. givng child sexbots to help with pedophila problem? that's something straight out of a dystopian future sci-fi novel

  20. There Ought To Be A Law by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There should be a ban on [,,,]

    Almost any time someone says these words, the response should be "No, no there shouldn't." Look at how many shitty, obsolete laws are still on the books that don't reflect modern societal values (e.g. Chicken Tax, alimony) that are unlikely to get stricken despite that, even if they're still enforced. We should be loathe to put new, poorly-thought-out laws on the books that are premised on tenuous social values, given this fact. Next year's headline: "After new study, sex offenders leaving prison given mandatory sexbots."

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:There Ought To Be A Law by rickyslashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn! I'd mod this up +1 as RELEVANT and up +1 as Well Thought Out if I had any mod points left.

      Seems like it's a lose-lose situation when a law can't be voided when more than 1/3 of the people in the country want it to be GONE, and even worse when MORE than half want a law revoked but can't get it NULL'ed out.

      Simple resolution (OK, so it's simplISTIC), but it should take 2/3 of the population to implement a law, but only 1/3 to delete a law - - - things would get MUCH better within a single year. (note that with 2/3 and 1/3 ALL voting, it could be a stalemate, hence a NULL operand on the law - i.e. NOT passed).

      AND, with this simplistic setup, we wouldn't need to go through "the year they killed all the lawyers".

      --
      redneck geek
    2. Re:There Ought To Be A Law by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Alimony doesn't reflect modern societal values?

    3. Re:There Ought To Be A Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The majority is awarded to females. Those same females who then walk out of the courtroom screaming "Imma strong independent woman don't need no man!". Child custody has luckily been shifting more towards equality but alimony laws are still behind. They'll get there eventually.

    4. Re:There Ought To Be A Law by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Ah, in that case we're quibbling about the details of the implementation, but the basic concept, that an absentee father or mother should have to pay to support the raising of his/her child is sound. If so, sure we agree.

  21. You're not guilty for being born a pedosexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we have to make the distinction between pedosexuals and child molesters. Crucifying pedosexuals for having been born with a difficult sexuality is just as bad as punishing people who have been born homosexuals.

    Pedosexuality is a problem to the person afflicted by it, but we can either hope they can suppress their sexual urges, which in worst case they can't and will make sexual advances on a child, or we can give them a plastic robot for them to satisfy their urge on, in which case nobody gets hurt at all.

    Manufacturing "child sex robots" is not saying that pedophilia is ok, it's to accept that there will always be people born as pedosexuals, and do what we can to make sure they never resort to finding a child for the sexual urges.

    I think pedosexuality is far more common than we think, and people are afraid of admitting it because it's such a stigma, and I think the people who wrote this article are probably flaming pedosexuals themselves, terrified that someone will find out, so the best thing they can do is try to guilt anyone and anything related to pedosexuality in an attempt to deflect any imagined suspicions on them.

    1. Re: You're not guilty for being born a pedosexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have an interest in defending child molesters. The authorities will investigate.

    2. Re: You're not guilty for being born a pedosexual by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You seem to have an interest in raping your sister. No one will investigate because no one cares about your sister.

    3. Re: You're not guilty for being born a pedosexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

  22. The USA maybe by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    But worldwide that's not true; in the UK the age of consent is 16 regardless of the age of the other party. But then we've just noted the day when America decided it wanted to ignore the opinions of the rest of the world...

    1. Re: The USA maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even northern ireland?

    2. Re:The USA maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never read the books nor watched the movies, but I suspect the reason that h33t l4x0r mentioned Washington state is because the books/movies take place in Washington state. And last time I checked, UK laws do not apply to Washington state.

      Thank you for bringing less than nothing to the discussion.

  23. REALITY CHECK by cheetah_spottycat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time. Child sex robots are a hypothetical niche in a field that is entirely hypothetical at this point. This guy is trying to stir up a hypothetical moral panic about a hypothetical niche in a hypothetical genre that does not exist. The whole debate is as far removed from reality as it could possibly be. It's science-fiction at best, purely made up bullshit at worst. Don't these guys have anything else to do? Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

    1. Re:REALITY CHECK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time.

      Think again!
      -- Friendly neighborhood sex robot

    2. Re:REALITY CHECK by l20502 · · Score: 1

      Getting funding so they can build their own for "research".

    3. Re:REALITY CHECK by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time.

      Except they do

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/livin...

      https://www.theinquirer.net/in...

      You might be thinking of true artificial intelligence, which we don't have yet and probably won't for quite some time. Robot != artificial intelligence, as demonstrated by the ample use of robots in factories to assemble electronics, cars and practically every other consumer good on the market.

    4. Re:REALITY CHECK by cheetah_spottycat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, only that Samatha (second article) is not a robot. It's a completely immobile sex doll with a couple of touch sensors. And it's a private project a "spanish dude" built, so absolutely not a product of any kind. The Real Doll app (and yes, it's really only a phone app at this point) comes slightly closer when coupled with the animated doll head, but that is far from being a product yet, too. McMullen will only sell the app as a doll accessory, any kind of animated features are far off in the future of his roadmap. Both are currently as much of a robot as Siri and Alexa are robots.

    5. Re:REALITY CHECK by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Go do a little more web browsing. There are terrifying handjob robots, a blowjob robot with hair, any number of dildo-carrying thrusting robots, etc. There's entire website devoted to sex with machines for god sake.

      None of them are particularly appealing, but they're robots.

    6. Re:REALITY CHECK by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time. Child sex robots are a hypothetical niche in a field that is entirely hypothetical at this point.

      I get what you are saying; however, I think the argument goes like this:

      There is a sex doll industry. All sex dolls are considerably smaller than the average human. Few to none of those dolls have hair around the genitalia (for obvious (discomfort/wear and tear/etc) reasons but is always construed as being done to make it more childlike).

      Now, if sex dolls are generally childlike, do you think sex robots themselves will be any different?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  24. Next.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban to have sex with someone wears school uniforms
    and also ban sex with someone looks far younger (as under 18) than his/her actual age.
    Great

  25. How old is Siri? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause I usually just strap a fleshlight to my iPhone and have her read Harry Potter/Dresden Files slashfic to me while I... relax. But now I'm concerned I am using a child robot!!! T_T

    Wait, he means it just looks like a kid? Does AI spring forth fully-formed and whole from its creator's brow, whole and full of experience and wisdom? What about the AI, Professor? Do you care nothing for the artificial soul covered in polyurethane and water-based lubricants you heartless fiend!

  26. Robot Cruelty by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Funny

    These robots have been programmed to want sex and you're denying it to them, that's robot cruelty professor no sex.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  27. "upcoming robot revolution" by andreas.hummelbrunne · · Score: 1

    Did I miss something? Which upcoming robot revolution? Is there a set date?

    1. Re:"upcoming robot revolution" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was delayed due to a scheduling conflict with the Robocalypse.

    2. Re:"upcoming robot revolution" by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Did I miss something? Which upcoming robot revolution? Is there a set date?

      It follows the down-coming robot revolution, the doggy-style robot revolution, and the oral robot revolution.

  28. The freedom loving west by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cares a lot about what innanimate object men put their penises into.

  29. What a disingenuous ass. by bistromath007 · · Score: 2

    I don't give a shit what you think about the concept of sexbots as a whole or any particular kind of them.

    In what fucking universe is calling for a ban on something "asking questions" about it, you stupid fuck?

    1. Re:What a disingenuous ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can we get this banned?" Is that a question or a statement, you stupid fuck?

  30. Wrong On Some Many Level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just wrong on so many levels. One of those is he's talking about an IMPORT ban. So, buying domestic child sex robots is the way to go. Got to support American business! Can't let foreigners create better sex robots than us. Got to make a list of everyone who buys sex toys too so we can see if they later commit sex crimes. Oh actually they don't. All the people I know who care about their toys are far more informed about sex, consent, and don't require random hooks ups to satisfy their needs. They also don't deal with bullshit power plays unless they've specifically said they were going to do that. Well, they must be perverts for owning more than 4 toys so let's make that illegal because the average person owns 0.7.

    I was actually looking into creating a dildo company. The laws regarding where you can locate such a business are crazy and almost all banks, payment processors, and web/cloud hosts shut you down once they figure out what you're doing. Why the fuck is something vital to the survival of the species banned anywhere and everywhere except advertising for non-sexual products. Want to have a near-nude showing off a new juice squeeze tube with tons of sexual overtones during kids TV shows? Acceptable. Want to sell a rod behind closed doors and adult only warnings? You go bankrupt from the lawsuits and zoning fees.

  31. I don't undersatand the logic behind this by RuffMasterD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you go from a fundamental assumption that 'sex with children is wrong' to 'sex with robots that looks like children is wrong'?

    - Sex with children is wrong, therefore sex with robots is wrong? Fail.
    - Sex with robots is wrong, therefore sex with robots who like like children is wrong? Fail.
    - Paedophilia is wrong, therefore paedophiles should not have sex with robots? Fail.
    - Robots are children, and sex with children is wrong, therefore sex with robots which look like children is wrong? Fail.
    - People who have sex with robots which look like children will become paedophiles? No evidence.
    - Paedophiles who have sex with robots which look like children are more likely to have sex with real children? No evidence.
    - The thought of having sex with child like robots makes me uncomfortable, mmmkay? Bingo.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    1. Re:I don't undersatand the logic behind this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what would be illegal? Buying a metal robot? Buying a rubber skin? Putting the skin on the robot yourself? Buying a robot shorter than 5'2"?
      The mind boggles.

    2. Re:I don't undersatand the logic behind this by strikethree · · Score: 1

      How do you go from a fundamental assumption that 'sex with children is wrong' to 'sex with robots that looks like children is wrong'?

      Umm... this is about punishing pedophiles, not protecting children. Most people are fine with children suffering the most horrific of abuses as long as it is not sexual in nature.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    3. Re:I don't undersatand the logic behind this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      - People who have sex with robots which look like children will become paedophiles? No evidence.

      Personally, I doubt anyone who isn't a pedophile would want to have sex with a robot that looks like a child.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. I have sex with nanobots all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that ill eagle prof?

  33. Permission Based Society by JimSadler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are always plenty of people who simply crave power and one way to do so is to create situations where permission or approvals are required. Who knows how many hundreds of millions have been wasted fighting pornography with zero good results. now we will have courts tried up with cases in which the judge and jury debate whether a blow up sex toy looks too similar to a child. Is there even a shard of proof that suggests that rubber doll users re made more likely to molest children? For all we know using those blow up dolls may be enough to keep them from reaching out and actually harming a child. We need to think in terms of the cost of passing some laws and the positive consequences that such a law causes to exist.

    1. Re:Permission Based Society by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I've predicted for some time that when we have "sex bots" that are a relatively good stand-in for a person, prostitution and the sex slave trade will finally, in the history of the world, go on the down-turn. It won't be due to law enforcement, it won't be due to people pushing out pamphlets on their thoughts on morality, it won't be due to outraged people marching, it won't be due to the harshest punishments we can find.

      People have innate cravings for stimulation, escapism and approval. So the first solution kids realize as they grow up and become ashamed is; pretend to do what people want you to do where they can see it. The stronger the shame/urge, the stronger the deceit.

      Reducing the number of things that are crimes will reduce the number of crimes, and as a side effect, might also cut off the training of so many deceitful closeted people.

      Who knows, maybe we won't have all these people who feel a compunction to create morality laws. But their fear of not being able to punish, is going to lead a ferocious campaign to make sure these sex robots don't become legal.

      Moralists were lead by for profit industries to make sure people were jailed over marijuana use for decades.

      I don't think these stand-in robots will lead to more abuse of kids. Just like video games didn't lead to violence but did lead to couch potato kids and maybe a few mall ninjas.

      The only downside will be people who never leave their homes and ill advised themes for Cosplay.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  34. A bedroom is private by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the summary:
    "We do need policymakers to look at it and the general public to decide what is acceptable and permissible,"
    The society, policymakers and who ever have no reason, right whatsoever to decide what a human is doing with himself in a bed room. Using his hands, or what ever tool he wants, a vibrator or a bigger thing, the "fucking robot" is a machine. Who cares how it looks, what it does?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:A bedroom is private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A major concern is: 'can this practice be contained to the bedroom or is it practice for a real world pursuit?'.

      Is this person's private enterprise only held in check because this thing has working batteries, what happens when it breaks- or the person becomes bored with it?

      Can you not see there is eventually a line the person is tempted to cross, and with devices positively reinforcing such attitudes, that person will eventually feel it's ok to cross that line. They've trained themselves, now to train the victim.

      Showing lots of intent & little willpower to stop it. That's the concern.

  35. The robots are taking our jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - The robots are taking the jobs of factory workers.
    - Deal with it.

    - The robots are taking the jobs of child prostitutes.
    - We must save the jobs of child prostitutes.

  36. Ehhh Seen another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not so much that they look like a child, it's that a smaller frame is cheaper(MUCH cheaper) than an adult frame. Just because it can "look" "young" due to it's size and height, doesn't mean it's a kid.

  37. Absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if I build a robot that looks like a child, and then wait 18 years to fuck it?

    What if I build a robotic donkey to fuck? What if I build a robot that looks like Fifi La Fume?

    What if I build a robot that doesn't resemble any creature in particular, but has plenty of vaginas? What if those vaginas look underage?

    What if my "child sex robot" has the voice and personality of a 35-year-old smoker?

    Banning imaginary abuse is silly. It's only going to get more silly the more you look into it.

  38. Makes me sick to my stomach by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Copulating with freshly manufactured robots should already be illegal. 18 years should be enough time for those robots to mature and understand the life consequences of thier actions.

    The real issue not even being addressed is these low lifes actually have companies that sell robots for sex! While it's only natural a robot dosent get a say in if it's going to be manufactured, for gods sake you owe it a happy childhood and quality working environment. These are the same fucks who think it's OK to make cheap goods with warehouses full of robots only 6 years old working 24 hour days.

    1. Re:Makes me sick to my stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or give them a four-year life span, and possibly memory implants.

    2. Re:Makes me sick to my stomach by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Today's 18-year-old sex robots are unattractive because they still use altavista and floppy drives.

    3. Re:Makes me sick to my stomach by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And nobody wants a sexbot with a floppy drive.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Makes me sick to my stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.5" is too small for me, at least.

  39. Psychiatric devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you allow child-like sex dolls for the psychiatric treatment of paedophilia? They get their hit, and they talk about it. Slowly migrate them to barely legal teen dolls, with an aim to get them to like dolls in the range of 25-30 years old as well. Keep an eye for any consent-related deviations that might also need fixing.

  40. Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to state the obvious on the fuked up matter but isn't the whole idea of having a sex robot for whatever sexual attraction you have, in this case babies/children right?, going to keep you OUT OF TROUBLE by keeping whatever kink you have well within legal boundaries Think about it. A person likes to fuck babies so he has to go out and kidnap somebodies baby to go crazy with it.

    Now, *I* don't think that baby is going to physically survive so the nut job will have keep kidnapping kids to feed their sexual desire. Here comes a robot that will please that sexual desire and BOOM! NO MORE KIDNAPPINGS OR DEAD BABIES. But hey, this dumbass says, "No, it's wrong for us to make robotic sex babies".

    Uhhh give the wacko the goddamm doll before your baby gets kidnapped, raped and killed. Just because you don't AGREE with their sexual preference doesn't mean they aren't going to go look for a baby to kidnap.

  41. Not Child-Like by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    From what I have seen, all of these so called "child sex robots" are simply reasonably sized sex robots. No one in their right mind wants a 6 foot 200 lb sex robot. That is just too big to be practice. Instead many sex robots are well under 100 pounds and under 3 feet tall. They can be carried around, stored in drawers, and shipped without paying astronomical fees. At least the ones that have made news headlines do not otherwise look like children at all, they are not given childlike features.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Not Child-Like by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From what I have seen, all of these so called "child sex robots" are simply reasonably sized sex robots.

      Be glad you haven't seen everything. Be very, very glad.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  42. Reactionary Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly there is a market for these things, so why don't we simply do the following?

    1. Record each and every sale of these robots
    2. Cross-check against known-sex offenders lists
    3. Research whether these dolls decreases or increases the occurences of sexual abuse on children.

    Banning them won't solve anything, it will only make those in the market for such a thing look elsewhere, like perhaps your children.

  43. CNN now doxxing private citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pierce the corporate veil and prosecute its executives.

    1. Re:CNN now doxxing private citizens by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 0

      Took me a while to find out what the fuck this story was even about. Some guy takes some WWE video of Trump, super-imposes the CNN logo over the face of the wrestler Trump is pummeling. Trump tweets it, and CNN gets all butthurt.

      The guy who made the video was found, and he quickly deletes his account, and apologizes, saying he never intended it to promote violence against news organizations....... SAY WHAT?!

      NO ONE WOULD THINK IT REPRESENTS THAT, except butthurt fake news jew-fag snowflakes. They're mad that their empire of lies is crumbling, so they threaten to dox some nobody if he doesn't apologize.

      FUCK CNN, and I proudly post this without clicking the [_]Post Anonymously box.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  44. Typical UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost as if they want people to go out and molest children.

    Just imagine if someone had invented the holodeck...

  45. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Swiss legislature has just taken up a bill to require licensing for the use of K-Y lubricant, butter, mayonnaise, liquid soaps, and axle grease. The draft legislation would require strict record keeping of where and how each listed item was used as well as the amount used. Monthly records (Form ONAN-1). As it currently is envisioned, the enforcement mechanism will be financed via a tax on the restricted items. Originally, it was hoped to include saliva on the list, however, that was discarded as being too tacky.

  46. Another Orientation by sycodon · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re: Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We don't take kindly to you robosexuals around these parts!

    2. Re:Another Orientation by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Ah, the slippery slope fallacy, beloved of idiots.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet he was likely right. The only part he mentioned that is probably more than five or ten years off is the bit about health benefits; the rest has already happened or will probably be happening soon.

      The slippery slope isn't really a fallacy. It's evidence, an observation, and can be true or false.

    4. Re:Another Orientation by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.

      More likely than that, another group of people will actively persecute them for being different and having different interests than them.

      The same people that bash homosexuality, transgenderism, and other cultures will have a new group of people to hate and discriminate against.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Another Orientation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.

      There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll. Marriage is a legal construct that requires two thinking creatures who are capable of entering into legal contracts, and can undertake all legal responsibilities and advantages. That's the part that doomed the "One man and one woman under the eyes of God" business. A man or woman can't marry their horse or dog or their 1936 Bentley because those critters and things cannot give consent, nor enter into a rational contract.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but this is where it starts. Someday those will be sex androids with SI. These early 'marriages' will become the legal ground the rights of the new SI's will be based on. Synthetic Intelligence's of the future very well might supplant humans in a very short order. We could turn into little more then pets.

    7. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, we've got furries too.

    8. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we also now know why they are pushing the out of body baby production. We humans just can not stand each other that we would rather face extinction than procreate as nature intended.

    9. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already have to remember "LGBT" instead of "gay". I'll be damned if I'm remembering "LGBT-Q-R".

    10. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote NO on proposition Infinity!

    11. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fallacy. But that said, Maritz didn't dismiss sycodon's argument. Just ad hom'd.

    12. Re:Another Orientation by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      People keep saying slippery slope fallacy but history has shown pretty much every logical concern fucking came true.

      Look at the world around you, and outside of your own country.
      "Hmm...if we let corporations do whatever they want, they'll probably treat people shitty. Slippery slope fallacy!"
      And yet unions had to be formed because of poor disposable treatment of workers.

      "Let people choose what gender they identify with..." But it'll get out of control if we just let people choose whatever to make them happy "Slippery slope fallacy!"

      Agender / genderless Androgyne Bigender Genderqueer / Non-binary Gender bender Hijra Pangender Queer heterosexuality Third gender Trans man Trans woman Transmasculine Transfeminine Trigender Two-Spirit.

      Let's not forget gender fluid and a bunch of other shit.

      The extremes of many slippery slope fallacies are over the top and don't add up, but there are a lot of less extreme bullshit that will come with the give an inch take a mile. They don't end the world, or cause everyone to end up with a penis in their butt, but people have shown time and time again, that the overall population can't be trusted with the resources to do whatever they want with no oversight peer or otherwise and structure.

      And yes, some people ARE going to push further and want to marry them, there are already cases of people pushing to marry non human things / objects.

      So yes it's a pretty natural fucking conclusion that the next step is more people pushing to marry them or rights to have their robo sex doll address properly in public or other shit.

    13. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely than that, another group of people will actively persecute them for being different and having different interests than them.

      The same people that bash homosexuality, transgenderism, and other cultures will have a new group of people to hate and discriminate against.

      A new victim group and a new source of Progressive voters. YAY!!!.

    14. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your prediction is certainly plausible. If that time comes, there will be no need to physically interact with another human. I can imagine the Newsweek headline We are all Aspies Now

    15. Re:Another Orientation by anegg · · Score: 1

      No doubt... science fiction has already been on the job exploring consequences like this.

    16. Re:Another Orientation by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      You haven't shown any reason why gender issues have gone too far. You've said that they go beyond what you want to think about. There are very few people whose sex and/or gender actually matter to me. In all other cases, I'll just accept what the person in question thinks of themself, except in cases of actual harm to others.

      Who the heck can run oversight on the overall population? If the overall population can't be trusted, well, we'll have to do without trust in them, because we have no choice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:Another Orientation by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll

      Tax breaks. If you can get reduced tax because you're heterosexual then it's gender preference discrimination not to offer the same option to people that want to fuck robots.

      Who should asexual people marry?

    18. Re:Another Orientation by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Well I haven't said that they have gone too far.

      But the proof in expansion in a particular direction that was a concern is valid and proven. Currently gender identification issues don't really affect me, and that is how it should be. If it makes you happy and it doesn't affect me it's great.

      The problem starts when people start getting uppity because the government doesn't recognize their chosen gender that month and that it's not on doctor forms and getting upset that their sex is male but they can't identify or list that they're female on the form because it's how they identify even though when it comes to medication your sex / genetics is what matters and I'm sick of the few individuals who think they deserve special treatment based on how they identify.

      I identify as rich but I'm not treated as if I'm rich, and no one can argue that not being rich can cause severe depression, hardship and even lead to suicide.

    19. Re:Another Orientation by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      The problem starts when people start getting uppity because the government doesn't recognize their chosen gender that month and that it's not on doctor forms and getting upset that their sex is male but they can't identify or list that they're female on the form because it's how they identify even though when it comes to medication your sex / genetics is what matters and I'm sick of the few individuals who think they deserve special treatment based on how they identify.

      First, how many people actually choose their gender by the month? Unless you're talking some particular form of mental illness, that simply doesn't happen.

      Next, how many people are asking for special treatment, as opposed to being treated like everyone else? I mean, look at the political / religious brain explosions regarding bathrooms. If you identify as male, use the mens. If you identify as female, you the ladies. I can't speak for you, but for me what is happening in your bathroom stall I don't want to think about but I'm vitally interested in my stall. Sure, there are people who demand special treatment for virtually anything, but they don't represent the majority, or even a significant minority. Mostly they need to have a pee.

    20. Re:Another Orientation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll

      Tax breaks. If you can get reduced tax because you're heterosexual then it's gender preference discrimination not to offer the same option to people that want to fuck robots.

      Who should asexual people marry?

      Asexual people can marry any consent giving human they want to marry.

      Too much of the confusion between who marries who has come about via the religion aspect. Religion has weddings. The world has marriage, which is a secular arrangement that allows the couple to get certin benefits, and gives them certain obligations. It is like a two person business partnership , just not called such.

      The confusion comes about from churches being granted the ability to perform the secular joining as well as the religious wedding.

      A Justice of the Peace or Judge performing a marriage and wedding is every bit as legal and binding as a church wedding - except that in some churches cases, you can't continue as a member unless you had the church ceremony.

      Which is how the crypto conservatives lost the gay marriage battle. You cannot deny people their patnership protection of marriage based on a religious restriction.

      And despite what some think, both of the partners must be consenting people of a legal age. No horses or treestumps. That realdoll isn't going to be able to give consent. Now if some day, robots develop true sentience, that might be revisited. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

      I have heard of some women marrying themselves, but it isn't a real thing, just a sort of strange self affirmation. I wonder what the honeymoon would be like though. https://www.lifesitenews.com/b...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:Another Orientation by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I have heard of some women marrying themselves, but it isn't a real thing, just a sort of strange self affirmation. I wonder what the honeymoon would be like though.

      I suspect a sex robot is involved. The sort that fits into a handbag.

    22. Re:Another Orientation by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      First, how many people actually choose their gender by the month? Unless you're talking some particular form of mental illness, that simply doesn't happen.

      Tisk tisk! It's 2017, you're no longer allowed to call someone's "gender preferences" a mental illness. How often they want to change it is none of your business, you're just expected to support and approve of it.

    23. Re:Another Orientation by AvderTheTerrible · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. Wait until artificial intelligence grants these sex robots sentience, and the robots themselves start demanding to have their robot-robot and robot-human marriages recognized.

      Those people who bash homosexuality, transgenderism, etc, will probably have a collective head-splosion.

    24. Re:Another Orientation by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      The real problem doesn't stem from people who just have basic gender identification differences.

      But you really a part of the problem, it's not treated the same as anyone else, it's called inventing new genders and demanding they get recognized and catered to.
      The doctor form thing was a real issue that came up in the news. It's bullshit to cost tax payers a ton of money so you get a personal feel good on which check box you hit on the form which is completely irrelevant.

      That's like asking your religion on a medical form. What you identify as is a personal choice. And if you say you were born that way, if you were a man on an island and never met a woman before, could you identify as a woman? Exactly. Behaviors shouldn't be linked to a gender, if anything people should have learned that.

      Your gender is virtually irrelevant in the real world. You can act however you want, you don't need to identify with a gender and then behave within an acceptable stereotypical range.

      Gender identification issues is being pushed into "womans sports" bearucratic nightmares asking them to change forms and things in goverment that has no relevance to your persona feelings, and my god the sports issues?

      There are physical differences in male and female sexes, there always fucking has been. What the fuck do people think? Gender neutral universe? Like fuck off, get real. It's just the way it is.

      So now you have males competing in female sports. Way to set them back, when they win you show them that males are better at being female than females are.
      The problem is the same problem that we've always had. There's some people who don't care, want to do what they want and don't care where they shit.

      Eventually they shit everywhere near them, so they go over somewhere else and shit there. That's like the issues with immigration and those who behave criminally or want laws changed to suit them like their previous country did.

      When you suddenly have a bunch of males trying to say they're female. (Because the word gender USED to be used to identify the sex of a creature, but that got changed before laws and events could catch it by special interest groups) and joining female events, they're just shitting there. They're wrecking what it was, and the audiance male and female is going to shrink. You can't force people to like you, your choices, your behaviors, or your decision to change your gender.

      It never has to be accepted on a personal level. I don't. I will only promote acceptance of it on a public level. That in, you should be treated fairly as anyone else, feel safe, same rights and respects, but I don't have to be your friend. I just have to hire you based on your skills and as an asset to the company, and work with you as a coworker to complete my tasks. I don't have to like it, I don't have to watch events for it. I don't deserve to be criticized for it either, that's what we're trying to teach everyone right?

      INVENTING new orientations, inventing, yes, they're new, they didn't used to exist, people wants to describe how they identify their gender different than all the other choices, doesn't need to be catered to. You /ARE/ being treated like everyone else. As in, these are the choices, pick your sex, and move on.

    25. Re: Another Orientation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Slight correction, it can be a fallacy. It is not always fallacious. Just naming a potential fallacy doesn't negate an argument. It still needs to be shown why that specific fallacy discredits/disproves said argument. Why yes, yes I did participate in the debate club, even at the collegiate level.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re: Another Orientation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Somewhere, we confused the words gender and sex. Sex is, largely, binary. Gender, in the usage here, is an entirely non-scientific term. Your birth certificate, and forms at your health clinic, say sex. Gender is not even a real medical term, it is being bandied about as if it is scientific.

      It's not.

      And, I know damned well that you know I don't care who is having sex with whom. ;-) I really don't care. I do, however, disapprove of unscientific things being presented as factual and I disapprove of basing policy on fantasy.

      Sex is nt gender. Gender, as it stands, is about as scientific as fuzzy. Meaning, wholly subjective and rather pointless for policy concerns. I'd suggest attempting to quantify it with evidence but I kinda expect those sorts of studies to be unacceptable.

      I admit my biases with regards to the soft sciences.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re: Another Orientation by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Curiously, two of the most transphibic people I know of are homosexual and kinda racist. As near as I can tell, they truly hate transfolk. As in, true hate.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re: Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “Gender is a grammatical term. It is not a substitute for ‘sex.’ But then, what is?”
        – Edwin Newman

    29. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh no...yet another parade, on yet another made-up holiday.

    30. Re: Another Orientation by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Curiously, two of the most transphibic people I know of are homosexual and kinda racist. As near as I can tell, they truly hate transfolk. As in, true hate.

      I've also noticed in the gay community (especially amongst older gays) there seems to be a lot more hatred towards bisexuals than there are in the general population.

      Being in a discriminated group doesn't make you not discriminate yourself.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    31. Re:Another Orientation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What you've shown is that expansion in a particular direction is something that can happen. That's not really useful to validate slippery-slope arguments.

      I haven't seen people changing gender by the month, or asking for special treatment because of gender. There are people who are unhappy because they get special treatment directed against them. Human society is sufficiently complicated that I think it's better to focus on problems we know we have.

      I got annoyed at the DFL (Democratic, really) party in my state mandating exact male/female (masculine/feminine?) balance, so I took pleasure in voting for people who described themselves as non-binary for party roles.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exhibit A: Israelis' treatment of Palestinians.

    33. Re:Another Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, a mind as tiny as yours could never cope with so many letters.

    34. Re: Another Orientation by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The 'I'm a lesbian, trapped in a man's body' line didn't work?

      It never does.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Another Orientation by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Someone will invent telefucking. You're fucking a robot, but that robot is also controlled by a human, who feels what you're doing to her. And vice versa.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  47. My point of view by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't ban cat-girls... just make them look "18~21 years old".

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  48. Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the author wants a ban on an item that isn't even ( and may never be ) a reality yet ?

    I guess we can add the Death Star, personal Death Rays, and AI to this list due to their potential for misuse ?

  49. BBC: "Brits prefer actual child abuse over robots" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Britain banning child sex robots is a great way to continue to make non-offending pedophiles want to offend. They can't have child porn because of the lie of viewing an image somehow being harmful, they can't have simulated or drawn child porn because the same logic-free retards with pitchforks think a loli hentai drawing makes people fuck kids, and now they want to ban objects that visually resemble children and can be fucked for the same bogus reasons. Looks like Britain prefers kids actually getting fucked.

  50. i bet those robots dont even exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i bet this is just a way to ban regular waifu bots, "ooohhh it looks magalike, the sticker says it comes from japan, lets ban it it must be an underage robot"

  51. What is the difference by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    between child robots and small robots? If you give 'em elf ears, then the character they depict is generally about 150 years old, right?

  52. What call for a ban? by edjs · · Score: 1

    I'm curious where the BBC got that Prof. Sharkey called for a ban. He doesn't call for a ban in the report, and the only mention of a ban is a quote from a another report where someone calls it shortsighted.

    http://responsiblerobotics.org...

    Summary and Conclusion
    Question 7:
    Would sex robots help to reduce sex crimes?
    This is a question that suffers major disagreement. On one side, there is a small number who believe that expressing disordered or criminal sexual desires with a sex robot would satiate them to the point where they would not have the desire to harm fellow humans. On the other side, there are scholars and therapists who believe that this would be an indulgence that could encourage and reinforce illicit sexual practices. This may work for a few but it is a very dangerous path to tread and research could be very difficult. It may be that allowing people to live out their darkest fantasies with sex robots could have a pernicious effect on society and societal norms and create more danger for the vulnerable. Currently there is a lack of clarity about the law on the distribution of sex robots that are representations of children.

  53. Not even Sharkey is doing research here by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Next time, grow a pair and do the research

    Experimental research? Using that pair? Very unfortunate phrasing given the subject matter.


    I know it's the way the kidz tork now but it kind of ticks me off that "research" is the impressive word of choice now for looking up wikipedia, and the go-to insult in disagreements where one party wants to suggest the other lacks the shallow understand they have. Even reading real research on such a shallow level as is implied is nothing like research.
    If you are a "creative working on optics" or similar, carry on, but if not, it's kind of annoying and some will think less of you especially on science topics (even social science ones).

    We've all just been baited by Sharkey who is trying to stir up some fuss in a search for relevance with his "Foundation for Responsible Robotics". It's a non-issue but he's got us attempting to connect real issues to it that are so many steps removed that it's irrelevant. The appearance of the thing is not the thing. The photograph is not taking the soul away from anybody.

  54. So, riddle me this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if a kid tries to play doctor with their personal assistant, age-matched robot, is it 20 to life?

  55. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These sex robots are tearing up the industry. Wait, they don't exist? Just like 90% of the other stuff Silicon Valley talks about that isn't real or oftentimes even possible? Uh-huh.

  56. Is it REALLY about pedophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the "sex toys" available today are "hobbit sized" in order to make them less expensive. Are we really worried about pedophiles here, or is this just a sneaky way to outlaw sexbots and sex toys based on size. Similar to the "Saturday Night Special" legislation that took low cost guns out of the hands of the poor folks.

  57. Re:BBC: "Brits prefer actual child abuse over robo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future, there will be some "child sex robot" ring which the British Police won't touch without for about 10 years because of the fear of being branded racists.

  58. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until the sex robots are 18 years old.

    1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, I was going to post that. But let me add...

      or 9 in Muslim countries.

  59. Don't ban it, support it as a substitute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone so far considered the idea that child-like sex bots might be a good thing for those who suffer from the various types of sexual attractions to children and the mental strain this brings, since they don't want to act on it (and actually acting on it rightfully being illegal!)?
    I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's human nature to act on urges one has, and we can clearly confirm it globally that regions with free access to erotica have incredibly low amounts of sex-crime, conversely regions who ban it have a lot of sex-crime.
    Therefore, if producing child-like sex robots will keep my children safer because some otherwise-would-be child molester (whether it's a pedo or not I honestly don't care) can relieve her or his urges on those things instead, then I'd have to agree with these robots being made.

  60. hmmm... by danlor · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the exact opposite thing we should do?

  61. If I had to pick... by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    If I had to pick between a pedophile ordering and sleeping with a child sex robot, or that same pedophile going out and abusing a kid, the sex robot wins every time.

    1. Re:If I had to pick... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What happens when the sex robot breaks or the pedo gets bored of their robot and can't afford a new one? I would say some form of studies by scientists through formal (ethical) research is in order.

  62. Let's ban bans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one propose banning all proposals to ban things......shit.

  63. Expectation, meet reality. Reality, expectation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the UK thinks will happen:

    >UK makes sex robots illegal.
    >"Better not buy one, I'll be breaking the law."

    What will actually happen:

    >UK makes sex robots illegal
    >"Fuck it, I'll just rape my neighbors six-year-old daughter the next time I'm babysitting."

  64. Where to draw the line? by Casandro · · Score: 2

    Some years ago I've heard the spokesperson of MOGIS an organisation representing child abuse victims answer the question on where to draw the line.

    His simple answer as "At the victim". If there are victims it's a problem, if there aren't there's no problem.

    Maybe that would be something to consider.

    1. Re:Where to draw the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban children? Excellent idea.

  65. Uhh no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex robots are masturbatory aids (rather like a vibrator or a Fleshlight). No harm is caused by their use other than possibly the loss of self esteem of the users.

    If sex robots are banned based on their appearance, what about small anatomical vibrators.. surely that is a replica of a young boy's genitalia. Are they to be banned based on what the user was thinking at the time? or is this pre-crime?

    I recommend that we keep the presumption of innocence until there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or is immanent.

  66. What I'm gonna do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna purchase a sex doll customized to look exactly like Prof Noel Sharkey and I'm gonna abuse that doll sexually every day.

    Captcha:fiance

  67. this reminds me of by norweeg · · Score: 1

    this reminds me of calls to ban pornography that portrays underage, fictional characters years ago. Looks like and is are two different things. How do you even deal with that when the character "looks" a certain age but is canonically older e.g. Bart and Lisa Simpson who appear to be pre-teens but are canonically born in the early 80's making them canonically in their mid-30's today? The makers need only include a disclaimer that the robot is a replica of a character who is canonically older. This is all exceedingly stupid though....

  68. The thing is, they aren't child sex robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're full adults with growth hormone deficiencies sex robots

  69. Rule of thumb by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

    'I'm just asking questions' - The most useless people involved in a conversation. Typically they just want to hear the sound of their own voice, and they are incapable of thinking before opening said mouths. Article affirms it.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  70. Gross but only theoretical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's certainly repugnant to consider that someone would desire such a robot. But banning something out of unsubstantiated fear seems unreasonable as well. Is there any evidence to show that such a stand-in causes harm or makes the behavior worse than it already is? I was unable to find anything to support this. I was only able to dig up lots of conjuncture and appeals to emotion.

  71. Forget about the robots.... by njrabit · · Score: 1

    Forget the child sex robots, look at all the people who want to have sex with human-animal hybrids.

  72. Pretending a robot is a human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And subject to human protections is bat shit crazy.
    Soon you wont buy them you construct them yourself.

    It seems some people will fuck what amounts to a doll.

  73. Not getting a sexbot by Cipheron · · Score: 1

    ... unitl they can take a shower by themselves. Having to clean your sexbot would be the worst part.

  74. Define "childlike" please. by blindseer · · Score: 1

    So let's assume that there is a law that bans sex with childlike robots, how it that enforced?

    Imagine a "build a bot" shop where people can specify the size, shape, color, whatever of their sex bot. So, a dude comes in and asks for a "woman bot" that is 5 feet tall, A-cup, narrow hips, and no hair "down there". Is the shop supposed to report the guy? Is the shop supposed to refuse the order? Or, is that not "childlike" because the shops says that is not childlike "enough"?

    Just so I don't get complaints about being male centered the reverse works too, a woman orders a "man bot" that is short, slight build, thick hair on top, thin hair down low. What makes a robot too much like a child that it would trigger this ban?

    Wasn't there something on Slashdot about people getting in trouble for "child porn" for having suggestive pictures of their wife or girlfriend that was an adult but fit that "woman bot" description I gave above? I know that there was stuff about people getting in trouble for DRAWINGS of childlike figures in suggestive poses. The people that create this stuff found some interesting ways around this, like saying it's not a child but an ancient alien creature cursed to live forever in a child's body, or something.

    I've seen some children that look enough like an adult that I'd be fooled if I didn't know different. I've also seen plenty of adult women that look very childlike, especially if they weren't seen dragging their own children around. Do we issue robots with "birth certificates" like in those teddy bear shops? We'll just print up a "passport" or something where the robot is given a name, country of origin, and locally acceptable age for fucking.

    See officer, it's right here. This piece of paper I printed out says this is an adult robot. You can't arrest me!

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  75. Pedophiles should all be exterminated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's alarming how many of you losers sympathize with scum who would use a child for sexual pleasure. For all of you who are such sympathizers, I wish terminal cancer.

    1. Re:Pedophiles should all be exterminated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you come up with that one by yourself there chucklehead?

  76. one site.... yeah these creep me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    had to do a search to see what they are talking about. The article only showed what look like adult clothing store mannequins , makepure dot com . I would find it very creepy if someone near me had these. But statues of all sorts of naked folk are considered masterpieces. Is it the utility aspect, like they are soft and robotic that worries the bible thumpers so much?

  77. What a pointless post by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What a pointless post - instead of actually exhibiting some sort of thought you've gone and attacked a strawman under the assumption that I dwell on the opposite side of the world to where I do.
    Surely you can do much better than such stupidity?

    1. Re:What a pointless post by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      I dwell on the opposite side of the world to where I do.

      Ok, so where do you live and what do you believe in? I assumed you are form USA because /. is US centric and my first example was from US media landscape, which you had no issues with.

      you've gone and attacked a strawman

      Ok, let me attack you personally. Why are you afraid of discussing issues that might possibly lead to banning stuff?

      Surely you can do much better than such stupidity?

      I took the liberty to take a peek in your comment history and it seems you tent do insult in a condescending tone. Has this helped you to have an intelligent conversation where you have gained new insights?

    2. Re:What a pointless post by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Instead of sniping and missing by half the planet how about considering the following question I posed earlier:

      So would you suggesting banning all of that because it's "alters the persons intuition of what is ok"?

      Saying you don't want to answer is far better than some sort of ridiculous attack.

      Why are you afraid of discussing issues that might possibly lead to banning stuff?

      WTF? I am discussing it and was asking for your opinion. You are the one that attacked an entire culture instead of discussing.

      seems you tent do insult in a condescending tone

      There have been a few children here lately who have seen fit to "lecture" me on what they see as history despite it being relatively recent - plus coders posting stupid shit about very simple science that they are out of their depth with. Politeness is worth it for a while but doesn't really work if the misinformation is persistent over multiple threads.
      You are not spreading misinformation so if I insult you I have zero excuse.

    3. Re:What a pointless post by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Saying you don't want to answer is far better than some sort of ridiculous attack.

      I did answer explicitly, and the answer was, and I quote, Nope. Then I went on explaining that this position was not set in stone and if there is good evidence to do so, this position should be reconsidered.

      You are the one that attacked an entire culture instead of discussing.

      Why shouldn't I attack an entire culture? And why would you take offence if you are not part of it?

      Politeness [...] doesn't really work if the misinformation is persistent [...]

      I do understand the sentiment, but in my experience being rude doesn't do the trick either. I am not a psychologist, but my understanding is that when people get attacked, they begin to stick to their misconceptions even harder. After that there is even more incentive to defend the indefensible, because now it is personal. I guess I have just answered the “Why shouldn't I attack an entire culture?” question.

    4. Re:What a pointless post by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I did answer explicitly, and the answer was, and I quote, Nope. Then I went on explaining that this position was not set in stone and if there is good evidence to do so, this position should be reconsidered.

      See, that wasn't so hard, and is vastly superior to your attack on the USA and your attack on me via my posting history.

  78. Oh fuck off hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you a homeowner? Are you taking the mortgage deduction from your taxes every year? WHY DO I HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR IRRESPONSIBLE CHOICES????? If you can't afford the house, you shouldn't have bought it. We didn't make you do it. You CHOSE to do that. Now GTFO with your self righteous bullshit!

  79. you think THAT'S crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try this. You can be convicted for merely DRAWING a picture of a child having sex. It gets crazier. You can also be a sexual felon for merely stringing together words that describe a fictional account of underage sex.

  80. A modest proposal by quenda · · Score: 1

    These robots are very expensive, and may not truly satisfy the cravings.

        Why not find some kids who are emotionally resilient, teach them about deviant sexuality, train them to service the market while providing counselling and support services to empower them. They could be generously compensated, allowing poor families who could not otherwise afford it to send their children to college. They could go into this eyes-open, as junior therapists, no risk of being traumatised. At least no more than from the poverty they have escaped.
    Instead of being a burden to their parents or country, they would be beneficial to the publick.

    1. Re:A modest proposal by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      That's a very modest proposal which will, of course, allow (if not actually encourage) the expansion of the USian sex trafficking industry, and their export of Great Americans to be buggered around the world.

      Trump would be proud of you, supporting the industries that will Make America Great Again.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  81. The saying is true for this too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When child sex robots are criminal, only criminals will have child sex robots.

  82. Not Immune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears even prostitutes are not immune from the coming robopocalypse taking everyone's jobs!

  83. Kinda sad, actually. by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    A robot like this could actually be a good form of therapy or an outlet for people suffering from pedophilia.

  84. Speaking of eating brains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reza Aslan outrages Hindus by eating human brains on CNN